5 ms·

> 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 b

> 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 11y ago
This 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_ 11y ago
  Please 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 11y ago
    Advertisements. 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 11y ago
      Google had a super majority of the search market, but not really of the ad market.
    - ryanhuff 11y ago
      Why is it insanity? Is that France's problem? (Asking for argument sake)
    - cheald 11y ago
      But 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 11y ago
        Wouldn'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?
        cheald 11y ago
        No, I don't really think I would. Search is a great place to capture consumer intent, but it's hardly the only one. Advertising dollars are finite, and Google absolutely competes against non-search advertising publishers for its piece of that pie. Why do you think they run the AdSense program? Even if it were a different market, Google doesn't hold a monopoly on it by a long shot. Bing is over 20% of search volume in the US, and Yahoo holds another 13%. Searching for products on either of those will return results for relevant advertisers; the simple fact that they have paid ads to run is an empirical contradiction to claims of a search advertising monopoly (or is empirical proof that a large number of very successful companies are economically irrational and are throwing money down a money hole, but that seems highly improbable).
  - ryanhuff 11y ago
    Google gets paid by advertisers, not the people who use their services for free.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    The problem is you're still thinking only about search. Again, antitrust regulations are about using a monopoly position in one market to affe4ct a different market. A hypothetical situation would Google using their monopoly position in the search market to manipulate the results of anybody searching about domain names so Googles registry service is show instead of the various other registries. By abusing their position in the search market, Google would be able to raise their price for a domain name registration. Their search services would remain untouched, or possibly subsidized with the new DNS-registry profits.
Perdition 11y ago
You 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.

pdkl95 11y ago

This 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_ 11y ago
Please 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 11y ago
  Advertisements. 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 11y ago
    Google had a super majority of the search market, but not really of the ad market.
  - ryanhuff 11y ago
    Why is it insanity? Is that France's problem? (Asking for argument sake)
  - cheald 11y ago
    But 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 11y ago
      Wouldn'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?
      - cheald 11y ago
        No, I don't really think I would. Search is a great place to capture consumer intent, but it's hardly the only one. Advertising dollars are finite, and Google absolutely competes against non-search advertising publishers for its piece of that pie. Why do you think they run the AdSense program? Even if it were a different market, Google doesn't hold a monopoly on it by a long shot. Bing is over 20% of search volume in the US, and Yahoo holds another 13%. Searching for products on either of those will return results for relevant advertisers; the simple fact that they have paid ads to run is an empirical contradiction to claims of a search advertising monopoly (or is empirical proof that a large number of very successful companies are economically irrational and are throwing money down a money hole, but that seems highly improbable).
- ryanhuff 11y ago
  Google gets paid by advertisers, not the people who use their services for free.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  The problem is you're still thinking only about search. Again, antitrust regulations are about using a monopoly position in one market to affe4ct a different market. A hypothetical situation would Google using their monopoly position in the search market to manipulate the results of anybody searching about domain names so Googles registry service is show instead of the various other registries. By abusing their position in the search market, Google would be able to raise their price for a domain name registration. Their search services would remain untouched, or possibly subsidized with the new DNS-registry profits.

Perdition 11y ago

You 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.