4 ms·

Laws don't require a literal monopoly, but significant market powers so yes, market share does a monopoly make via the power of that share in most circumstances

Laws don't require a literal monopoly, but significant market powers so yes, market share does a monopoly make via the power of that share in most circumstances. Of course being a monopoly in the legal sense isn't in and of itself illegal, it's leveraging that power to self serving, uncompetitive purposes. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.

dodobirdlord 5y ago
The claim that Google has significant and durable market power in the search engine market doesn't hold up even by the FTC definition you quote here. There's plenty of competition, and the switching cost for consumers is literally nothing. They clearly aren't able (or aren't trying) to exclude competitors, since all of their competitors I can think of are still in business (Bing, Baidu, Yahoo, Yandex, DuckDuckGo, Brave, probably more...), and they clearly don't have the ability to raise prices (can you imagine how instantly Google Search would be consigned to irrelevance if they tried to charge users for searches?). This isn't a market that's in the grips of a monopolist limiting competition, this is an extremely competitive market, so competitive that the cost to the end-user has been driven down to literally nothing. It's not quite the most competitive market that exists, since the market for credit cards is so competitive that credit card providers actually pay users to use their credit cards, but it's close, and Brave has been testing those waters in the search engine market recently.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  I disagree. There is literally no competition. It left the competition sometime in 2002 in the dust. Monumental achievement by Google and one of the most iconic companies ever to have existed on planet earth. But quoting regional competitors like Baidu and Yandex!? Come on, that’s just silly.
  - dodobirdlord 5y ago
    Being better than the competition isn't the same as having no competition, and it's especially not the same as engaging in anti-competitive practices to prevent competition from existing. The purpose of consumer protection and antitrust laws is to ensure that market leaders hold their position by virtue of having the superior product and not by some other nefarious means. I don't think most people would dispute that Google Search is better than Bing. But is it really so much better that Bing doesn't even count as being in the same market?
- Clubber 5y ago
  >and they clearly don't have the ability to raise prices (can you imagine how instantly Google Search would be consigned to irrelevance if they tried to charge users for searches? The prices they raise would be on advertising. They do have significant competition with Facebook and the like in the internet advertising industry. >the cost to the end-user has been driven down to literally nothing The end user is the product not the customer. The customer is advertisers. So I think you are missing what market power means. Since Google earns most of the profits with search, it allows them to use those funds do things like: 1. Acquire YouTube 2. Run YouTube for two years without any supporting ad revenue 3. Making it impossible for anyone else to compete with YouTube in the first two years because they don't have that kinda bank. 4. Allow users 1G of storage on Gmail and offering it for free, blowing away (killing) any competitor. 5. Buy and releasing Android OS for free to hardware vendors and including Google services on those OSs, instantly taking the majority market share on the brand new mobile industry. 6. Build AWS. There are many more, but all those investments were built on the revenue from Google search.
  - 5y ago

dodobirdlord 5y ago

The claim that Google has significant and durable market power in the search engine market doesn't hold up even by the FTC definition you quote here. There's plenty of competition, and the switching cost for consumers is literally nothing. They clearly aren't able (or aren't trying) to exclude competitors, since all of their competitors I can think of are still in business (Bing, Baidu, Yahoo, Yandex, DuckDuckGo, Brave, probably more...), and they clearly don't have the ability to raise prices (can you imagine how instantly Google Search would be consigned to irrelevance if they tried to charge users for searches?). This isn't a market that's in the grips of a monopolist limiting competition, this is an extremely competitive market, so competitive that the cost to the end-user has been driven down to literally nothing. It's not quite the most competitive market that exists, since the market for credit cards is so competitive that credit card providers actually pay users to use their credit cards, but it's close, and Brave has been testing those waters in the search engine market recently.

systemvoltage 5y ago
I disagree. There is literally no competition. It left the competition sometime in 2002 in the dust. Monumental achievement by Google and one of the most iconic companies ever to have existed on planet earth. But quoting regional competitors like Baidu and Yandex!? Come on, that’s just silly.
- dodobirdlord 5y ago
  Being better than the competition isn't the same as having no competition, and it's especially not the same as engaging in anti-competitive practices to prevent competition from existing. The purpose of consumer protection and antitrust laws is to ensure that market leaders hold their position by virtue of having the superior product and not by some other nefarious means. I don't think most people would dispute that Google Search is better than Bing. But is it really so much better that Bing doesn't even count as being in the same market?
Clubber 5y ago
>and they clearly don't have the ability to raise prices (can you imagine how instantly Google Search would be consigned to irrelevance if they tried to charge users for searches? The prices they raise would be on advertising. They do have significant competition with Facebook and the like in the internet advertising industry. >the cost to the end-user has been driven down to literally nothing The end user is the product not the customer. The customer is advertisers. So I think you are missing what market power means. Since Google earns most of the profits with search, it allows them to use those funds do things like: 1. Acquire YouTube 2. Run YouTube for two years without any supporting ad revenue 3. Making it impossible for anyone else to compete with YouTube in the first two years because they don't have that kinda bank. 4. Allow users 1G of storage on Gmail and offering it for free, blowing away (killing) any competitor. 5. Buy and releasing Android OS for free to hardware vendors and including Google services on those OSs, instantly taking the majority market share on the brand new mobile industry. 6. Build AWS. There are many more, but all those investments were built on the revenue from Google search.
- 5y ago