4 ms·
Why is it that so many people misunderstand monopoly/anti-trust? This isn't about search or pagerank, because having a monopoly is generally not illegal. It doe
by pdkl95 12y ago
Why is it that so many people misunderstand monopoly/anti-trust? This isn't about search or pagerank, because having a monopoly is generally not illegal. It doesn't matter what the future of the search market might be or the ease in which customers can switch to a different search service. The complaint, according to the article, is:
"...accusation being that it uses this closed code
to promote its own products ahead of rivals.“
Search only matters in how it might be a tool that can be abused to gain influence in other, not-search markets.
Being a monopoly is usually legal. Monopoly status simply means new laws apply relating to how that power is used. Google is patently a search monopoly right now, so France is well within their right to accuse them of abusing that power to take over other markets. Some sort of trial will determine if those charges are true or not.
What is obvious - regardless of the outcome or politics surrounding France's legal action - is that the exact nature of how Google's search algorithms work is the exact evidence needed to properly judge how Google's search service (via the algorithm it relies upon) is unfairly interfering with the markets that Google may also be participating in.
- somerandomness 12y ago> Google is patently a search monopoly right now No. Bing is a click away and provides comparable results. A monopoly occurs when the consumer has no choice but the monopolist. That's clearly not the case here.
- pdkl95 12y agoThis is exactly the misunderstanding of antitrust laws that I was talking about. Contrary to popular belief, this is not about how much of the market a given business. Monopoly starts to be covered by the antitrust acts when "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market"[1]. Controlling a very large percentage of the market is merely one of the easier ways to demonstrate the existence of that power. [1] United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
- asher_ 12y agoPlease explain. The suggestion that Google has "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market" in the search market is clearly false. Google's search product is free. Are you suggesting Google could start charging for search without a significant loss of market share?
- danieldk 12y agoAdvertisements. It's no use advertising on other search engines if nearly no one uses that. The market is probably changing now that Facebook is now also interesting for ads, but there was definitely a period where internet advertising meant Google Ads. Of course, asking to disclose Google's search algorithm borderlines insanity.
- tomjen3 12y agoGoogle had a super majority of the search market, but not really of the ad market.
- ryanhuff 12y agoWhy is it insanity? Is that France's problem? (Asking for argument sake)
- cheald 12y agoBut there are certainly plenty of non-Google places and means to advertise. Google could raise prices on AdWords across the board and advertisers would have plenty of alternative means through which to hawk their wares.
- ryanhuff 12y agoWouldn't you agree that the ad market via search is much different than the overall web ad market, especially when 90% of users (in some markets) go through search to find things?
- Perdition 12y agoYou are forgetting that Google effectively has two groups of "consumers". Ordinary users who use their products, and companies that advertise using Google's products. Even if ordinary users can switch to Bing the advertisers can't shift so easily as they aren't concerned about accuracy of search results but about the potential market size.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]