6 ms·

I think the key point here is not whether Google is abusing its effective monopoly willingly, its that it exists at all. There may be alternatives, but not via

by redm 9y ago

I think the key point here is not whether Google is abusing its effective monopoly willingly, its that it exists at all. There may be alternatives, but not viable ones. Try not supporting Chrome or ignoring Chrome requirements such as security mandates, you will go out of business. You can say these are 'good' for the consumer but the fact that Google has the ability to unilaterally change the web itself is partially the issue, they are not a standards body. Whats the viable alternative to Google Search? Sure you can use Bing as a customer, but if you're a website operator you HAVE to stay on Google's good side. (not always easy to do) Whats the viable alternative to Adsense? Especially when it comes to many Geo's that are hard to monetize. Whats the viable alternative to Android? Not all aspects of Google's business are so dominated, but where they are, you have little choice but to go with Google and the fact that are dominate in so many key segments is troubling. Let's be honest, it's not like Google makes themselves easy to contact, interact with, or get support from. They are in many ways a black box. Ever notice how the transparency reports for Safe Browsing never includes Google Properties or how they are happy to report DMCA issues for the internet, but never for Youtube?

maverick_iceman 9y ago
>Whats the viable alternative to Android? iOS.
gozur88 9y ago
So there are alternatives, but for one reason or another they're not as attractive? Doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.
scarface74 9y ago
Whats the viable alternative to Google Search? Sure you can use Bing as a customer, but if you're a website operator you HAVE to stay on Google's good side. (not always easy to do) Or you can not base your business on the fickleness of Google's search algorithms. Ben Thompson (stratechery.com) posts one article per week publically and charged $100 a year for his newsletter. The only time he gave numbers, he has over 2000 subscribers. There are other ways to build a business that don't depend on search. Whats the viable alternative to Adsense? Especially when it comes to many Geo's that are hard to monetize. If you are in a certain niche, find a publication or a podcast that serves that niche and make a direct connection to them. Marco Arment - a one man development shop - created his own podcast based advertising platform that is doing well. What's the viable alternative to Android The viable alternative to Android is...Android. Many companies are forking the AOSP version of Android and running their own services, including Amazon in the U.S. and a few companies in developing markets. The danger Google faces is not that a company will come up with a better search engine, it's that people will start using search engines less as mobile takes over along with digital assistants that give you the information you want. Facebook is already seen as a place for old people and young people may have a FB page but they aren't posting to it because their parents are on it.
- secfirstmd 9y ago
  Hmm forking Android and turning the ecosystem into a complete mess around stuff like security updates. To the point were a lot of people, including myself, are considering buying a Google device purely to ensure some sort of longevity.
  - praneshp 9y ago
    I just finished having a heated argument with friends living in India (that work at investment banks, so not exactly old people with some calling device in hand). A bunch of them were complaining that Uber is being bad, requiring camera permissions, etc. The newer androids have nicer permissions systems, requested at runtime. But they are running Android 5* because the shiny turd of a phone they got supports only that, but looks awesome. AOSP is good and all, but I'll never buy anything that is not a Google device unless I magically have free time to root it and run an OS I trust (which might or might not exist).
    - yunoe 9y ago
      I think you all are missing the point. As Google gave away Android for free with the support of their brand, services and user base it essentially killed all the alternatives (MeeGo, WebOS, BlackBerry 10) and companies that were focused on software (Palm, Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola, BlackBerry). It's not at all unexpected that these Asian companies can't compete in terms of systems design, both in terms of experience and ownership, but also just cost. Almost no one is making any money (other than Samsung, which is extremely very vertically integrated, at least in theory). Throwing in cheaper chips and making the software flashier is really the only business model that is available, even if some manufacturers like Mi do offer long term support.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    Google only guaranteed support for two years. Not exactly what I would call "longevity".
    - aaomidi 9y ago
sfifs 9y ago
This appears to be a common misconception that monopolies are bad from a public policy standpoint. For public policy, the existence of a monopoly is neither here nor there. Monopolies are problem ONLY IF their operations causes negative economic effects to consumers - typically by raising prices. Indeed in many cases (eg. Transport, Infrastructure) a monopoly is actively granted in return for guaranteed availability and pricing. In Google's case, it would be very very difficult for any lawyer to show how their actions actively hurt consumers - note consumers, not businesses.
- blowski 9y ago
  "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Google clearly has a monopoly. Eventually they will abuse it, even if they're not doing so already (which is open to debate). The stronger their control, the more damage they will do and the harder it will be to release ourselves from it. Monopolies are bad, although sometimes they are the least bad choice. I see plenty of good alternatives to Google's monopoly.
- amsilprotag 9y ago
  Is this true? Wasn't Microsoft brought down for harming incipient businesses by bundling competing software into the OS? Wasn't standard oil fragmented in part for receiving anti-competitive freight fares? Couldn't it be argued that Google's featured snippets and accelerated mobile pages will lower the revenue of content creators and thus decrease consumer surplus in the long term?
  - maverick_iceman 9y ago
    Yes, what GP said is true, at least since the 80s. Before that, too powerful monopolies were considered bad for society; that's why Standard Oil was broken up. However, understanding of US antitrust law underwent a shift in the 80s - now a monopoly has to actively hurt the end consumer for it to be prosecuted under the Sherman antitrust act.
  - lm_nop 9y ago
    Could also be argued that Google AMP (Accelerated mobile pages) enables publishers to get SOME ad revenue in spite of rise of ad blockers. Thus mitigating, and dare I say using monopoly for some-what good-ish intentions?
Erik816 9y ago
Well, it does matter, because under the U.S. antitrust law it is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to abuse your monopoly position. See United States v. Aluminum Corp. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 430 (1945) Learned Hand J, the "successful competitor, having been urged to compete, must not be turned on when he wins." European antitrust law is more strict and you can run into problems just for having a monopoly position even if you do not abuse it or obtain it unfairly.
- yazan94 9y ago
  I think this is a really interesting point. In a capitalist/free-market situation, no one cares if you start a business and fail. Competition is seen as a good thing. But how can you blame a company for winning in its domain against its competitors? Also, what does it mean to 'abuse' a monopoly position. I don't think its practical to argue that Google doesn't have a monopoly on internet search[1]. When your product name becomes a replacement term for what your product does/is, that just shows how widely used your product is (another example: Q-Tips vs cotton swabs). But how do you prove or argue that Google hasn't abused its position? [1] https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx?qprid=4&qpcustomd=0 https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.as... (though I don't know how credible this source is)
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    > Also, what does it mean to 'abuse' a monopoly position. IANAL, but there is a legally precise meaning. (Of course, lawyers will still argue over whether a particular behavior meets the definition.) But it's basically, you have a monopoly in X, and you try to use that monopoly to gain you market share in Y. For example, let's say Microsoft has a monopoly in operating systems. That's OK, nothing wrong with it, because Microsoft came by that monopoly more or less honestly. But let's say that Microsoft uses that monopoly to try to give it a leg up in office apps (maybe by its own office app people learning about OS changes well before release of the new OS, but competitors not learning about them in time, so that there's a period of time when Microsoft has the only office apps that work with the new OS). That's not OK. Or let's say that Google has a monopoly on search. That's OK, so far. But let's say that Google manipulates the search results to promote Android (say, by making Android phones come up at the top of the list whenever someone searches for a phone). That's monopoly abuse. Now, what I'm hearing people complain about is that Google uses Chrome to maintain its monopoly in search. As I said, IANAL, but I'm not sure that counts. That's taking something Google doesn't have a monopoly on (browsers) and using it to try to maintain Google's monopoly in search. That's not the same as monopoly abuse. (It's still sleazy.)

