6 ms·

> monopoly position in Internet services such as Google Mail, Google Calendar and YouTube Seriously?

by oconnor663 9y ago

smacktoward 9y ago
Name one video site that has anywhere near the usage level of YouTube.
- ajross 9y ago
  That's "success", not "monopoly". To be the latter you need to show that the big player is preventing the entrance of new competitors to the market. The existence of a robust and competetive ecosystem alongside Netflix, Facebook, Instagram, Amazon, (even smaller players like Imgur, Reddit, Gyfcat) etc... indicates that "video hosting" isn't really a monopoly. Seriously, everyone who is anyone is streaking headlong into a play for video hosting. If Google has a monopoly here they're managing it extraordinarily badly.
  - jorvi 9y ago
    Windows was (is) considered a monopoly despite having a rock-solid competitor in macOS. Monopolies don't necessarily mean absolute control of the market, having the ability to significantly sway it (say 80% marketshare) is also considered a monopoly or at least monopolistic.
    - ajross 9y ago
      Arguments about Apple's and Netscape's ability to compete were actually core to the windows antitrust case. It wasn't about market share. Again: an argument that Google is exploiting a monopoly in video needs to be able to explain why Instagram et. al. were so successful in the face of it.
    - digi_owl 9y ago
      I think the legal term is antitrust. Bringing up the term monopoly seems to always make people assume something with 100% marketshare. The only thing needed to come under antitrust scrutiny is to be in a position that allows said entity to warp market behavior, be it by bundling, price fixing, or some other means.
  - Aissen 9y ago
    > That's "success", not "monopoly". To be the latter you need to show that the big player is preventing the entrance of new competitors to the market. No, what you're describing is monopoly abuse.
    - Aissen 9y ago
      The tech industry is going to have to come to term that it's comprised of fundamentally winner-takes-all markets. The economies of scale the winner can get are tremendous, while the spending efforts are relatively low for software. So it's basically a monopoly machine. The only way this is countered is that new markets keep being created, so that helps new entrants.
      - ajross 9y ago
        > The economies of scale the winner can get are tremendous Once more, though: how do you take that frame and then explain the success of Instagram, which launched straight into the face of the unbreakable monopoly you posit?
        adventured 9y ago
        Snapchat had temporary success as well. So much for that. We never got to see what would have happened to Instagram, had Facebook gone on to compete with it over time with a cloned product (or perhaps some other purchased competitor that might have sprung up to take on Instagram). One of the most critical powers of a monopoly (with the typical profits that go with such), is its ability to acquire the smaller competition - frequently at high prices - that threatens it. Which is why Facebook was willing to pay such a seemingly immense sum for WhatsApp (a product with essentially zero sales). And it's why they would have happily paid a lot more for Instagram (another product with no sales) if they had demonstrated continued growth.
        ajross 9y ago
        Wait... how can Google and Facebook both be monopolies in the same market? Again, you're saying that "big" competitors have advantages, which no one sane disagrees with. Nonetheless that's not what antitrust law is about, and whinging about "monopoly" as a synonym for "big" just leads to pointless arguments like this one.
- jfoster 9y ago
  Facebook. I don't know how close it is, and I'm sure YouTube is still substantially ahead, but Facebook must be significant in terms of # viewed. Certainly quite different video content, though.
  - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
    NPR just reported last week that the ratio of hours watched on Youtube to Facebook is 10:1 right now.
- nerdshoe 9y ago
  Twitch. Not for hours viewed but because they seemingly have a lock on their corner of the market. That Youtube has spent so much on game streaming, and still failing, is a sign that competition exists.
  - eterm 9y ago
    For live video, yes, but even a many twitch highlight reels still end up back on youtube.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- oconnor663 9y ago
  I agree that YouTube is the strongest example of the three, but I don't see how to defend the idea of a Gmail or GCal monopoly. It's hard for me to take the author objectively after that.

> monopoly position in Internet services such as Google Mail, Google Calendar and YouTube Seriously?

smacktoward 9y ago

Name one video site that has anywhere near the usage level of YouTube.

ajross 9y ago
That's "success", not "monopoly". To be the latter you need to show that the big player is preventing the entrance of new competitors to the market. The existence of a robust and competetive ecosystem alongside Netflix, Facebook, Instagram, Amazon, (even smaller players like Imgur, Reddit, Gyfcat) etc... indicates that "video hosting" isn't really a monopoly. Seriously, everyone who is anyone is streaking headlong into a play for video hosting. If Google has a monopoly here they're managing it extraordinarily badly.
- jorvi 9y ago
  Windows was (is) considered a monopoly despite having a rock-solid competitor in macOS. Monopolies don't necessarily mean absolute control of the market, having the ability to significantly sway it (say 80% marketshare) is also considered a monopoly or at least monopolistic.
  - ajross 9y ago
    Arguments about Apple's and Netscape's ability to compete were actually core to the windows antitrust case. It wasn't about market share. Again: an argument that Google is exploiting a monopoly in video needs to be able to explain why Instagram et. al. were so successful in the face of it.
  - digi_owl 9y ago
    I think the legal term is antitrust. Bringing up the term monopoly seems to always make people assume something with 100% marketshare. The only thing needed to come under antitrust scrutiny is to be in a position that allows said entity to warp market behavior, be it by bundling, price fixing, or some other means.
- Aissen 9y ago
  > That's "success", not "monopoly". To be the latter you need to show that the big player is preventing the entrance of new competitors to the market. No, what you're describing is monopoly abuse.
  - Aissen 9y ago
    The tech industry is going to have to come to term that it's comprised of fundamentally winner-takes-all markets. The economies of scale the winner can get are tremendous, while the spending efforts are relatively low for software. So it's basically a monopoly machine. The only way this is countered is that new markets keep being created, so that helps new entrants.
    - ajross 9y ago
      > The economies of scale the winner can get are tremendous Once more, though: how do you take that frame and then explain the success of Instagram, which launched straight into the face of the unbreakable monopoly you posit?
      - adventured 9y ago
        Snapchat had temporary success as well. So much for that. We never got to see what would have happened to Instagram, had Facebook gone on to compete with it over time with a cloned product (or perhaps some other purchased competitor that might have sprung up to take on Instagram). One of the most critical powers of a monopoly (with the typical profits that go with such), is its ability to acquire the smaller competition - frequently at high prices - that threatens it. Which is why Facebook was willing to pay such a seemingly immense sum for WhatsApp (a product with essentially zero sales). And it's why they would have happily paid a lot more for Instagram (another product with no sales) if they had demonstrated continued growth.
        ajross 9y ago
        Wait... how can Google and Facebook both be monopolies in the same market? Again, you're saying that "big" competitors have advantages, which no one sane disagrees with. Nonetheless that's not what antitrust law is about, and whinging about "monopoly" as a synonym for "big" just leads to pointless arguments like this one.
jfoster 9y ago
Facebook. I don't know how close it is, and I'm sure YouTube is still substantially ahead, but Facebook must be significant in terms of # viewed. Certainly quite different video content, though.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  NPR just reported last week that the ratio of hours watched on Youtube to Facebook is 10:1 right now.
nerdshoe 9y ago
Twitch. Not for hours viewed but because they seemingly have a lock on their corner of the market. That Youtube has spent so much on game streaming, and still failing, is a sign that competition exists.
- eterm 9y ago
  For live video, yes, but even a many twitch highlight reels still end up back on youtube.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
oconnor663 9y ago
I agree that YouTube is the strongest example of the three, but I don't see how to defend the idea of a Gmail or GCal monopoly. It's hard for me to take the author objectively after that.