Linked by David Adams on Thu 25th Feb 2010 04:19 UTC
Google My colleague Thom wrote an excellent evaluation of the European antitrust investigation of Google yesterday. I agree with much of what Thom says in his article, including the statements that the investigation isn't surprising and that it's fishy that the complaining companies have ties to Microsoft. What I don't agree with is the offhanded comment that Google has "pretty much a monopoly in search." There was a lively discussion on this point in the comments, but I thought that rather than join the fray there, I'd exercise my monopoly power and put my thoughts into an editorial.
Permalink for comment 410968
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Disagree
by ahmetaa on Thu 25th Feb 2010 10:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Disagree"
ahmetaa
Member since:
2005-07-06


It indeed is. I'm a little perplexed how you managed to get there from my comment.

I'm saying that in order to be a monopoly, you need to have a significant share of the market, and there need to be significant barriers to entry for other players. What I tried to explain was that barriers to entry need not be artificial or illegal.

That's all.

Uhm, in the end, it were the web developers who coded for IE6 alone. Microsoft sure played a part in that, but the developers carry most of the blame for not writing proper, browser-independent code.


Becaue google's case is about technology. There indeed is a barrier but it is not as steep to be considered as a monopolistic item. Google's technologies for search such as infrastructure and algorithms are better. But it has not stopped others to enter the market. There is no monopolistic behavior either. There are valid alternatives for search easily accessible. Sure if you want to enter search market using a server in your backyard, you can cry all day for monopolies and the barriesrs.

For the IE subject, Do not blame the developers. MS wanted this, did this deliberately, as they tried the same for other things. (Java etc).

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f1700/1762.htm#8

Edited 2010-02-25 10:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2