8 ms·

Krugman is completely over-generalizing here. The economic argument would have been sound, save for one detail - Search is massively profitable, and so are Goog

Krugman is completely over-generalizing here. The economic argument would have been sound, save for one detail - Search is massively profitable, and so are Google's core businesses, which is to say advertising. Their Google Apps, App Engine and related services are also very much commercial and face stiff competition. Hell, even search is highly contested, though Google has been able to stay ahead of this one. Google Reader had a massive user base when compared to other RSS readers, but it's hardly a monopoly. I'd understand the uproar if it was the ONLY RSS reader to ever exist, and ever to be possible. There are alternatives. The very definition of monopoly is that you do not have a choice. Remember the old Bell system? Now that was a monopoly. (It used to be illegal to plug in phones not bought from the phone company.)

alanctgardner2 14y ago
This is my point; something like a municipal bus system has very high barriers to entry, even without a government-created monopoly. This extends to operating costs, specialized equipment, union negotiations, etc. Google was operating in a space with lots of players, they just happened to have large market share. They weren't doing anything anticompetitive, and there wasn't any barrier to entry beyond 'You have to do it better than Google, and get your name out there'.
fkdjs 14y ago
Not only that, but it takes <1s to type in feedly.com, and lo and behold, a competitor. Not only that, but the site reveals an android app you can download. Any decent monopolist would have never allowed that. Krugman should really do some research on what monopolists do, starting off with Standard Oil. The internet is a highly competitive environment.