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 411072
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Disagree
by bile on Thu 25th Feb 2010 20:50 UTC in reply to "Disagree"
Member since:

Huge majority marketshare? Check. Barriers to entry? Check. Yup, sounds like a monopoly to me.

Mono, one. Google is in no way a monopoly in their field. There are plenty of competitors.

Your description of barriers to entry are so vague as to be completely meaningless as it covers everything. Having to compete is not a barrier to entry. Having to find customers and advertise is not a barrier to entry. Outside government interventions anyone can enter... but success is found by providing the service that people want. If you can't break in... you obviously weren't providing a good enough service. Google utilizing their success as a means to enter other fields is a *good* thing. They build up capital because they are successful at giving customers what they desire.

Monopolies don't exist outside government intervention and aggregation of market share results from the same. Competition keeps only those who provide the best products in business. It's government not Google who raise barriers. Get rid of the FCC and allow wireless competition. Get rid of municipal monopolies on phone and cable.

Stop utilizing government to limit competition and you won't get artificial monopolies. It's the economically ignorant who always seem to advocate the very things that cause the things they wish to prevent.

Reply Parent Score: 1