4 ms·

Antitrust+?

13 points by raghus 15y ago

monkeyfacebag 15y ago
I reject the premise, namely, that Google is a monopoly supplier of Internet search. Bing, Yahoo! and DuckDuckGo are perfectly suitable search engines. I don't think any of them are necessarily as good as Google, but a) I use Bing all the time when I'm on IE9 and I hardly notice and b) that's a poor criterion for monopoly. As a bonus, the switching costs for changing your search provider are approximately zero.
- chc 15y ago
  Monopoly doesn't mean nothing else exists. At the time when Microsoft was abusing its monopoly with Windows in the '90s, many other operating systems existed that people used, like Mac OS, NeXTStep, Linux, BSD, OS/2, BeOS, etc. It's just that Microsoft had enough users that they could parlay their OS monopoly into an everything-else monopoly just by cutting competitors out. Google seems to be in a similar position as far as market penetration goes (to counter your anecdote, I actually know people who visit Yahoo by typing "www.yahoo.com" into the Google search box), so the question here is basically whether Google is doing bad things with its hold over the market.
  - pm90 15y ago
    Agreed. However, like mfb mentioned: >As a bonus, the switching costs for changing your search provider are approximately zero. This means that if you don't like the services that google offers, you can simply choose not to use google, without any overhead in time or money. In the case of an OS, it is much more difficult, first to install on your machine, get used to the UI etcetc. Microsoft could take advantage of this fact to force whatever software it wanted, and users essentially had no option but to comply.
    - chc 15y ago
      That's true as well, but the accusation here is anticompetitive behavior — they're not complaining that Google is dominant in search, but that Google is taking unfair advantage of its dominance — so the fact that users can switch easily is really neither here nor there.
- bonch 15y ago
  Even the lead DOJ prosecutor who went after Microsoft in their antitrust trial thinks Google is a monopoly (http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/31/technology/microsoft_google_antitrust_case/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/31/technology/microsoft_google_...).
- brg 15y ago
  Any such rejection should be based on evidence. That evidence should be in terms of both ratio of query volume and ad revenue.
yanw 15y ago
I never knew he was an expert on antitrust law! At least it’s expected from the likes of him, it’s less excepted and much more disappointing when actual reporters writing for supposedly credible newspapers start speculating about the law or relying exclusively on quotes from “experts” which are paid by one interested party or the other. IANAL either but I asked one, and she thinks that any antitrust issues with Google results are little more than the product of negative PR and don't have legal merit. As for Search+ itself I think that G+ is just a foothold, this feature will become more useful and interesting when data from one’s calendar, email, voice messages, saved maps, etc be included in the mix.
chc 15y ago
Google's counterargument that Siegler rejects as "hollow" seems pretty valid to me. If these other companies choose not to give Google the data it would need to give them the same treatment, how can you say Google is dealing unfairly here? If Google offers them the same opportunity but they think the business upside of getting listed is less than the downside of sharing their data, then that's their call.
- landyman 15y ago
  I agree that it seems valid. I also think that Google would most definitely use that data if they had it. Google used to show live twitter results in their SERPs; but stopped when Twitter took that data away if I remember correctly.

13 points by raghus 15y ago

I reject the premise, namely, that Google is a monopoly supplier of Internet search. Bing, Yahoo! and DuckDuckGo are perfectly suitable search engines. I don't think any of them are necessarily as good as Google, but a) I use Bing all the time when I'm on IE9 and I hardly notice and b) that's a poor criterion for monopoly. As a bonus, the switching costs for changing your search provider are approximately zero.

chc 15y ago
Monopoly doesn't mean nothing else exists. At the time when Microsoft was abusing its monopoly with Windows in the '90s, many other operating systems existed that people used, like Mac OS, NeXTStep, Linux, BSD, OS/2, BeOS, etc. It's just that Microsoft had enough users that they could parlay their OS monopoly into an everything-else monopoly just by cutting competitors out. Google seems to be in a similar position as far as market penetration goes (to counter your anecdote, I actually know people who visit Yahoo by typing "www.yahoo.com" into the Google search box), so the question here is basically whether Google is doing bad things with its hold over the market.
- pm90 15y ago
  Agreed. However, like mfb mentioned: >As a bonus, the switching costs for changing your search provider are approximately zero. This means that if you don't like the services that google offers, you can simply choose not to use google, without any overhead in time or money. In the case of an OS, it is much more difficult, first to install on your machine, get used to the UI etcetc. Microsoft could take advantage of this fact to force whatever software it wanted, and users essentially had no option but to comply.
  - chc 15y ago
    That's true as well, but the accusation here is anticompetitive behavior — they're not complaining that Google is dominant in search, but that Google is taking unfair advantage of its dominance — so the fact that users can switch easily is really neither here nor there.
bonch 15y ago
Even the lead DOJ prosecutor who went after Microsoft in their antitrust trial thinks Google is a monopoly (http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/31/technology/microsoft_google_antitrust_case/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/31/technology/microsoft_google_...).
brg 15y ago
Any such rejection should be based on evidence. That evidence should be in terms of both ratio of query volume and ad revenue.

yanw 15y ago

I never knew he was an expert on antitrust law! At least it’s expected from the likes of him, it’s less excepted and much more disappointing when actual reporters writing for supposedly credible newspapers start speculating about the law or relying exclusively on quotes from “experts” which are paid by one interested party or the other. IANAL either but I asked one, and she thinks that any antitrust issues with Google results are little more than the product of negative PR and don't have legal merit. As for Search+ itself I think that G+ is just a foothold, this feature will become more useful and interesting when data from one’s calendar, email, voice messages, saved maps, etc be included in the mix.

chc 15y ago

Google's counterargument that Siegler rejects as "hollow" seems pretty valid to me. If these other companies choose not to give Google the data it would need to give them the same treatment, how can you say Google is dealing unfairly here? If Google offers them the same opportunity but they think the business upside of getting listed is less than the downside of sharing their data, then that's their call.

landyman 15y ago
I agree that it seems valid. I also think that Google would most definitely use that data if they had it. Google used to show live twitter results in their SERPs; but stopped when Twitter took that data away if I remember correctly.