4 ms·

Google: We're Actually Really Small

17 points by azharcs 17y ago

shiny 17y ago
This is great. They're trying to penalize a company that actually produces value, and propping up the ones that don't.
- iamelgringo 17y ago
  Isn't that what they said about Microsoft in the 90's? How is this different? Microsoft was seen as playing dirty vs Netscape when they started giving away Internet Explorer for free. And, Microsoft is still in trouble with the EU because of bundling a free media player with its OS. The argument for Microsoft was that they were "adding value". I'm not really trying to defend Microsoft's actions. I'm just curious to hear why others think that Google is different than Microsoft in this regard? Google gives almost all of its products away for free: Search, Gmail, Docs, Analytics, Calendar, etc... Some call it "adding value" others call it a monopolistic behavior. I know MSFT got into trouble because of its deals with hardware companies. But how is that different than Google building Android and bundling their apps on my G1?
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    1) "How is this different?" For one, it's not Microsoft in the 90s. 2) Who's taking legal action against Google for "Search, Gmail, Docs, Analytics, Calendar"? I'll give you three guesses. 3) What do you think is the difference between having agreements with most PC manufacturers to pre-install Windows and offering an linux distro for a few models of phones?
pierrefar 17y ago
Oh, really, Google? Google may be producing massive value, but for the most part, it's THE online ads network in terms of PPC. They're gunning for the banner ads with their DoubleClick acquisition and they're trialing CPA ads. All these are online, and in February, they exited the radio ads market: http://google-tmads.blogspot.com/2009/02/google-exits-radio-but-will-explore.html http://google-tmads.blogspot.com/2009/02/google-exits-radio-... . In terms of dollars spent on online ads, Google gets the lion's share. I've seen some reports say 90%, but I'd wager it's closer to 70-80%. So it looks like a monopoly, walks like a monopoly, and acts like a monopoly. The key question is whether they've abused this monopoly. Being a monopoly in itself is not illegal, but using a dominant market position to stifle competition is very much so. I say let's investigate and make sure there is healthy competition.
- kragen 17y ago
  You fail to address the article's primary point, which is that they're in competition with offline media for ad buyers, and in this broader market, they have <3%. I think the stuff you wrote is mostly actually in the article.
  - pierrefar 17y ago
    My point is that they're not in competition with offline media. My point is that such an assertion is absurd. As I pointed out, they're quitting offline ads. Not to mention the trend that more and more dollars are being spent online, not offline.
    - req2 17y ago
      Just because I only sell custom suits online doesn't mean I'm not in competition with people selling custom suits in brick and mortar stores with tailors and salespeople and such.
    - enomar 17y ago
      They still have TV ads (for now). And from what I understand, they pulled out of print and audio because they couldn't create a feedback loop on those formats. I'd bet anything they'll be back to audio and print when those formats become truly measurable.
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      "My point is that such an assertion is absurd." You assert that, but you don't appear to back that up with evidence or argument.
    - kragen 17y ago
      Well, it would be bad news if a medium that had only existed for a few years and had <3% of the marketplace were declining in its market share, wouldn't it? I don't know why you think the assertion is absurd. It seems like a pretty sensible assertion to me, but I don't know very much about marketing. Do you have time to share some of your marketing experience that makes it so obvious to you that online and offline ads aren't in competition? It seems like, at a minimum, online and offline advertisers are in competition. If online ads are sufficiently good at getting customers to buy from you, and your competitors are only advertising offline, then you're going to take market share away from them — and have more money to plow into online ads. If particular advertisers can shift part of their advertising spend between online and offline, that represents a more direct kind of competition between online and offline advertising.
tomjen 17y ago
Well that figures. We can't have a big corporation that actually makes money with out government help. That would just make Obama look stupid.
Semiapies 17y ago
Que bono? Sun and other companies banded together to spur the MS anti-trust investigation. I kinda wonder who's behind this. Yahoo? Microsoft?

