4 ms·

You are correct, google is trying to cover all sectors they can, and offer tools to join them even at a loss. After they own everything, they can start raising

You are correct, google is trying to cover all sectors they can, and offer tools to join them even at a loss. After they own everything, they can start raising prices, dictate web standards and so on

dantheman 7y ago
Your worst case scenario has never happened.
- satanspastaroll 7y ago
  I'm quite sure a monopoly is not that alien a concept
  - dantheman 7y ago
    A monopoly that keeps prices artificially low for years, drives everyone out of business, and then raises prices to make up for the years of lost profit -- I'd like to hear one example - it's never happened as far as i know. Most monopolies have been government granted - railroads through free land, AT&T by creation, etc.
    - satanspastaroll 7y ago
      I believe the Rockefeller's General Oil was dissolved as an illegal monopoly. It used it's massive, over 90% share of the market (and it's vertical supply chain) to deter competition, and made deals with other suppliers to make the inertia of competing a herculean task
      - dantheman 7y ago
        During the rise of standard oil the price of oil went down, it did not go up. Competitors fought and complained that they couldn't compete because standard was vertically integrated and got it broken up. But the price did not go up.
      - spc476 7y ago
        While a company that controls the majority of a market may be the text book definition of a monopoly, it's the the legal definition in the US. The US law recognizes that a company may naturally (and legally) gain a majority market share (even 100%) and be left alone. It's only when a company with such control over a market uses that to leverage control over another market that it becomes illegal under US law. Standard Oil owned 90%+ of the oil refineries in the US (they never did drill for oil) yet that wasn't why Standard Oil was broken up. They were broken up because they were using their influence with oil to control the train industry, specifically, train transport of oil. [1] Microsoft wasn't threatened with breakup over their operating system monopoly on desktop computers, but because they were using that influence with at attempt to control the web browser industry. [1] And ironically, it was the breakup of Standard Oil that made John. D. Rockefeller the richest man in the world. He was also responsible for saving the world's population of whales. [2] [2] Half-serious here. Whale oil was big business, until Rockefeller made petroleum products cheap enough to supplant whale oil as a product.
    - wongarsu 7y ago
      You could argue about Microsoft. They started out by offering MSDos as a low cost option and now own close to the entire OS market. Google is undercutting everyone in the mobile OS market. What once was a varied market died completely because nobody could compete with Android's "it's free if you agree to preload a bunch of Google apps" (iOS isn't really on the market since its Apple exclusive, LG can only reasonably choose Android). Google makes all that lost income back because this creates a monopoly for the Play Store, and massively helps other Google services. Not really textbook examples, but that's because the textbook example of selling at a loss to kill all competition and then raise prices is illegal in most cases
      - icebraining 7y ago
        Microsoft certainly drove almost everyone out of business, but I don't think you can accuse them of raising prices to cover for lost profits - a OEM Windows license is pretty cheap compared to other paid software, particularly before they started adding ads to it.
    - nabnob 7y ago
      Amazon is doing exactly this - https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado... >This Note argues that the current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competition to “consumer welfare,” defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot cognize the potential harms to competition posed by Amazon’s dominance if we measure competition primarily through price and output. Specifically, current doctrine underappreciates the risk of predatory pricing and how integration across distinct business lines may prove anticompetitive. These concerns are heightened in the context of online platforms for two reasons. First, the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have rewarded. Under these conditions, predatory pricing becomes highly rational—even as existing doctrine treats it as irrational and therefore implausible. Second, because online platforms serve as critical intermediaries, integrating across business lines positions these platforms to control the essential infrastructure on which their rivals depend. This dual role also enables a platform to exploit information collected on companies using its services to undermine them as competitors. This is also the same approach that Uber is using - charge artificially low prices for rides to undercut other cab companies, and eventually deploy self-driving cars and increase their prices.
      - dantheman 7y ago
        They are claiming it could happen, not that it is happening. Which is what I'm saying - people claim it happens, but it never has. It's near impossible to corner a market without the government granting the monopoly.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    When did one company last "own everything"?
tudelo 7y ago
They may run some operations at a loss, but overall?
wongarsu 7y ago
I think we can make useful distinctions here between Google services. - Google Search/Ads and Google Cloud are money makers. They are constantly improved, handled with care and have prices comparable to the competition, maybe slightly lower - Chrome is costing massive amounts of money. Between the massive development effort and the big worldwide marketing campaigns Google must have spent billions on Chrome in a play to protect their other services and dictate web standards. Android also belongs in this category, dictating a massive portion of the mobile market - GMail/GSuite, Youtube, Google Home etc probably about break even. Like the previous category they are strategic plays aimed at controlling a market, and they are great for the brand. But since their markets are less valuable they are the step children - lastly we have the experiments. Google has cut most of them, and you are probably better off not using them at all

