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 313596
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[8]: I note the irony of google complaining about com
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 9th May 2008 14:16
in reply to "RE[7]: I note the irony of google complaining about com"
Member since:2005-06-29
It's not about fighting, it's about using the proper terminology. Google_ninja stated that Google are a monopoly, and you said they weren't, because they do not abuse their position. I replied stating that abuse-or-not is irrelevant to the question whether somebody has a monopoly or not.
There's nothing about fighting in there. I'm just trying to explain that a company can hold a monopoly without abusing that position. That's all.
RE[9]: I note the irony of google complaining about com
by sbergman27 on Fri 9th May 2008 14:57
in reply to "RE[8]: I note the irony of google complaining about com"
Member since:2005-07-24
Google_ninja stated that Google are a monopoly, and you said they weren't, because they do not abuse their position.
Perhaps this is part of the confusion. I did not state (or mean) that Google is not a monopoly because they do not abuse their position. I stated that I do not believe they are because, due to the nature of the online search business, as opposed to the desktop operating system busininess, the barrier to entry for competitors is no higher than simply doing a comparable job at online search. Those a very different things.
If, e.g. Microsoft did not abuse their monopoly powers, I would still consider them a desktop monopoly due to the fact (or my opinion, if you will) that a competitor's having a superior product at a comparable price is not sufficient to dislodge them.
(Note: I would prefer not to go off on a tangent arguing about MS in a Google thread, but MS is the salient example that comes to mind to illustrate my point.)
Edited 2008-05-09 15:01 UTC
Member since:
2005-07-24
But I *am* saying so. I thought that my original post was clear enough when I posted it. Your post alerted me to the fact that not everyone defines monopoly in the same way, so I clarified my intent.
If I may make an observation... sometimes it seems that no matter how careful one tries to be in posting here on OSNews, somebody always wants to turn it into a fight. I don't see the utility in that. I know that you say that you don't really care, but the tone of your words suggests otherwise. Or perhaps I am just misinterpreting the tone.
Edited 2008-05-09 14:10 UTC