4 ms·

Google holding a dominant position or a monopoly on search is not by itself illegal. However, using that position to gain entry in a different market (shopping,

Google holding a dominant position or a monopoly on search is not by itself illegal. However, using that position to gain entry in a different market (shopping, in this case) is considered anti-competitive and hence illegal.

interfixus 9y ago
No, I realise that. My question is how are they supposed to hold a monoply or dominance, when there is nothing but preference or lazyness stopping anyone from switching to a competing service?
- calcifer 9y ago
  > nothing but preference or lazyness Those two (but especially preference) are extremely strong motivators for humans to choose one product over the other. But even if it wasn't, the law is there the protect the citizens and their livelihoods, not one company's supposed right to hold a monopoly.
  - harryf 9y ago
    A lot of time, research and money has gone into feeding those preferences and laziness. The patterns to create habit forming products are well known - even books about it http://amzn.to/1PU95Fp http://amzn.to/1PU95Fp There probably needs to a category of consumer software where the argument "but you could always use an alternative" should not apply, when evaluating monopolies. Once you have network effects for example, you have the foundations for a monopoly. WhatsApp is probably a monopoly by now, for example: if all you're friends are using it, you don't really have a choice, even though there are alternatives.
    - interfixus 9y ago
      Of course I have a choice. Not using WhatsApp.
- mehwoot 9y ago
  How the monopoly arises is irrelevant to the law. Even if it's just collective laziness, it is still illegal to use that monopoly to influence other markets.
- mattmanser 9y ago
  I suggest you read the wiki article[1], it's actually very good at answering your question. The whole article is worth reading, not just the section I linked answering your specific question. Dominance is reflected by the reality of market share, not by whether or not someone could theoretically switch search engine. In the EU they have a very dominant position (95% I think?). It's no different from saying MS had an effective monopoly/dominance in the 2000s, even though you could theoretically install Linux. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#Dominance_and_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#Dominance_and_...
  - interfixus 9y ago
    It's no different from saying MS had an effective monopoly/dominance in the 2000s, even though you could theoretically install Linux I not only could, I most certainly did. The situation was different, though. Microsoft Windows had a kind of real monoply, since it was - and is - difficult to find a retail pc without the damned thing preinstalled and included in the price. No such mechanism exists concerning Google, as long as we politely keep Android out of the picture. Mind you, my position back then was more or less the same with regard to EU vs MS as it is today, with Google taking over: I dislike both companies. I very much more intensely dislike the monolithic and terrifying EU throwing its weight around.
    - kazen44 9y ago
      I very much more intensely dislike the monolithic and terrifying EU throwing its weight around. why do you find the EU terrifying? (also, the EU is not exactly monolithic considering it is not a single entity in many areas, but that is another point entirely).
- Nokinside 9y ago
  It's not just customer choice. They have all the classical barriers for entry for anyone trying to provide similar product quality. Even if someone manages to beat them temporarily, Google can compete with prices (of ads typically) so low that they can't make profits but Google can. They bleed out anyone trying to compete. Economies of scale, network externalities and vertical and horizontal integration means that popular internet services are king of the hill type business. Bigger and larger translates to smaller cost per user, cheaper ads and higher quality. There can be only few really big players and they create natural barriers to entry for anyone else. All classical barriers of entry apply to Google, FB, Amazon: * Economies scale production * Limit pricing * High set-up costs * High sunk costs * Advertising * brand loyalty * vertical integration * horizontal integration
on_and_off 9y ago
I will need to do a bit of research, because instinctively I don't see how shopping is not a part of search. The same way that maps pops up automatically when google search realize that I search for a place (or the weather widget). Now, I don't use Google shopping very often because in my experience it is meh
- ridewinter 9y ago
  Agreed. If I search for a jacket, I'm using Google to price compare. If I want to use a different price comparison service, I'll google for price comparison sites instead.
ApolloFortyNine 9y ago
So when Amazon decided to sell hardware, would that be anti-competitive? Pretty much, you could use the argument you just made against any business that delved into another space. Apple with phones back in the day, Microsoft with Hardware, Walmart and groceries, etc etc etc. There are almost infinite examples, very few businesses haven't expanded their product line and reach. Using their own business to do so is just an obvious solution.
- UnoriginalGuy 9y ago
  > So when Amazon decided to sell hardware, would that be anti-competitive? Which monopoly does Amazon have that they're abusing to sell hardware? > Pretty much, you could use the argument you just made against any business that delved into another space. Nope; only businesses which are a monopoly. Amazon has no monopoly, therefore the argument cannot be used against them. Plus nobody is stopping Google from opening a new website (e.g. GoogleShopCompare.com) and doing anything they want, using their huge brand and financial power, what they're saying is wrong is embedding it into their existing monopolistic property to give it an unfair advantage (Google.com). It is exactly comparable to the Microsoft/Windows issues in the 1990s. Microsoft could sell/give away IE, they just couldn't bundle it with their monopoly (Windows) to give it an unfair advantage. Google previously got into trouble for exactly this due to Google Maps being bundled with Google.com.
  - ApolloFortyNine 9y ago
    Define monopoly, Google is the largest search engine, Amazon is the largest eretailer. Personally I don't think Google has a monopoly, as there are alternatives (a monopoly is supposed to be when their exist no competitors, not just when a business is so much better than everyone else that people choose to use them). Plus, switching search engines takes literally seconds. Amazon used to only push other's products, now they push their own as well, often making use of their front page to do so. It's the same, if not worse, than what Google is doing.
    - tripzilch 9y ago

interfixus 9y ago

No, I realise that. My question is how are they supposed to hold a monoply or dominance, when there is nothing but preference or lazyness stopping anyone from switching to a competing service?

