3 ms·

Just because there are other websites on the internet does not mean that Google doesn't have a monopoly. They have 91% search engine market share.

rascul 8y ago
Stats seem to vary, it's not clear that 91% is correct. Even if it was 91%, that doesn't necessarily make it a monopoly. http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share https://www.statista.com/statistics/267161/market-share-of-search-engines-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267161/market-share-of-s... https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.as...
- cyphar 8y ago
  Does 92% usage make something a monopoly? 95%? 99%? 100%? I think that the percentage argument is not the only important thing to consider, there are other anti-competitive practices which (when practiced at a large enough scale) become a monopoly even if "only" 50% of people use the product (friendly reminder that 50% of internet users is more than a billion people -- much larger than the population of most countries). My point is not that Google is doing something illegal (and thus arguing over the legal definition of a monopoly is not helpful -- just like arguing over the legal meaning of the US 1st Amendment is not helpful in discussions over the concept of free speech). I'm arguing that it is a monopoly in the ordinary meaning of the word, in that effectively everyone uses Google and Google exerts a massive amount of power over their users. But for a pseudo-legal argument: Google participates in a form of product tying[1] by requiring you to create a Google account in order to access Google Groups (which are publicly-run mailing lists and an unrelated product to their account service). Now since you don't pay for Google accounts this isn't a strict violation of anti-trust laws, but it is very close in concept to the sort of thing anti-trust laws protect against. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
  - cesarb 8y ago
    > But for a pseudo-legal argument: Google participates in a form of product tying[1] by requiring you to create a Google account in order to access Google Groups (which are publicly-run mailing lists and an unrelated product to their account service). That seems to be false; I can read mailing lists hosted at Google Groups without logging in (for instance https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!forum/isa-dev https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!forum/i... opens for me without asking for a login). I'm subscribed to that mailing list from an email address which is not a Google account, and I didn't have to log in to any Google account when I subscribed. I can post to that mailing list directly from a normal email client, through a non-Google email provider.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      The link you just posted requires me to log in, and I've had this problem with go-nuts and the OCI mailing list in the past. It's strange this doesn't happen to you -- maybe it's a geographically specific thing (I'm connecting from Australia)? Of course you don't need to login in order to post on the mailing list, but I think that's only one of the three main features of a mailing list (broadcast, subscription, and archival) that I can do without logging in.
      - rascul 8y ago
        I am not required to login from the US.
  - rascul 8y ago
    > Does 92% usage make something a monopoly? 95%? 99%? 100%? 100% certainly would. > I'm arguing that it is a monopoly in the ordinary meaning of the word, in that effectively everyone uses Google and Google exerts a massive amount of power over their users. What do you mean by "the ordinary meaning of the word" here? It's also not clear to me that "effectively everyone uses Google".
    - cyphar 8y ago

rascul 8y ago

Stats seem to vary, it's not clear that 91% is correct. Even if it was 91%, that doesn't necessarily make it a monopoly. http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share https://www.statista.com/statistics/267161/market-share-of-search-engines-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267161/market-share-of-s... https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.as...

cyphar 8y ago
Does 92% usage make something a monopoly? 95%? 99%? 100%? I think that the percentage argument is not the only important thing to consider, there are other anti-competitive practices which (when practiced at a large enough scale) become a monopoly even if "only" 50% of people use the product (friendly reminder that 50% of internet users is more than a billion people -- much larger than the population of most countries). My point is not that Google is doing something illegal (and thus arguing over the legal definition of a monopoly is not helpful -- just like arguing over the legal meaning of the US 1st Amendment is not helpful in discussions over the concept of free speech). I'm arguing that it is a monopoly in the ordinary meaning of the word, in that effectively everyone uses Google and Google exerts a massive amount of power over their users. But for a pseudo-legal argument: Google participates in a form of product tying[1] by requiring you to create a Google account in order to access Google Groups (which are publicly-run mailing lists and an unrelated product to their account service). Now since you don't pay for Google accounts this isn't a strict violation of anti-trust laws, but it is very close in concept to the sort of thing anti-trust laws protect against. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
- cesarb 8y ago
  > But for a pseudo-legal argument: Google participates in a form of product tying[1] by requiring you to create a Google account in order to access Google Groups (which are publicly-run mailing lists and an unrelated product to their account service). That seems to be false; I can read mailing lists hosted at Google Groups without logging in (for instance https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!forum/isa-dev https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!forum/i... opens for me without asking for a login). I'm subscribed to that mailing list from an email address which is not a Google account, and I didn't have to log in to any Google account when I subscribed. I can post to that mailing list directly from a normal email client, through a non-Google email provider.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    The link you just posted requires me to log in, and I've had this problem with go-nuts and the OCI mailing list in the past. It's strange this doesn't happen to you -- maybe it's a geographically specific thing (I'm connecting from Australia)? Of course you don't need to login in order to post on the mailing list, but I think that's only one of the three main features of a mailing list (broadcast, subscription, and archival) that I can do without logging in.
    - rascul 8y ago
      I am not required to login from the US.
- rascul 8y ago
  > Does 92% usage make something a monopoly? 95%? 99%? 100%? 100% certainly would. > I'm arguing that it is a monopoly in the ordinary meaning of the word, in that effectively everyone uses Google and Google exerts a massive amount of power over their users. What do you mean by "the ordinary meaning of the word" here? It's also not clear to me that "effectively everyone uses Google".
  - cyphar 8y ago