Will Google's Expansion Invite Antitrust Action?
from the trouble-with-the-law dept
This week saw Google make more moves to extend beyond its core search business. The big thing was the much-discussed acquisition of YouTube, a move that automatically vaults the company to the top of the online video heap. Getting less attention was its launch of Google Docs & Spreadsheets, essentially bringing its online word processor and spreadsheets under one roof, in a bid to sharpen its online applications strategy. So as it clearly wants to parlay its dominance in search into other areas, Nick Carr takes a moment to ponder the possibility of an eventual DOJ vs. Google antitrust case a la the case against Microsoft. It's a two-part issue, really. The first is whether such a case is likely; the second is whether such a case is warranted. As for the former, it's difficult to guess, but dominant companies that start spreading their footprint in this way do tend to attract regulatory attention over time. As for whether or not it's warranted, here Carr seems to hint that it might be, noting the company's powerful network effects and scale. But, just a few short years ago, most people still thought Microsoft's network effects gave it an unassailable monopoly; now people wonder to what extent the company can hang on to its most profitable lines. And if Google is already at the stage where it needs to spend billions to buy out a rival, it obviously isn't as strong as Carr believes. Recent history has shown how quickly dominant companies can fall purely by market forces. To already be talking about the need for government intervention seems quite premature.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Plain Crazy
But how can they attack Google under the same premise? -- Google isn't charging for their applications. Where's the price fixing monopoly to bring an antitrust case against?!
This argument is just plain ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plain Crazy
GOM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monopoly
Ifr Google's expansion is a threat to competition, then Google may (or may not) be a monopoly. It's dominance, not price - and giving something away for free can be called "predatory pricing" and can *also* be a threat to competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Monopoly
And the real question is: what is competitive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Monopoly; competitive, defined
google define:competitive and you will get
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Acompetitive
and of course a competitor to Google in the Information (vs. Data) area:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive
Google is NOT using its over-reaching power to force others into using its own inferior services. Google services compete on merit and not by force.
As an anti-example, Microsoft forced computer makers to prominently display its products (IE, MediaPlayer) to force users to bypass Microsoft for other equally good or better programs. Even today there are veiled references that if you are not using a Microsoft product "bad" things may happen, "not siged by Microsoft", un-authorized software may harm your computer, ooooooh.
When Google starts using those tactics, then I will be calling for Anti-Trust action also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plain Crazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh? how is Google a monopoly?
Google using its search business to help its burgeoning Video business is good business.
There is no monopoly on the Video busniess; anyone can start a YouTube style site. The money is in advertising, eyeballs and click-thru rates.
Success breeds contempt, I see contempt in the article; someone is upset that Google is sucessful on its own merits. Upset that Google is using its success to breed more success.
Big and Successful does NOT define Anti-Trust.
You do NOT have to be Big or Successful to be a monopoly (although it helps).
Once Microsoft (a likely comparison) was so successful and so big, it forgot the difference between fair and un-fair business practices (Netscape, RealMedia and SCO/Baystar). Microsoft launched a whole new business model and now Google is successful at the new model.
Big and Successful is not Anti-Trust.
Using your size and Success unfairly IS Anti-Trust.
Google does NOT beat up competitors, it compets with the competitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guilty or not, Google is getting too powerful
Here is another aspect of this: Microsoft just tried to own your desktop. Google is trying to "organize the world's information". Doesn't that sound a lot more serious to you? Whether Google is guilty or not, I don't really know. But scrutinizing their business is essential, and it will happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guilty or not, Google is getting too powerful
There are very few similarities between Microsoft and Google. Microsoft used their dominiant position in the desktop OS market to 'introduce' other products, such as IE, on users. I'm not seeing any evidence of Google using their dominant position in the search market to foist other products on users. There is nothing on the google.com front page about Blogspot, Writely, YouTube, Gmail, etc.
Here is another aspect of this: Microsoft just tried to own your desktop. Google is trying to "organize the world's information". Doesn't that sound a lot more serious to you?
No. There is a huge difference between organizing or cataloging information and controlling information. When you type in a search term in Google, you are presented with a list of relevant links. Almost all of those links will take to some non-Google site. That hardly sounds like some evil monopoly to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guilty or not, Google is getting too power
Wrong. I just checked. I already see Video right there at the top of google.com. Also, you just need to click the "More" link to see all the others. Again, I am not saying that they are guilty - but that they should be scrutinized.
When you type in a search term in Google, you are presented with a list of relevant links. Almost all of those links will take to some non-Google site.
How can I be sure that I am not being taken to sites that benefit Google in some way? How can I be sure that the page ranking algorithms are unbiased? Without scrutiny, all I have is their word.
Again, I am not saying that they are guilty. I don't really know. I am just stating what is likely to happen whether they are guilty or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guilty or not, Google is getting too power
Oh yeah, you are not forced to use Google.
Is this like some company policy or communist state that requires you to only use the company or country approved Search Engine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Guilty or not, Google is getting too p
When I checked google.com there was no link to Video. I guess that's why it says 'New' beside it. And that link takes you to Google Video not YouTube. Besides you have to CLICK on that link to get to Google Video. And like you said, you have to CLICK on "More" to see all the other services. So explain why Google should be scrutinized when their behaviour clearly shows that they are not being anti-competitive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When someone makes monopoly claims against them, they scoff saying that there's plenty of competion in the market citing other national chains with no mention of the tens-of-thousands of "Mom & Pop" businesses they've destroyed to date.
What's worse is that they don't expand their stores, they build new ones. While that may be great for commercial construction, it's terrible for small-town America where people have to look at abandoned store fronts and empty lots everywhere they go.
AND they treat even the most intelligent workers as if they were the r-tards greeting guests at the door! They must think that they are mentally challenged for they pay them only enough so that they have to live-to-work rather than being able to work-to-live.
I HATE WAL-MART!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wal-Mart does not put anyone out of business. It's the customers shopping at Wal-Mart that have had it with high prices at the local competition that put them out of business.
Do you have any evidence that Wal-Mart increases their prices "sky high" when the so-called local competition is gone? I'll be waiting.
The mythical 'Mom & Pop' business was well on it's way out well before Wal-Mart became a household name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F%@*ing Whiners
I say GO Google!! I just wish I had bought stock in you when you IPO'd (I do not own shares even now), but, I believe whole-heartedly in the company. They are great at what they do (for the most part) and they are succeeding... this is an American hallmark.
They should be celebrated. If you don't like them.. use Yahoo, or MSN, or a gazillion other search engines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry...
Um, it's not predatory if they're still making a profit, which Walmart does. It's simply called out-competing. And that's quite legal.
If communities don't want Walmart, with the traffic and lower-wage jobs, that's a zoning issue. But Walmart has nothing close to a monopoly (Target? Kmart?), so the argument doesn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google's monopolization of monetization of website
and look for links to my brief on appeal.
Carl E. Person
[ link to this | view in chronology ]