3 ms·

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly Google does not have a monopoly on search. It's just the dominant player. That said

by majika 15y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly Google does not have a monopoly on search. It's just the dominant player. That said, I do think there's reason for concern about how Google is marketing and integrating their products.

dylangs1030 15y ago
Well, that's why I said de facto monopoly. Legally, no, it has no monopoly. But the point was that it's made other search engines largely irrelevant. With the exception of Bing, you generally can't think of many search engines these days. And Bing only rose to that level (still hasn't beaten Google) through massive ad campaigns and corporate partnership endorsements.
- majika 15y ago
  Google has made other search engines largely irrelevant because it's so good. That is of no concern to me or the US antitrust investigators. What would be concerning if Google started making it harder for other search engines to come along and challenge its position by offering a better service. Google has done no such thing. It's as easy to challenge Google as it ever was. What's of concern to me and the US policy makers is how Google is using its position as the dominant search engine to market its other products. Do you see the difference?
  - ippisl 15y ago
    Google does do stuff that makes it harder for other companies to compete. bundling many search services and information gathering services(which by their nature help search and the ad ecosystem) might be better for the consumer(and sometimes worse, i.e., privacy, market concentration) but becomes a huge competitive barrier because a competitor has to offer all those services , not part of them. Are all those bundling moves are best for the consumer ? maybe not. Is google buying ITA - the flight comparison service gives value to people, instead of google recommending you a great flight search when you search for a flight , and letting providers compete among themselves ? or even showing data from flight search providers directly on the page? i'm not sure it's helpful for the consumer, and it would probably decrease competition in the flight comparison services, or maybe even kill the competition totally. Is it a legal monopoly, and break anti-trust laws ? i dunno. But don't mistake the law with the reality.
  - dylangs1030 15y ago
    Wait, I'm not arguing that. I agree, Google hasn't done anything to warrant being bothered by the government. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but when I said the government has a blanket policy on trusts, I meant they catch Google without real justification based on incredible flexibility in how they qualify something as a monopoly. If a company is a de facto monopoly that's a good thing, it's superlative and, realistically, not abusive.

by majika 15y ago

dylangs1030 15y ago

Well, that's why I said de facto monopoly. Legally, no, it has no monopoly. But the point was that it's made other search engines largely irrelevant. With the exception of Bing, you generally can't think of many search engines these days. And Bing only rose to that level (still hasn't beaten Google) through massive ad campaigns and corporate partnership endorsements.

majika 15y ago
Google has made other search engines largely irrelevant because it's so good. That is of no concern to me or the US antitrust investigators. What would be concerning if Google started making it harder for other search engines to come along and challenge its position by offering a better service. Google has done no such thing. It's as easy to challenge Google as it ever was. What's of concern to me and the US policy makers is how Google is using its position as the dominant search engine to market its other products. Do you see the difference?
- ippisl 15y ago
  Google does do stuff that makes it harder for other companies to compete. bundling many search services and information gathering services(which by their nature help search and the ad ecosystem) might be better for the consumer(and sometimes worse, i.e., privacy, market concentration) but becomes a huge competitive barrier because a competitor has to offer all those services , not part of them. Are all those bundling moves are best for the consumer ? maybe not. Is google buying ITA - the flight comparison service gives value to people, instead of google recommending you a great flight search when you search for a flight , and letting providers compete among themselves ? or even showing data from flight search providers directly on the page? i'm not sure it's helpful for the consumer, and it would probably decrease competition in the flight comparison services, or maybe even kill the competition totally. Is it a legal monopoly, and break anti-trust laws ? i dunno. But don't mistake the law with the reality.
- dylangs1030 15y ago
  Wait, I'm not arguing that. I agree, Google hasn't done anything to warrant being bothered by the government. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but when I said the government has a blanket policy on trusts, I meant they catch Google without real justification based on incredible flexibility in how they qualify something as a monopoly. If a company is a de facto monopoly that's a good thing, it's superlative and, realistically, not abusive.