Ask HN: If Google is a monopoly, should we be doing anything about it?
21 コメント
As far as I understand, the legality of a monopoly depends on whether it takes anticompetitive actions. Microsoft wasn't put down just for being big -- it was put down for including Internet Explorer into operating system, thus using an unfair advantage to promote its monopoly.
And how do we know that Google isn't taking anti-competitive actions?
Usually these cases start when a would-be competitor accuses the monopolist of taking anti-competitive actions. First step would be to review these accusations, if they exists.
Speculating whether they "might do something" without specifics seems fruitless.
The 1999 "Findings of Facts" in the US vs MS case should give a good idea of what is needed. It is quite readable, written in plain language, and totally ignored by the pundits who commented the case at the time.
A copy can be found here: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~richard/findfact.html
Speculating whether they "might do something" without specifics seems fruitless.
The 1999 "Findings of Facts" in the US vs MS case should give a good idea of what is needed. It is quite readable, written in plain language, and totally ignored by the pundits who commented the case at the time.
A copy can be found here: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~richard/findfact.html
If we want to accuse Google of taking anti-competitive actions, we have to at least decide what those actions are.
It'd have to be something like AdSense click-thru rates affecting search positions.
If there was a causation, then if you want higher SERPs, you'd need to use AdSense over competing ad providers. Essentially, using their monopoly in Search to be anti-competitive in text-ads.
I wonder if anybody has done such a test already...
If there was a causation, then if you want higher SERPs, you'd need to use AdSense over competing ad providers. Essentially, using their monopoly in Search to be anti-competitive in text-ads.
I wonder if anybody has done such a test already...
Subsidizing Mozilla to be the default search engine in firefox ?
If they are they're certainly being discreet about it. Microsoft was obviously anti-competitive in the 90's. The Windows/IE bundling thing was only a small part of it.
All of their software was designed to lock you in. It could sometimes be difficult to use a Microsoft product without having to use others. It can be a hassle to buy a new PC without Windows, but you couldn't do it at all back then. After the OS/2 fiasco they screwed IBM on Windows 95 pricing. Other OEM's were getting it for a few bucks and IBM had to pay retail initially.
It does concern me when one company dominates a market the way Google does and I think we need to keep a very close eye on them, but I don't see anything anti-competitive about what they're doing yet. In fact, they typically go out of their way to be open to the point where some of their applications allow you to move your data to a competitor's application.
That said, Microsoft, just like Google now, built their monopoly with a better product. It wasn't until much later that they became slimy.
All of their software was designed to lock you in. It could sometimes be difficult to use a Microsoft product without having to use others. It can be a hassle to buy a new PC without Windows, but you couldn't do it at all back then. After the OS/2 fiasco they screwed IBM on Windows 95 pricing. Other OEM's were getting it for a few bucks and IBM had to pay retail initially.
It does concern me when one company dominates a market the way Google does and I think we need to keep a very close eye on them, but I don't see anything anti-competitive about what they're doing yet. In fact, they typically go out of their way to be open to the point where some of their applications allow you to move your data to a competitor's application.
That said, Microsoft, just like Google now, built their monopoly with a better product. It wasn't until much later that they became slimy.
Speaking of moving my data, is there a way for me to migrate out of Gmail? I read an interview (Playboy interview with the Google founders - http://kottke.org/plus/misc/google-playboy.html) where Larry Page specifically said:
'For example, we just released Gmail, a free e-mail service. We said, “We will not hold your e-mail hostage.” We will make it possible for you to get your e-mail out of Gmail if you ever want to.'
But I haven't actually figured out how to do that yet. Does anyone know?
'For example, we just released Gmail, a free e-mail service. We said, “We will not hold your e-mail hostage.” We will make it possible for you to get your e-mail out of Gmail if you ever want to.'
But I haven't actually figured out how to do that yet. Does anyone know?
Yeah, just setup the pop3 account and download it. I think you export your contacts as vcards - even if not most of your contacts should be right there in your email.
I fire up thunderbird everyonce in a while to basically backup my emails because of those horror stories of people losing all their email or even access to the account
I fire up thunderbird everyonce in a while to basically backup my emails because of those horror stories of people losing all their email or even access to the account
Cool, thanks.
