

Ask HN: If Google is a monopoly, should we be doing anything about it? - stijnm

Hi all,<p>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. [...]"<p>These numbers are indicative of a monopoly situation where for-profit organisations could/(do) shaft the end user.<p>Microsoft is in the news every so often about antitrust cases against them. Why not Google?<p>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<p>So, I am asking HN: What do you think? Where is it going?
======
mannicken
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.

~~~
BerislavLopac
And how do we know that Google isn't taking anti-competitive actions?

~~~
Dilpil
If we want to accuse Google of taking anti-competitive actions, we have to at
least decide what those actions are.

~~~
OmarIsmail
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...

------
evilneanderthal
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>

------
ErrantX
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.

------
asciilifeform
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.

------
elidourado
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.

------
ulf
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?

------
cjg
In my view they are definitely a monopoly (not convinced? try
[http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/01/what-an-antitrust-
case-...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/01/what-an-antitrust-case-against-
google-might-look-like/)).

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?".

~~~
jhickner
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.

------
davidw
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.

------
sucuri2
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

------
stijnm
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.

------
rue
"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.

------
Silentio
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.

------
csomar
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?

------
dantheman
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.

------
quizbiz
Make a better algorithm?

------
JulianMorrison
Google is benign. I have no objection to their being a monopoly.

------
axod
Is eBay?

~~~
zandorg
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.

~~~
axod
Surely eBay has a far higher market share of "Online auctions" than google has
of "Online search" though. That was my point.

~~~
zandorg
It's close enough for both to be similiarly monopolous.

~~~
frossie
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.

------
TweedHeads
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.

------
CalmQuiet
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.

