

Google: We're Actually Really Small - azharcs
http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/saga/2009/06/04/google-were-actually-really-small

======
shiny
This is great. They're trying to penalize a company that actually produces
value, and propping up the ones that don't.

~~~
iamelgringo
Isn't that what they said about Microsoft in the 90's?

How is this different? Microsoft was seen as playing dirty vs Netscape when
they started giving away Internet Explorer for free. And, Microsoft is still
in trouble with the EU because of bundling a free media player with its OS.
The argument for Microsoft was that they were "adding value".

I'm not really trying to defend Microsoft's actions. I'm just curious to hear
why others think that Google is different than Microsoft in this regard?
Google gives almost all of its products away for free: Search, Gmail, Docs,
Analytics, Calendar, etc... Some call it "adding value" others call it a
monopolistic behavior.

I know MSFT got into trouble because of its deals with hardware companies. But
how is that different than Google building Android and bundling their apps on
my G1?

~~~
Semiapies
1) "How is this different?" For one, _it's not Microsoft in the 90s_.

2) Who's taking legal action against Google for "Search, Gmail, Docs,
Analytics, Calendar"? I'll give you three guesses.

3) What do _you_ think is the difference between having agreements with most
PC manufacturers to pre-install Windows and offering an linux distro for a few
models of phones?

------
pierrefar
Oh, really, Google?

Google may be producing massive value, but for the most part, it's _THE_
online ads network in terms of PPC. They're gunning for the banner ads with
their DoubleClick acquisition and they're trialing CPA ads. All these are
online, and in February, they exited the radio ads market: [http://google-
tmads.blogspot.com/2009/02/google-exits-radio-...](http://google-
tmads.blogspot.com/2009/02/google-exits-radio-but-will-explore.html) .

In terms of dollars spent on online ads, Google gets the lion's share. I've
seen some reports say 90%, but I'd wager it's closer to 70-80%.

So it looks like a monopoly, walks like a monopoly, and acts like a monopoly.
The key question is whether they've abused this monopoly. Being a monopoly in
itself is not illegal, but using a dominant market position to stifle
competition is very much so. I say let's investigate and make sure there is
healthy competition.

~~~
kragen
You fail to address the article's primary point, which is that they're in
competition with offline media for ad buyers, and in this broader market, they
have <3%.

I think the stuff you wrote is mostly actually _in_ the article.

~~~
pierrefar
My point is that they're _not_ in competition with offline media. My point is
that such an assertion is absurd. As I pointed out, they're quitting offline
ads.

Not to mention the trend that more and more dollars are being spent online,
not offline.

~~~
kragen
Well, it would be bad news if a medium that had only existed for a few years
and had <3% of the marketplace were _declining_ in its market share, wouldn't
it?

I don't know why you think the assertion is absurd. It seems like a pretty
sensible assertion to me, but I don't know very much about marketing. Do you
have time to share some of your marketing experience that makes it so obvious
to you that online and offline ads aren't in competition?

It seems like, at a minimum, online and offline _advertisers_ are in
competition. If online ads are sufficiently good at getting customers to buy
from you, and your competitors are only advertising offline, then you're going
to take market share away from them — and have more money to plow into online
ads. If particular advertisers can shift part of their advertising spend
between online and offline, that represents a more direct kind of competition
between online and offline advertising.

------
Semiapies
Que bono?

Sun and other companies banded together to spur the MS anti-trust
investigation. I kinda wonder who's behind this. Yahoo? Microsoft?

------
tomjen
Well that figures. We can't have a big corporation that actually makes money
with out government help. That would just make Obama look stupid.