I extracted every email from Gmail a while back. It took a few hours, but now I have local backups. I just used imap and moved things to a local imap server.
gmail has pop and imap. what more do you want
You try to compete with them and see what happens...
If you are aware of some, point them out. In Microsoft's case, they are known, proven and verifiable.
Once thing I noticed is that adwords tightly integrates with analytics but not much else. Thus, google is using their monopoly in adwords to prop up analytics - an illegal practice at least at the first glance.
Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Law
The thing is that where Live search is crap (really awful) Google gives good, solid, results.
It's hard to justify calling them a monopoly based on the market share when compared to lesser services....(not that I am disagreeing they could be a monopoly)
That market share comes from a combination of amazing brand value and from them, generally, being nice to users and giving us what we want... again I think it is hard to penalise a company for doing things right.
Having said that I think their acquisitions should be curbed somewhat.
It's hard to justify calling them a monopoly based on the market share when compared to lesser services....(not that I am disagreeing they could be a monopoly)
That market share comes from a combination of amazing brand value and from them, generally, being nice to users and giving us what we want... again I think it is hard to penalise a company for doing things right.
Having said that I think their acquisitions should be curbed somewhat.
Google's search engine is part of an entire class of pseudo-monopolies which arise in fields where all but one of the participants simply insist on sucking. Apple's iPod is another.
Normally when we talk about monopolies being inefficient or "shaft[ing] the end user" we are concerned with the monopoly raising price and restricting quantity. Search engines do not (generally) charge a direct price, but they do implicitly charge a price in the form of ads on the page. If Google decides to blanket their search results with many more ads than they currently do, I have no problem switching to a competitor. Lots of other people will switch too.
There are conceivably other ways that Google could indirectly raise prices on consumers, but realistically it is a huge waste of money to prosecute a company that gives stuff out for free. Furthermore, threatening such action poisons the business environment by making investment more risky. It is a terrible idea.
There are conceivably other ways that Google could indirectly raise prices on consumers, but realistically it is a huge waste of money to prosecute a company that gives stuff out for free. Furthermore, threatening such action poisons the business environment by making investment more risky. It is a terrible idea.
I think the main problem here is not if Google is a monopoly at this very moment. But when you consider the speed with which they acquire new data from virtually every area where a lot of information exists, you have to ask yourself, how dangerous can it be, if they at some point in the future decide: "Hey, lets just kick the don't-be-evil nonsense and start making more money."
Of course something like that would have legal consequences, but regardless of that, Google could totally change the web within a day if they wanted to. For all the good they are doing, I think it is absolutely vital to always consider where the whole thing might be headed sometime in the future.
Just some problematic examples:
1) Like last week, something broke at Google, a good part of the web was non-usable because of embedded analytics code and so on. In the future this could just mean, that any downtime of Google would have implications alike to when your ISP is down.
2) Thanks to analytics and their own various services, they must have user-data that is beyond any imagination. Like a whole shopping history nicely matched to your email and health problems. That is just scary.
So, I think the real question is not whether Google is a monopoly, but more like 'How scary could a Google-monopoly be?'
What do you think?
Of course something like that would have legal consequences, but regardless of that, Google could totally change the web within a day if they wanted to. For all the good they are doing, I think it is absolutely vital to always consider where the whole thing might be headed sometime in the future.
Just some problematic examples:
1) Like last week, something broke at Google, a good part of the web was non-usable because of embedded analytics code and so on. In the future this could just mean, that any downtime of Google would have implications alike to when your ISP is down.
2) Thanks to analytics and their own various services, they must have user-data that is beyond any imagination. Like a whole shopping history nicely matched to your email and health problems. That is just scary.
So, I think the real question is not whether Google is a monopoly, but more like 'How scary could a Google-monopoly be?'
What do you think?
The Economist had a story about tech monopolies recently, which made for interesting reading.
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13610959
It's a difficult problem, and there is likely to be a diversity of opinion here, from the libertarian "let them do whatever they want" to some on the other side advocating lots of government involvement.
