4 ms·

Not quite. First, Google isn't a monopoly on search. Popular? yes. Best product? For most use cases, yeah. The fact that the search competition is a click

Not quite. First, Google isn't a monopoly on search. Popular? yes. Best product? For most use cases, yeah. The fact that the search competition is a click away makes it dominant in the market but not a monopoly or monopsony. Second, companies are doing fine in this regard by bypassing Google. There are online businesses that exist solely on Amazon and Instagram. Building out a strong social presence is one way to get traffic without relying on Google search. Several major content hosting sites (images/gifs) have taken off in part because of their social saturation. Is it easy? No, but to GP's point it doesn't sound like they were being strategic in this regard either.

noobermin 7y ago
I should rephrase my argument. What I really meant to highlight is you cannot have a business online that google does not approve of without great difficulty, given to be online you must use google in some extent. That is a problem and decidedly anti-competitive. Also I don't care too much about the OP's attitude or lack of strategy, actors don't have to be paragons of virtue in order to be wronged and their situation be an example of a larger problem. Also, finally, why do you need to dispute the basic facts, no one in their right mind thinks Google isn't a monopoly on search, I think that is more or less an established fact at this point.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > What I really meant to highlight is you cannot have a business online that google does not approve of without great difficulty I disagree. I have worked at several companies with very successful sales and marketing departments where referrals from google were a noticeable but ultimately unimportant part of the revenue picture. I have also worked at a place that literally lived and died by the grace of a top ranking on google, once we hit the 2nd and then 3rd page, the business was basically dead. This sucked, but it was very nice for the company that replaced us. There is no inherent reason why one company should be entitled to the slot any more than any other (besides the google algorithm that determines ranking).
- mrep 7y ago
  > no one in their right mind thinks Google isn't a monopoly on search, I think that is more or less an established fact at this point. "A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity" [0]. Bing exists so by definition, you are wrong. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
  - Faark 7y ago
    There is probably choice from an end-user's point of view, yes. On that front you are arguing about best search results. But as site owner, you need traffic. SEO for some search engine built by your brother, used exclusively by your family, wont help you grow your business. You need eyeballs, and more than 90% of those are on google [0]. Pretending this is a perfectly functioning market and websites can just ignore google is... unrealistic. [0] http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share
    - mrep 7y ago
      It's definitely not a perfectly competitive market but this trope about GAFAM being monopolies is tiring. A monopoly can stagnate development on their product, raise prices and there's nothing customers can do because they have literally no other option. That is why monopolies are bad. If Google were to try and charge users for search, everyone would immediately switch to bing which keeps them in check from raising prices like they would if they were the only provider of search. They are in no way a monopoly.
      - Marsymars 7y ago
        The pedantry around the term "monopoly" is also a bit tiring. If you substitute "harmfully disproportionate market power" for "monopoly", the points most people are making remain similar.
        mrep 7y ago
        Are you suggesting that we should ignore people misusing economic terms when discussing economic policy? I don't see how ignoring blatantly false facts is better than educating people such that they can properly discuss a topic using the proper terms.

noobermin 7y ago

I should rephrase my argument. What I really meant to highlight is you cannot have a business online that google does not approve of without great difficulty, given to be online you must use google in some extent. That is a problem and decidedly anti-competitive. Also I don't care too much about the OP's attitude or lack of strategy, actors don't have to be paragons of virtue in order to be wronged and their situation be an example of a larger problem. Also, finally, why do you need to dispute the basic facts, no one in their right mind thinks Google isn't a monopoly on search, I think that is more or less an established fact at this point.

root_axis 7y ago
> What I really meant to highlight is you cannot have a business online that google does not approve of without great difficulty I disagree. I have worked at several companies with very successful sales and marketing departments where referrals from google were a noticeable but ultimately unimportant part of the revenue picture. I have also worked at a place that literally lived and died by the grace of a top ranking on google, once we hit the 2nd and then 3rd page, the business was basically dead. This sucked, but it was very nice for the company that replaced us. There is no inherent reason why one company should be entitled to the slot any more than any other (besides the google algorithm that determines ranking).
mrep 7y ago
> no one in their right mind thinks Google isn't a monopoly on search, I think that is more or less an established fact at this point. "A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity" [0]. Bing exists so by definition, you are wrong. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
- Faark 7y ago
  There is probably choice from an end-user's point of view, yes. On that front you are arguing about best search results. But as site owner, you need traffic. SEO for some search engine built by your brother, used exclusively by your family, wont help you grow your business. You need eyeballs, and more than 90% of those are on google [0]. Pretending this is a perfectly functioning market and websites can just ignore google is... unrealistic. [0] http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share
  - mrep 7y ago
    It's definitely not a perfectly competitive market but this trope about GAFAM being monopolies is tiring. A monopoly can stagnate development on their product, raise prices and there's nothing customers can do because they have literally no other option. That is why monopolies are bad. If Google were to try and charge users for search, everyone would immediately switch to bing which keeps them in check from raising prices like they would if they were the only provider of search. They are in no way a monopoly.
    - Marsymars 7y ago
      The pedantry around the term "monopoly" is also a bit tiring. If you substitute "harmfully disproportionate market power" for "monopoly", the points most people are making remain similar.
      - mrep 7y ago
        Are you suggesting that we should ignore people misusing economic terms when discussing economic policy? I don't see how ignoring blatantly false facts is better than educating people such that they can properly discuss a topic using the proper terms.