4 ms·

The typical antitrust concerns around monopolies don't really apply to google (currently). Google hasn't used its position to create barriers to entry for compe

The typical antitrust concerns around monopolies don't really apply to google (currently). Google hasn't used its position to create barriers to entry for competitors, it is only that google has a reputation for producing a superior product in this domain. I've also heard some argue that google has a monopoly on advertising eyeballs, but this is clearly false (i.e. there are lots of platforms that make a lot of money by selling eyeballs)

atq2119 8y ago
Could it be argued that Google is engaging price dumping by financing the development of its search engine from unrelated revenue? Namely, ads placed on websites other than its search result pages? Just thinking out loud, really.
onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
Google's monopoly on search is entirely because it is the best search product by far. However, as search becomes increasingly important in our lives, and as past search data becomes more important to ranking algorithms, Google might be at a point where no company ever stands a chance to compete with it. By using Google, you make it better. It's already the best, and it already captures 85%+ of searches. How is anyone ever going to compete? Bing even offered to pay people money to use its search engine for a while, and still it got hardly any traction. I don't think Facebook's and Google's monopolies are too concerning other than the impact they have on online advertising. Google basically made CPC ads 10x more expensive like 10 years ago, and ever since, that's been the price of a click. Facebook having a monopoly on social advertising clearly had no interest in starting a price war with Google to win ad dollars. They compete in separate spaces. They can each charge a premium.
- root_axis 8y ago
  > Google might be at a point where no company ever stands a chance to compete with it. I'm not sure that this, in and of itself, is a problem. Someone has to be the best, and google's product will still be the best even if you break the company up. It's not as if people will start using bing if search were broken out into a separate company; if anything I'd guess that it might increase market-share as that new company would put all their efforts into making search better rather than on broader initiatives that cut across google as a whole.
zepto 8y ago
This is patently false. Google’s monopoly is on resources required to be a search competitor. It has a giant stash of patents related to search, and it also has an enormous collection of historical data that can never be obtained by a new competitors. On top of that it continues to extract behavioral and structural data about both users and the web from things like analytics, Android, etc. with gigantic reach. These are gigantic barriers to entry and Google created them. Now it’s reasonable to argue that there they did nothing insidious or unfair in order to create them. However just because they didn’t do anything evil to create the barriers to entry they now enjoy doesn’t mean they didn’t create them or that they now enjoy a monopoly position as a consequence.
- root_axis 8y ago
  > It has a giant stash of patents related to search Patents are not an antitrust violation. Breaking up google doesn't revoke their patents. > On top of that it continues to extract behavioral and structural data about both users and the web from things like analytics, Android, etc. with gigantic reach. Breaking up google doesn't mean all this insight disappears. We need better data privacy laws to address this. > These are gigantic barriers to entry and Google created them. You haven't described a barrier to entry, you've described a product that is so far ahead of the rest of the market that it's difficult to compete, but there is nothing preventing a competitor from giving it their best shot. If somehow a group of genius polymath programmers developed a superior search product, nothing about google's current business practices (besides brand awareness) would hinder their success.
  - zepto 8y ago
    A barrier to entry is something a competitor cannot acquire. I have clearly described multiple of those. It’s not just difficult to compete. It is impossible for competitors to acquire the insight that Google has amassed, since it is based on historical data that is not available anymore. Breaking up google wouldn’t make this insight disappear, but the fact that you acknowledge it exists proves my point that barriers to entry are present. Your claim that I haven’t described a barrier to entry is therefore false based on the implications of your own statements. I am not arguing that the remedy should be the breakup of Google, and your complaints about that remedy are irrelevant to what I am saying, and do not refute the contention that Google is in a monopoly position. Nevertheless I am arguing that Google has critical resources that cannot be replicated by this mythical group of genius polymaths because they are now owned by Google exclusively, and that this is certainly a consequence of their market position, power and business practices. It is ridiculous to suggest that the only thing preventing this is ‘brand awareness’. It’s hard to believe you are serious about that.

atq2119 8y ago

Could it be argued that Google is engaging price dumping by financing the development of its search engine from unrelated revenue? Namely, ads placed on websites other than its search result pages? Just thinking out loud, really.

onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago

Google's monopoly on search is entirely because it is the best search product by far. However, as search becomes increasingly important in our lives, and as past search data becomes more important to ranking algorithms, Google might be at a point where no company ever stands a chance to compete with it. By using Google, you make it better. It's already the best, and it already captures 85%+ of searches. How is anyone ever going to compete? Bing even offered to pay people money to use its search engine for a while, and still it got hardly any traction. I don't think Facebook's and Google's monopolies are too concerning other than the impact they have on online advertising. Google basically made CPC ads 10x more expensive like 10 years ago, and ever since, that's been the price of a click. Facebook having a monopoly on social advertising clearly had no interest in starting a price war with Google to win ad dollars. They compete in separate spaces. They can each charge a premium.

root_axis 8y ago
> Google might be at a point where no company ever stands a chance to compete with it. I'm not sure that this, in and of itself, is a problem. Someone has to be the best, and google's product will still be the best even if you break the company up. It's not as if people will start using bing if search were broken out into a separate company; if anything I'd guess that it might increase market-share as that new company would put all their efforts into making search better rather than on broader initiatives that cut across google as a whole.

zepto 8y ago

This is patently false. Google’s monopoly is on resources required to be a search competitor. It has a giant stash of patents related to search, and it also has an enormous collection of historical data that can never be obtained by a new competitors. On top of that it continues to extract behavioral and structural data about both users and the web from things like analytics, Android, etc. with gigantic reach. These are gigantic barriers to entry and Google created them. Now it’s reasonable to argue that there they did nothing insidious or unfair in order to create them. However just because they didn’t do anything evil to create the barriers to entry they now enjoy doesn’t mean they didn’t create them or that they now enjoy a monopoly position as a consequence.

root_axis 8y ago
> It has a giant stash of patents related to search Patents are not an antitrust violation. Breaking up google doesn't revoke their patents. > On top of that it continues to extract behavioral and structural data about both users and the web from things like analytics, Android, etc. with gigantic reach. Breaking up google doesn't mean all this insight disappears. We need better data privacy laws to address this. > These are gigantic barriers to entry and Google created them. You haven't described a barrier to entry, you've described a product that is so far ahead of the rest of the market that it's difficult to compete, but there is nothing preventing a competitor from giving it their best shot. If somehow a group of genius polymath programmers developed a superior search product, nothing about google's current business practices (besides brand awareness) would hinder their success.
- zepto 8y ago
  A barrier to entry is something a competitor cannot acquire. I have clearly described multiple of those. It’s not just difficult to compete. It is impossible for competitors to acquire the insight that Google has amassed, since it is based on historical data that is not available anymore. Breaking up google wouldn’t make this insight disappear, but the fact that you acknowledge it exists proves my point that barriers to entry are present. Your claim that I haven’t described a barrier to entry is therefore false based on the implications of your own statements. I am not arguing that the remedy should be the breakup of Google, and your complaints about that remedy are irrelevant to what I am saying, and do not refute the contention that Google is in a monopoly position. Nevertheless I am arguing that Google has critical resources that cannot be replicated by this mythical group of genius polymaths because they are now owned by Google exclusively, and that this is certainly a consequence of their market position, power and business practices. It is ridiculous to suggest that the only thing preventing this is ‘brand awareness’. It’s hard to believe you are serious about that.