Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th May 2008 11:11 UTC
Last week, when Microsoft's attempt at buying Yahoo stranded, Steve Ballmer specifically mentioned Google, and how a possible deal between Google and Yahoo would limit choice and competition in the marketplace. Google explained yesterday how it would fend off possible antritrust concerns following an ad-sharing deal with Yahoo. In addtion, Google noted the irony in Microsoft's complaints.
Thread beginning with comment 313587
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: I note the irony of google complaining about com
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 9th May 2008 13:29
in reply to "RE[3]: I note the irony of google complaining about com"
Member since:2005-06-29
Rather than focusing on definitions, and whether Google is or is not a monopoly as a matter of academics, perhaps we should focus on the same thing that anti-trust laws are supposed to: pr...
That's all great, fine, and dandy, but that's irrelevant. You said Google is not a monopoly, and I said that if their share of the market is large enough, they are a monopoly, whether they abuse that position or not. I just read their share is 53.6%, so I think that technically makes them a monopoly.
You may start talking about anti-trust and abuse and such, but that has nothing to do with being a monopoly or not. It has to do with abusing said monopoly.
RE[5]: I note the irony of google complaining about com
by sbergman27 on Fri 9th May 2008 13:48
in reply to "RE[4]: I note the irony of google complaining about com"
Member since:2005-07-24
I thinkThat's all great, fine, and dandy, but that's irrelevant. You said Google is not a monopoly,
Thom,
I suspect that you are misunderstanding me. The definition of monopoly which I find most useful regards barrier to entry to other players and other things relevant to preservation of competition. (These, more than market share, seemed to be the things that Thomas Penfield Jackson was interested in duing DOJ et.al. vs Microsoft.) If you prefer another definition, that is fine with me. I don't really care that much about hammering out the definition of monopoly. I do care about whether Google's position is anti-competitive or not. I do not see evidence that it is.
It is possible that I am reading too much into google_ninja's post. But I read it as implying that Google has employed anti-competitive practices in the search market, and/or abused its market position. Those would be positions with which I would disagree.
Edited 2008-05-09 13:56 UTC
RE[5]: I note the irony of google complaining about com
by Soulbender on Fri 9th May 2008 15:00
in reply to "RE[4]: I note the irony of google complaining about com"
Member since:2005-08-18
they are a monopoly
No they are not. Your professor was either wrong or the dutch have a very different view on monopoly than everyone else.
You are confusing the political term with the economic. There are no artificial barriers favouring Google for entering the search business and there is no lack of substitute goods.
Equaling large market share to a monopoly is a political thing but it no more makes Google a monopoly than it makes you gay just because I say you are.
and I note the irony of Microsoft and their apologists
by rlewczuk on Fri 9th May 2008 15:34
in reply to "RE[4]: I note the irony of google complaining about com"
Member since:2006-05-04
I just read their share is 53.6%, so I think that technically makes them a monopoly.
I'd rather let Yahoo run with Google ads than let Microsoft have some about 500 milion public e-mail accounts, two mostly trafficked portals in the Internet, >80% dominance in desktop OS market and >70% dominance in web browser market all together. I suppose that Yahoo and Hotmail combined is more than 50% of all public accounts worldwide. So, this is ALSO a monopoly by your definition, with significantly higher entry barriers (or rather: exit barriers) and with more potential to lock-in.
You may start talking about anti-trust and abuse and such, but that has nothing to do with being a monopoly or not. It has to do with abusing said monopoly.
I don't care if someone has monopoly on something. I do care if I suffer of this. Given past "fair" business practices I'd rather trust Google than MS if I had only these two choices.
RE[5]: I note the irony of google complaining about com
by littleli on Fri 9th May 2008 20:30
in reply to "RE[4]: I note the irony of google complaining about com"
Member since:2008-05-09
You cannot interchange easily market dominance and monopoly. These terms are of different meanings. FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_and_monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(economics)
Edited 2008-05-09 20:35 UTC
Member since:
2005-07-24
Rather than focusing on definitions, and whether Google is or is not a monopoly as a matter of academics, perhaps we should focus on the same thing that anti-trust laws are supposed to: protecting the consumer through preserving market competition. In what way does Google's success threaten competition, and thus the consumer? There are no artificial barriers to entry for other players, beyond having the resources to put an infrastructure into place which is massive and well designed enough to challenge Google for speed, ease of use, and quality. To me, that's just good competition, and not a violation of anti-trust laws, in either letter or spirit. Not just anyone could challenge them, of course, in the same way that you or I would have a problem challenging Ford Motor Co. But money and brand recognition are what it takes to try, and Microsoft, e.g., has plenty of both of those. Note that I say that those things are enough to try. If they are not backed up by a superior search service, they will not dislodge the #1 player. And that is what has been the case, thus far, in the search market.