17 points by azharcs 17y ago

shiny 17y ago

This is great. They're trying to penalize a company that actually produces value, and propping up the ones that don't.

iamelgringo 17y ago
Isn't that what they said about Microsoft in the 90's? How is this different? Microsoft was seen as playing dirty vs Netscape when they started giving away Internet Explorer for free. And, Microsoft is still in trouble with the EU because of bundling a free media player with its OS. The argument for Microsoft was that they were "adding value". I'm not really trying to defend Microsoft's actions. I'm just curious to hear why others think that Google is different than Microsoft in this regard? Google gives almost all of its products away for free: Search, Gmail, Docs, Analytics, Calendar, etc... Some call it "adding value" others call it a monopolistic behavior. I know MSFT got into trouble because of its deals with hardware companies. But how is that different than Google building Android and bundling their apps on my G1?
- Semiapies 17y ago
  1) "How is this different?" For one, it's not Microsoft in the 90s. 2) Who's taking legal action against Google for "Search, Gmail, Docs, Analytics, Calendar"? I'll give you three guesses. 3) What do you think is the difference between having agreements with most PC manufacturers to pre-install Windows and offering an linux distro for a few models of phones?

pierrefar 17y ago

Oh, really, Google? Google may be producing massive value, but for the most part, it's THE online ads network in terms of PPC. They're gunning for the banner ads with their DoubleClick acquisition and they're trialing CPA ads. All these are online, and in February, they exited the radio ads market: http://google-tmads.blogspot.com/2009/02/google-exits-radio-but-will-explore.html http://google-tmads.blogspot.com/2009/02/google-exits-radio-... . In terms of dollars spent on online ads, Google gets the lion's share. I've seen some reports say 90%, but I'd wager it's closer to 70-80%. So it looks like a monopoly, walks like a monopoly, and acts like a monopoly. The key question is whether they've abused this monopoly. Being a monopoly in itself is not illegal, but using a dominant market position to stifle competition is very much so. I say let's investigate and make sure there is healthy competition.

kragen 17y ago
You fail to address the article's primary point, which is that they're in competition with offline media for ad buyers, and in this broader market, they have <3%. I think the stuff you wrote is mostly actually in the article.
- pierrefar 17y ago
  My point is that they're not in competition with offline media. My point is that such an assertion is absurd. As I pointed out, they're quitting offline ads. Not to mention the trend that more and more dollars are being spent online, not offline.
  - req2 17y ago
    Just because I only sell custom suits online doesn't mean I'm not in competition with people selling custom suits in brick and mortar stores with tailors and salespeople and such.
  - enomar 17y ago
    They still have TV ads (for now). And from what I understand, they pulled out of print and audio because they couldn't create a feedback loop on those formats. I'd bet anything they'll be back to audio and print when those formats become truly measurable.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    "My point is that such an assertion is absurd." You assert that, but you don't appear to back that up with evidence or argument.
  - kragen 17y ago
    Well, it would be bad news if a medium that had only existed for a few years and had <3% of the marketplace were declining in its market share, wouldn't it? I don't know why you think the assertion is absurd. It seems like a pretty sensible assertion to me, but I don't know very much about marketing. Do you have time to share some of your marketing experience that makes it so obvious to you that online and offline ads aren't in competition? It seems like, at a minimum, online and offline advertisers are in competition. If online ads are sufficiently good at getting customers to buy from you, and your competitors are only advertising offline, then you're going to take market share away from them — and have more money to plow into online ads. If particular advertisers can shift part of their advertising spend between online and offline, that represents a more direct kind of competition between online and offline advertising.

tomjen 17y ago

Well that figures. We can't have a big corporation that actually makes money with out government help. That would just make Obama look stupid.

Semiapies 17y ago

Que bono? Sun and other companies banded together to spur the MS anti-trust investigation. I kinda wonder who's behind this. Yahoo? Microsoft?