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.
Thread beginning with comment 410962
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Disagree
by ahmetaa on Thu 25th Feb 2010 09:59 UTC in reply to "Disagree"
ahmetaa
Member since:
2005-07-06

I obviously disagree with this.


... This idea is wrong: even perfectly legal barriers to entry, such as the technical superiority Google undoubtedly has over its competitors, is a barrier to entry. The mindshare among people is a barrier to entry. The sheer imposing popularity of Google is a barrier to entry.
.....

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


So you are saying "you are technologically advanced so your products are better, therefore you are a monopoly". i disagree with you because it is nonsense.

But What happened to MS about IE was also wrong. MS should have been punished because they delibreately abused their marketshare by making web software works only in their browser-OS, not because you cannot uninstall the browser form the OS.

Edited 2010-02-25 10:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Disagree
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 25th Feb 2010 10:05 in reply to "RE: Disagree"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So you are saying "you are technologically advanced your so products are better, therefore you are a monopoly". i disagree with you because it is nonsense.


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.

MS should have been punished because they delibreately abused their marketshare by making web software works only in their browser-OS, not because you cannot uninstall the browser form the OS.


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.

Edited 2010-02-25 10:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Disagree
by ahmetaa on Thu 25th Feb 2010 10:31 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

RE[3]: Disagree
by NeoX on Thu 25th Feb 2010 18:50 in reply to "RE[2]: Disagree"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19


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.


Exactly right. The web developers made a choice to limit their sites to IE6. You cannot blame MS for this as there were alternative browsers when IE6 was released. And still to this day many corporations require IE6 on the desktop to work with their web apps. None if this had to work this way it could have all been coded with web standards and zero ActiveX controls, at least in most cases.

Reply Parent Score: 1