The problem isn't really search in terms of end users, it's twofold:
* Search in terms of people/businesses being searched for: if Google removes you from their index, you are screwed.
* Online advertising. There are already a number of stories about people getting cut off for no reason at all (at least none that was made public), which is potentially scary if there are no alternatives and you depend on them.
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13610959
It's a difficult problem, and there is likely to be a diversity of opinion here, from the libertarian "let them do whatever they want" to some on the other side advocating lots of government involvement.
The problem isn't really search in terms of end users, it's twofold:
* Search in terms of people/businesses being searched for: if Google removes you from their index, you are screwed.
* Online advertising. There are already a number of stories about people getting cut off for no reason at all (at least none that was made public), which is potentially scary if there are no alternatives and you depend on them.
Well, first because google gives a lot for "free" to its users, from gmail, to docs, search, etc.
We know there is a price (ads, information sharing, etc), but the perception is always that they are good and cool.
--dd
We know there is a price (ads, information sharing, etc), but the perception is always that they are good and cool.
--dd
Interesting discussion, thanks for all your input.
But let me put a spin on it:
Should we in some way help Google (and others) to ensure the internet doesnt 'go down'? (perhaps oversimplifying)
This is assuming (I think correctly) that the internet is crucial in todays economy and that if Google (or other) goes down it will have strateguc economic impact.
For example, having special international oversight group, massive backup/resillience scenarios, etc.
Just a thought.
But let me put a spin on it:
Should we in some way help Google (and others) to ensure the internet doesnt 'go down'? (perhaps oversimplifying)
This is assuming (I think correctly) that the internet is crucial in todays economy and that if Google (or other) goes down it will have strateguc economic impact.
For example, having special international oversight group, massive backup/resillience scenarios, etc.
Just a thought.
"Do not use Google's products or services when you can avoid it" is probably a reasonable guideline if one is concerned? A milder version would be "try to distribute your services between different providers."
The question to ask is not so much whether they are a monopoly, but "what if Google went down for a couple days?" Quite a few people would be completely and utterly screwed.
The question to ask is not so much whether they are a monopoly, but "what if Google went down for a couple days?" Quite a few people would be completely and utterly screwed.
Google may have a monopoly on search, however, it hasn't come to that monopoly via anticompetitive actions, as far as we know. At least, no one has reported on any. Furthermore, as I think Gruber pointed out not too long ago, Google isn't selling search, it's selling advertising.
I'm happy that Google is a monopoly or MS is a monopoly if they provide good results. The bigger they are, the better results they'll give.
if you are afraid, read their privacy policy and terms of use, if you are ok with them.. then what's wrong?
if you are afraid, read their privacy policy and terms of use, if you are ok with them.. then what's wrong?
No - Antitrust law is fundamentally immoral. There is no way for you to know whether or not you're in violation of it. It is merely a way for those who are not successful to drag others down.
Make a better algorithm?
Google is benign. I have no objection to their being a monopoly.
Is eBay?
eBay is losing its monopoly due to lameness.
Also, Froogle is a definite eBay competitor, and Google lists brand new products, too.
You used to be able to buy old hardware cheap off eBay, but their stupid fees have ruined buying cheap stuff.
Also older eBay stuff seems to break down quite quickly these days.
Also, Froogle is a definite eBay competitor, and Google lists brand new products, too.
You used to be able to buy old hardware cheap off eBay, but their stupid fees have ruined buying cheap stuff.
Also older eBay stuff seems to break down quite quickly these days.
Surely eBay has a far higher market share of "Online auctions" than google has of "Online search" though. That was my point.
It's close enough for both to be similiarly monopolous.
Okay first, neither eBay or google are a monopoly in the technical sense.
But in principle, eBay can defend its market dominance more than google.
Say there is eBay, and eBayCompetitor. eBay starts off with all the customers. As a single seller or buyer, I can chose to move to eBayCompetitor but it does me no good - if there are no sellers or buyers at eBayCompetitor except me, the site is useless.