by redm 9y ago

maverick_iceman 9y ago

>Whats the viable alternative to Android? iOS.

gozur88 9y ago

So there are alternatives, but for one reason or another they're not as attractive? Doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.

scarface74 9y ago

Whats the viable alternative to Google Search? Sure you can use Bing as a customer, but if you're a website operator you HAVE to stay on Google's good side. (not always easy to do) Or you can not base your business on the fickleness of Google's search algorithms. Ben Thompson (stratechery.com) posts one article per week publically and charged $100 a year for his newsletter. The only time he gave numbers, he has over 2000 subscribers. There are other ways to build a business that don't depend on search. Whats the viable alternative to Adsense? Especially when it comes to many Geo's that are hard to monetize. If you are in a certain niche, find a publication or a podcast that serves that niche and make a direct connection to them. Marco Arment - a one man development shop - created his own podcast based advertising platform that is doing well. What's the viable alternative to Android The viable alternative to Android is...Android. Many companies are forking the AOSP version of Android and running their own services, including Amazon in the U.S. and a few companies in developing markets. The danger Google faces is not that a company will come up with a better search engine, it's that people will start using search engines less as mobile takes over along with digital assistants that give you the information you want. Facebook is already seen as a place for old people and young people may have a FB page but they aren't posting to it because their parents are on it.