calcifer 9y ago
> nothing but preference or lazyness Those two (but especially preference) are extremely strong motivators for humans to choose one product over the other. But even if it wasn't, the law is there the protect the citizens and their livelihoods, not one company's supposed right to hold a monopoly.
- harryf 9y ago
  A lot of time, research and money has gone into feeding those preferences and laziness. The patterns to create habit forming products are well known - even books about it http://amzn.to/1PU95Fp http://amzn.to/1PU95Fp There probably needs to a category of consumer software where the argument "but you could always use an alternative" should not apply, when evaluating monopolies. Once you have network effects for example, you have the foundations for a monopoly. WhatsApp is probably a monopoly by now, for example: if all you're friends are using it, you don't really have a choice, even though there are alternatives.
  - interfixus 9y ago
    Of course I have a choice. Not using WhatsApp.
mehwoot 9y ago
How the monopoly arises is irrelevant to the law. Even if it's just collective laziness, it is still illegal to use that monopoly to influence other markets.
mattmanser 9y ago
I suggest you read the wiki article[1], it's actually very good at answering your question. The whole article is worth reading, not just the section I linked answering your specific question. Dominance is reflected by the reality of market share, not by whether or not someone could theoretically switch search engine. In the EU they have a very dominant position (95% I think?). It's no different from saying MS had an effective monopoly/dominance in the 2000s, even though you could theoretically install Linux. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#Dominance_and_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#Dominance_and_...
- interfixus 9y ago
  It's no different from saying MS had an effective monopoly/dominance in the 2000s, even though you could theoretically install Linux I not only could, I most certainly did. The situation was different, though. Microsoft Windows had a kind of real monoply, since it was - and is - difficult to find a retail pc without the damned thing preinstalled and included in the price. No such mechanism exists concerning Google, as long as we politely keep Android out of the picture. Mind you, my position back then was more or less the same with regard to EU vs MS as it is today, with Google taking over: I dislike both companies. I very much more intensely dislike the monolithic and terrifying EU throwing its weight around.
  - kazen44 9y ago
    I very much more intensely dislike the monolithic and terrifying EU throwing its weight around. why do you find the EU terrifying? (also, the EU is not exactly monolithic considering it is not a single entity in many areas, but that is another point entirely).
Nokinside 9y ago
It's not just customer choice. They have all the classical barriers for entry for anyone trying to provide similar product quality. Even if someone manages to beat them temporarily, Google can compete with prices (of ads typically) so low that they can't make profits but Google can. They bleed out anyone trying to compete. Economies of scale, network externalities and vertical and horizontal integration means that popular internet services are king of the hill type business. Bigger and larger translates to smaller cost per user, cheaper ads and higher quality. There can be only few really big players and they create natural barriers to entry for anyone else. All classical barriers of entry apply to Google, FB, Amazon: * Economies scale production * Limit pricing * High set-up costs * High sunk costs * Advertising * brand loyalty * vertical integration * horizontal integration

on_and_off 9y ago

I will need to do a bit of research, because instinctively I don't see how shopping is not a part of search. The same way that maps pops up automatically when google search realize that I search for a place (or the weather widget). Now, I don't use Google shopping very often because in my experience it is meh

ridewinter 9y ago
Agreed. If I search for a jacket, I'm using Google to price compare. If I want to use a different price comparison service, I'll google for price comparison sites instead.

ApolloFortyNine 9y ago

So when Amazon decided to sell hardware, would that be anti-competitive? Pretty much, you could use the argument you just made against any business that delved into another space. Apple with phones back in the day, Microsoft with Hardware, Walmart and groceries, etc etc etc. There are almost infinite examples, very few businesses haven't expanded their product line and reach. Using their own business to do so is just an obvious solution.

UnoriginalGuy 9y ago
> So when Amazon decided to sell hardware, would that be anti-competitive? Which monopoly does Amazon have that they're abusing to sell hardware? > Pretty much, you could use the argument you just made against any business that delved into another space. Nope; only businesses which are a monopoly. Amazon has no monopoly, therefore the argument cannot be used against them. Plus nobody is stopping Google from opening a new website (e.g. GoogleShopCompare.com) and doing anything they want, using their huge brand and financial power, what they're saying is wrong is embedding it into their existing monopolistic property to give it an unfair advantage (Google.com). It is exactly comparable to the Microsoft/Windows issues in the 1990s. Microsoft could sell/give away IE, they just couldn't bundle it with their monopoly (Windows) to give it an unfair advantage. Google previously got into trouble for exactly this due to Google Maps being bundled with Google.com.
- ApolloFortyNine 9y ago
  Define monopoly, Google is the largest search engine, Amazon is the largest eretailer. Personally I don't think Google has a monopoly, as there are alternatives (a monopoly is supposed to be when their exist no competitors, not just when a business is so much better than everyone else that people choose to use them). Plus, switching search engines takes literally seconds. Amazon used to only push other's products, now they push their own as well, often making use of their front page to do so. It's the same, if not worse, than what Google is doing.
  - tripzilch 9y ago