5 ms·

Quick (and perhaps stupid) question; how is Google a monopoly? There are other alternatives to search available. If people really wanted to, they could use Bin

Quick (and perhaps stupid) question; how is Google a monopoly? There are other alternatives to search available. If people really wanted to, they could use Bing. It's not like Google is using some horrendous anti-competitive practices to prevent other search engines from gaining market share. Two characteristics of monopolies (as per wikipedia) are "High barriers" and "Single seller" both of which don't apply to Google in my opinion. Google does have an absurd market share but that's mostly due to a good product. Why should they be punished for producing a quality product? Some of the complaints listed in the article don't even make sense to me. Why is it a problem that Google has exclusivity to sell advertising on its own website? It's their website!

anon1385 12y ago
What is the alternative to Google Adwords, that has anything like the same reach?
kaolinite 12y ago
Google isn't a monopoly for the users of the search engine - you're right, they can move to whichever search engine they like - many which are almost or as good as Google. The problem is for advertisers and website owners. If you are advertising on search engines and you don't have your adverts on Google, you're missing out on 90% of users. That's why they're a monopoly. Moving your adverts to Bing just isn't an alternative.
- xtrumanx 12y ago
  True but those users aren't stuck on Google and can easily move on to Google. Also why have you restricted yourself to advertising on search engines? It's like complaining that if I'm advertising on basketball games and I don't have my adverts on NBA games then I'm missing out on 90% of people who watch basketball games. Should we break up the NBA? By the way, I don't mean to be argumentative. The closest reason I could comprehend is the abuse angle mentioned by tomp but I don't really see Google as being abusive as compared to say a corporation who has complete control of a natural resource and begins to set prices extremely high. Google has Search, Valve has Steam, Apple has the App Store. They developed these products, have a extremely large market share and are reaping the rewards of developing a successful product. That on its own doesn't make them a monopoly worth breaking up.
  - kaolinite 12y ago
    This is nothing to do with the users. The entire reason this has come up is because Google is allegedly using their monopoly to place their products above the products of other companies. Users aren't locked in but website-owners/advertisers are. This is a problem they can't get away from, switching provider just isn't an option. Your NBA example doesn't really work because it's missing the abuse of power (not really sure how you could alter the analogy to fit). Talking of the App Store, if Apple had 90% of the marketshare and then started altering search results so that when you search for, say, "Microsoft Word" the first result is "Pages" instead, I'm sure the EU would have something to say about that, too. (I actually think that Apple is probably overall quite pleased that it doesn't have majority marketshare as it gives it a lot more flexibility.) By the way, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with breaking up Google but I can understand why the EU is considering this.
    - xtrumanx 12y ago
      I think I've figured out the reason I don't see this the way you do; I believe Apple has the right to alter the search results of their App Store because it's their freaking store. Guess the only solution to this problem is to have some sort of legislation decreeing whether the Google's actions is legal or illegal.
      - kaolinite 12y ago
        I actually lean more towards your way of thinking - I'm just trying to explain how the EU feels and why they're doing it.
tomp 12y ago
Nobody is complaining that Google is a monopoly/has a huge market share in search. The problem is that they're (ab)using their monopoly in search to boost the market share of their other services. Is Google Maps really that better than OpenStreetMap or Apple Maps or Bing Maps, or do people just use it because it's a default result in Google?
- xtrumanx 12y ago
  That sounds like a good point on the surface but then I wonder why shouldn't Google have a right to order their search results however they wish. Isn't every search results listing ordered based on essentially Google's opinion anyways?
- Shooti 12y ago
  >Is Google Maps really that better than OpenStreetMap or Apple Maps or Bing Maps, or do people just use it because it's a default result in Google? I think its more nuanced: In-line maps are a better search result to location queries than a plain blue link, but to some degree the only way to offer that UX is to control that functionality from the ground up. Explicit integration comes with reliability/speed/technical costs while implicit integration comes with fair use/scraping costs. While search boosts the integrated properties (Maps, News, Finance etc) much of the value to Google may actually be the reverse: integrated verticals give people less reason to switch away from Google's generalized Search to more specialized, domain-specific search engine. There's an argument to be made that there's utility in a Jack-of-all trades engine.

anon1385 12y ago

What is the alternative to Google Adwords, that has anything like the same reach?

kaolinite 12y ago

Google isn't a monopoly for the users of the search engine - you're right, they can move to whichever search engine they like - many which are almost or as good as Google. The problem is for advertisers and website owners. If you are advertising on search engines and you don't have your adverts on Google, you're missing out on 90% of users. That's why they're a monopoly. Moving your adverts to Bing just isn't an alternative.

xtrumanx 12y ago
True but those users aren't stuck on Google and can easily move on to Google. Also why have you restricted yourself to advertising on search engines? It's like complaining that if I'm advertising on basketball games and I don't have my adverts on NBA games then I'm missing out on 90% of people who watch basketball games. Should we break up the NBA? By the way, I don't mean to be argumentative. The closest reason I could comprehend is the abuse angle mentioned by tomp but I don't really see Google as being abusive as compared to say a corporation who has complete control of a natural resource and begins to set prices extremely high. Google has Search, Valve has Steam, Apple has the App Store. They developed these products, have a extremely large market share and are reaping the rewards of developing a successful product. That on its own doesn't make them a monopoly worth breaking up.
- kaolinite 12y ago
  This is nothing to do with the users. The entire reason this has come up is because Google is allegedly using their monopoly to place their products above the products of other companies. Users aren't locked in but website-owners/advertisers are. This is a problem they can't get away from, switching provider just isn't an option. Your NBA example doesn't really work because it's missing the abuse of power (not really sure how you could alter the analogy to fit). Talking of the App Store, if Apple had 90% of the marketshare and then started altering search results so that when you search for, say, "Microsoft Word" the first result is "Pages" instead, I'm sure the EU would have something to say about that, too. (I actually think that Apple is probably overall quite pleased that it doesn't have majority marketshare as it gives it a lot more flexibility.) By the way, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with breaking up Google but I can understand why the EU is considering this.
  - xtrumanx 12y ago
    I think I've figured out the reason I don't see this the way you do; I believe Apple has the right to alter the search results of their App Store because it's their freaking store. Guess the only solution to this problem is to have some sort of legislation decreeing whether the Google's actions is legal or illegal.
    - kaolinite 12y ago
      I actually lean more towards your way of thinking - I'm just trying to explain how the EU feels and why they're doing it.

tomp 12y ago

Nobody is complaining that Google is a monopoly/has a huge market share in search. The problem is that they're (ab)using their monopoly in search to boost the market share of their other services. Is Google Maps really that better than OpenStreetMap or Apple Maps or Bing Maps, or do people just use it because it's a default result in Google?

xtrumanx 12y ago
That sounds like a good point on the surface but then I wonder why shouldn't Google have a right to order their search results however they wish. Isn't every search results listing ordered based on essentially Google's opinion anyways?
Shooti 12y ago
>Is Google Maps really that better than OpenStreetMap or Apple Maps or Bing Maps, or do people just use it because it's a default result in Google? I think its more nuanced: In-line maps are a better search result to location queries than a plain blue link, but to some degree the only way to offer that UX is to control that functionality from the ground up. Explicit integration comes with reliability/speed/technical costs while implicit integration comes with fair use/scraping costs. While search boosts the integrated properties (Maps, News, Finance etc) much of the value to Google may actually be the reverse: integrated verticals give people less reason to switch away from Google's generalized Search to more specialized, domain-specific search engine. There's an argument to be made that there's utility in a Jack-of-all trades engine.