secfirstmd 9y ago
Hmm forking Android and turning the ecosystem into a complete mess around stuff like security updates. To the point were a lot of people, including myself, are considering buying a Google device purely to ensure some sort of longevity.
- praneshp 9y ago
  I just finished having a heated argument with friends living in India (that work at investment banks, so not exactly old people with some calling device in hand). A bunch of them were complaining that Uber is being bad, requiring camera permissions, etc. The newer androids have nicer permissions systems, requested at runtime. But they are running Android 5* because the shiny turd of a phone they got supports only that, but looks awesome. AOSP is good and all, but I'll never buy anything that is not a Google device unless I magically have free time to root it and run an OS I trust (which might or might not exist).
  - yunoe 9y ago
    I think you all are missing the point. As Google gave away Android for free with the support of their brand, services and user base it essentially killed all the alternatives (MeeGo, WebOS, BlackBerry 10) and companies that were focused on software (Palm, Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola, BlackBerry). It's not at all unexpected that these Asian companies can't compete in terms of systems design, both in terms of experience and ownership, but also just cost. Almost no one is making any money (other than Samsung, which is extremely very vertically integrated, at least in theory). Throwing in cheaper chips and making the software flashier is really the only business model that is available, even if some manufacturers like Mi do offer long term support.
- scarface74 9y ago
  Google only guaranteed support for two years. Not exactly what I would call "longevity".
  - aaomidi 9y ago

sfifs 9y ago

This appears to be a common misconception that monopolies are bad from a public policy standpoint. For public policy, the existence of a monopoly is neither here nor there. Monopolies are problem ONLY IF their operations causes negative economic effects to consumers - typically by raising prices. Indeed in many cases (eg. Transport, Infrastructure) a monopoly is actively granted in return for guaranteed availability and pricing. In Google's case, it would be very very difficult for any lawyer to show how their actions actively hurt consumers - note consumers, not businesses.

blowski 9y ago
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Google clearly has a monopoly. Eventually they will abuse it, even if they're not doing so already (which is open to debate). The stronger their control, the more damage they will do and the harder it will be to release ourselves from it. Monopolies are bad, although sometimes they are the least bad choice. I see plenty of good alternatives to Google's monopoly.
amsilprotag 9y ago
Is this true? Wasn't Microsoft brought down for harming incipient businesses by bundling competing software into the OS? Wasn't standard oil fragmented in part for receiving anti-competitive freight fares? Couldn't it be argued that Google's featured snippets and accelerated mobile pages will lower the revenue of content creators and thus decrease consumer surplus in the long term?
- maverick_iceman 9y ago
  Yes, what GP said is true, at least since the 80s. Before that, too powerful monopolies were considered bad for society; that's why Standard Oil was broken up. However, understanding of US antitrust law underwent a shift in the 80s - now a monopoly has to actively hurt the end consumer for it to be prosecuted under the Sherman antitrust act.
- lm_nop 9y ago
  Could also be argued that Google AMP (Accelerated mobile pages) enables publishers to get SOME ad revenue in spite of rise of ad blockers. Thus mitigating, and dare I say using monopoly for some-what good-ish intentions?

Erik816 9y ago

Well, it does matter, because under the U.S. antitrust law it is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to abuse your monopoly position. See United States v. Aluminum Corp. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 430 (1945) Learned Hand J, the "successful competitor, having been urged to compete, must not be turned on when he wins." European antitrust law is more strict and you can run into problems just for having a monopoly position even if you do not abuse it or obtain it unfairly.

yazan94 9y ago
I think this is a really interesting point. In a capitalist/free-market situation, no one cares if you start a business and fail. Competition is seen as a good thing. But how can you blame a company for winning in its domain against its competitors? Also, what does it mean to 'abuse' a monopoly position. I don't think its practical to argue that Google doesn't have a monopoly on internet search[1]. When your product name becomes a replacement term for what your product does/is, that just shows how widely used your product is (another example: Q-Tips vs cotton swabs). But how do you prove or argue that Google hasn't abused its position? [1] https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx?qprid=4&qpcustomd=0 https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.as... (though I don't know how credible this source is)
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  > Also, what does it mean to 'abuse' a monopoly position. IANAL, but there is a legally precise meaning. (Of course, lawyers will still argue over whether a particular behavior meets the definition.) But it's basically, you have a monopoly in X, and you try to use that monopoly to gain you market share in Y. For example, let's say Microsoft has a monopoly in operating systems. That's OK, nothing wrong with it, because Microsoft came by that monopoly more or less honestly. But let's say that Microsoft uses that monopoly to try to give it a leg up in office apps (maybe by its own office app people learning about OS changes well before release of the new OS, but competitors not learning about them in time, so that there's a period of time when Microsoft has the only office apps that work with the new OS). That's not OK. Or let's say that Google has a monopoly on search. That's OK, so far. But let's say that Google manipulates the search results to promote Android (say, by making Android phones come up at the top of the list whenever someone searches for a phone). That's monopoly abuse. Now, what I'm hearing people complain about is that Google uses Chrome to maintain its monopoly in search. As I said, IANAL, but I'm not sure that counts. That's taking something Google doesn't have a monopoly on (browsers) and using it to try to maintain Google's monopoly in search. That's not the same as monopoly abuse. (It's still sleazy.)