On the other hand, if everybody is at Google and someone starts GoogleCompetitor, I can leave Google and GoogleCompetitor would work just fine for me, because it doesn't matter whether anybody else uses GoogleCompetitor. You could end up with some kinds of semi-steady state like in the browser wars.
The problem in practice with search engines is that I am starting to get the idea that the "market" likes having a single search engine to worry about/buy ads to/manipulate ranks for. So it is possible than in reality there is some pressure against GoogleCompetitor gaining traction.
But in principle, eBay can defend its market dominance more than google.
Say there is eBay, and eBayCompetitor. eBay starts off with all the customers. As a single seller or buyer, I can chose to move to eBayCompetitor but it does me no good - if there are no sellers or buyers at eBayCompetitor except me, the site is useless.
On the other hand, if everybody is at Google and someone starts GoogleCompetitor, I can leave Google and GoogleCompetitor would work just fine for me, because it doesn't matter whether anybody else uses GoogleCompetitor. You could end up with some kinds of semi-steady state like in the browser wars.
The problem in practice with search engines is that I am starting to get the idea that the "market" likes having a single search engine to worry about/buy ads to/manipulate ranks for. So it is possible than in reality there is some pressure against GoogleCompetitor gaining traction.
Read my lips:
Google is NOT a monopoly.
You can walk away anytime you want, they are not forcing you to anything or abusing you or their competitors in any way.
Those who want to stick the word monopoly in your mind associated to google are those who once were convicted monopolists.
Beware of FUD like this.
Is Facebook a monopoly?
Is Twitter a monopoly?
Is every company in the world which offers a great service and has a great and loyal user base a monopoly?
Answer: NO!
Wikipedia "monopoly" and you will find a better answer than what propaganda pundits want you to believe to further their agenda.
Google is NOT a monopoly.
You can walk away anytime you want, they are not forcing you to anything or abusing you or their competitors in any way.
Those who want to stick the word monopoly in your mind associated to google are those who once were convicted monopolists.
Beware of FUD like this.
Is Facebook a monopoly?
Is Twitter a monopoly?
Is every company in the world which offers a great service and has a great and loyal user base a monopoly?
Answer: NO!
Wikipedia "monopoly" and you will find a better answer than what propaganda pundits want you to believe to further their agenda.
[deleted]
Yes: we should be developing the next innovations/paradigm_shifts that are irresistably attractive to web surfers. ...and combining the wisdom of others' startup experiences to create meaningful, sustainable business models for monetizing how web linkage can work.
In my view they are definitely a monopoly (not convinced? try http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/01/what-an-antitrust-case-...).
The question is whether they are abusing the monopoly. Probably not at the moment.
However, as the original question is a hypothetical then perhaps we can extend it to "what if Google starting abusing their monopoly - what should we do?".
The question is whether they are abusing the monopoly. Probably not at the moment.
However, as the original question is a hypothetical then perhaps we can extend it to "what if Google starting abusing their monopoly - what should we do?".
Statements like this just feel wrong to me. Shouldn't there be some difference between being a monopoly and simply being successful?
Google isn't doing anything to stop you from building a competing search engine, and people try every so often (Cuil, Wolfram Alpha, etc.)
Also, Adwords are sold at auction, so doesn't the market set the price? The only sketchy thing I've seen with Adwords is that you're able to purchase someone else's trademark as an Adword.
Google isn't doing anything to stop you from building a competing search engine, and people try every so often (Cuil, Wolfram Alpha, etc.)
Also, Adwords are sold at auction, so doesn't the market set the price? The only sketchy thing I've seen with Adwords is that you're able to purchase someone else's trademark as an Adword.
I read the article "A Brief History of Google Killers" (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=616482) and saw these numbers: "[...] show Live Search’s share as fluctuating over the past couple of years, but never exceeding 2.6 percent. Google’s share? Eighty-one percent, up from 75 percent two years ago. [...]"
These numbers are indicative of a monopoly situation where for-profit organisations could/(do) shaft the end user.
Microsoft is in the news every so often about antitrust cases against them. Why not Google?
However, I do not keep abreast of litigation stories and don't want to go through reams of information to get insight into the issue
So, I am asking HN: What do you think? Where is it going?