You are correct, google is trying to cover all sectors they can, and offer tools to join them even at a loss. After they own everything, they can start raising prices, dictate web standards and so on

dantheman 7y ago

Your worst case scenario has never happened.

satanspastaroll 7y ago
I'm quite sure a monopoly is not that alien a concept
- dantheman 7y ago
  A monopoly that keeps prices artificially low for years, drives everyone out of business, and then raises prices to make up for the years of lost profit -- I'd like to hear one example - it's never happened as far as i know. Most monopolies have been government granted - railroads through free land, AT&T by creation, etc.
  - satanspastaroll 7y ago
    I believe the Rockefeller's General Oil was dissolved as an illegal monopoly. It used it's massive, over 90% share of the market (and it's vertical supply chain) to deter competition, and made deals with other suppliers to make the inertia of competing a herculean task
    - dantheman 7y ago
      During the rise of standard oil the price of oil went down, it did not go up. Competitors fought and complained that they couldn't compete because standard was vertically integrated and got it broken up. But the price did not go up.
    - spc476 7y ago
      While a company that controls the majority of a market may be the text book definition of a monopoly, it's the the legal definition in the US. The US law recognizes that a company may naturally (and legally) gain a majority market share (even 100%) and be left alone. It's only when a company with such control over a market uses that to leverage control over another market that it becomes illegal under US law. Standard Oil owned 90%+ of the oil refineries in the US (they never did drill for oil) yet that wasn't why Standard Oil was broken up. They were broken up because they were using their influence with oil to control the train industry, specifically, train transport of oil. [1] Microsoft wasn't threatened with breakup over their operating system monopoly on desktop computers, but because they were using that influence with at attempt to control the web browser industry. [1] And ironically, it was the breakup of Standard Oil that made John. D. Rockefeller the richest man in the world. He was also responsible for saving the world's population of whales. [2] [2] Half-serious here. Whale oil was big business, until Rockefeller made petroleum products cheap enough to supplant whale oil as a product.
  - wongarsu 7y ago
    You could argue about Microsoft. They started out by offering MSDos as a low cost option and now own close to the entire OS market. Google is undercutting everyone in the mobile OS market. What once was a varied market died completely because nobody could compete with Android's "it's free if you agree to preload a bunch of Google apps" (iOS isn't really on the market since its Apple exclusive, LG can only reasonably choose Android). Google makes all that lost income back because this creates a monopoly for the Play Store, and massively helps other Google services. Not really textbook examples, but that's because the textbook example of selling at a loss to kill all competition and then raise prices is illegal in most cases
    - icebraining 7y ago
      Microsoft certainly drove almost everyone out of business, but I don't think you can accuse them of raising prices to cover for lost profits - a OEM Windows license is pretty cheap compared to other paid software, particularly before they started adding ads to it.
  - nabnob 7y ago
    Amazon is doing exactly this - https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado... >This Note argues that the current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competition to “consumer welfare,” defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot cognize the potential harms to competition posed by Amazon’s dominance if we measure competition primarily through price and output. Specifically, current doctrine underappreciates the risk of predatory pricing and how integration across distinct business lines may prove anticompetitive. These concerns are heightened in the context of online platforms for two reasons. First, the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have rewarded. Under these conditions, predatory pricing becomes highly rational—even as existing doctrine treats it as irrational and therefore implausible. Second, because online platforms serve as critical intermediaries, integrating across business lines positions these platforms to control the essential infrastructure on which their rivals depend. This dual role also enables a platform to exploit information collected on companies using its services to undermine them as competitors. This is also the same approach that Uber is using - charge artificially low prices for rides to undercut other cab companies, and eventually deploy self-driving cars and increase their prices.
    - dantheman 7y ago
      They are claiming it could happen, not that it is happening. Which is what I'm saying - people claim it happens, but it never has. It's near impossible to corner a market without the government granting the monopoly.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  When did one company last "own everything"?

tudelo 7y ago

They may run some operations at a loss, but overall?

wongarsu 7y ago

I think we can make useful distinctions here between Google services. - Google Search/Ads and Google Cloud are money makers. They are constantly improved, handled with care and have prices comparable to the competition, maybe slightly lower - Chrome is costing massive amounts of money. Between the massive development effort and the big worldwide marketing campaigns Google must have spent billions on Chrome in a play to protect their other services and dictate web standards. Android also belongs in this category, dictating a massive portion of the mobile market - GMail/GSuite, Youtube, Google Home etc probably about break even. Like the previous category they are strategic plays aimed at controlling a market, and they are great for the brand. But since their markets are less valuable they are the step children - lastly we have the experiments. Google has cut most of them, and you are probably better off not using them at all