Google Claims It Isn’t a Monopoly; They Just “Got Lucky”

28

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

ShyLinuxGuy

Google really did "just get lucky". If you think about it, it's just really popular. It's the ONLY search engine that most people will use, including myself. It isn't superimposing itself like MS did/does with MS forcing Windows on basically any given x86-based machine built, or back in the 90s when they shipped IE to cut out Netscape. If this is considered a monopoly, why not take a look at Apple (iPad/iPhone/iPod)?

For the fact that most of the world (about 90-95%) uses Windows [and theoretically Internet Explorer, even just once], and the fact that Bing is IE's default search provider, it isn't like Google has it easy. People make it their default search engine, or use Firefox where it comes as default. Chrome offers a choice, so it's not like they're forcing Google search on you if you use Chrome.

Yeah, this is all just a few jealous CEOs who only wished they had just a part of Google's success for their company. Google offers good stuff, everybody likes, simple as that.

avatar

goffley3

I don't think that Google is a monopoly yet. Though their almost wild expansion, and their swoop in and crush the competition model does  seem to suggest that. Only question that comes to mind, to me, is; what is so wrong with a company that spends what seems to be an limitless amount of assets on developing better products? 

 

www.technorepublic.blogspot.com

www.bridgethechaos.blogspot.com

avatar

I Jedi

The problem is that Google is the large kid on the block developing some pretty cool toys for everyone to play with; however, no one wants to play with little Bing! because little Bing! isn't as popular, doesn't have as cool of toys, and everyone thinks he is somewhat of a loser. That's where people are seeing the problem - choice. If Yahoo! and Bing! can't compete against Google because Google is just too big of a kid for anyone to handle, that by itself makes them a monopoly over everyone who thinks Google is cool, right? This is just a metaphor, obviously, but it brings home the point that the competition is gettings its ass handed, and now the competition cries foul because they're not being given a fairer chance to compete.

avatar

h e x e n

 

I'm not quite sure what they really have a monopoly on. Search Engines? Maybe if people were paying to use search engines, but we're not, it's a free service. From a consumer standpoint, they DO NOT hold a monopoly at all.

From a business standpoint, possibly. But that's a whole hell of a lot of grey area to cover considering marketing revenue, advertisement revenue, product revenue and just about everything inbetween.

Plus, I find myself agreeing more than disagreeing with their practices and how they operate. Have you seen photos of their office space and what kind of benefits employees have who work there? It's insane. "They take care of their own" is an understatement. Their latest middle finger to the chamber of commerce is also a big win in my book.

In my opinion, other companies are pissed because they're not google and can't even emulate them on feasible level. A scary thought, they just might have to *GASP* innovate and spend some money on R&D.

avatar

Engelsstaub

I don't really have an opinion on Google or anything constructive to add. I just wanted to say that I do appreciate that you've taken the time to pen an article with critical implications of someone other than the Usual Suspect. I'm not trying to be a smartass by saying so, but I sincerely do appreciate the break.

avatar

poee

@commenters: I know Google brews up some tasty Kool-Aid, but that doesn't mean you should drink it. They are a corporation, with only one interest: profit. You shouldn't be jumping to this corporation's defense so credulously, and so cheaply! The links in the article above (and some links in those articles) are very educational about this anti-trust investigation, on both sides. People should read up on it before assuming their gut feeling about Google is sufficient to being informed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-k-clemons/a-guide-to-the-action-at-_b_950589.html

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2395934,00.asp#fbid=NHMzXmXSD7i

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393313,00.asp

http://techliberation.com/2011/09/21/top-10-antitrust-fallacies-to-watch-for-at-todays-google-antitrust-hearing/

http://googlecompetition.blogspot.com/2011/09/guide-to-senate-judiciary-hearing.html

avatar

US_Ranger

What competition is Google keeping out of the marketplace? That's what I want to know. If other companies have a fair shot (even if it's tough to dethrone the king) then what's the problem?

avatar

whathuhitwasntme

I would believe monopoly if google kept competition out

and DIDNT improve their own product constantly and just stagnated at the status quo

you know like big oil, why improve when you can just keep pumping oil

 

no Google is not a monopoly in any sense of the word

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

Justin make sure that you are well rested before posting professional articles, got to be extremely embarrassing.

 

I don't believe they are a monopoly at all. Hell man they have helped to prop up Linux and the open source movement to prime time with Android OS. When was the last time you got to take a look at the source code for Windows 7 or Mac osX let alone IOS or Windows Phone 7 OS? They literally are a successful company because they worked hard at providing people and companies that are made up of people with what they want and got really good at it. Libs hate to see anyone but them succeed and then when they do succeed they feel the need to apologise for it. 

They only person that I can think of that actually tried to be a monopoly and worked extremely hard at it openly was Steve Jobs (May he rest in eternal damnation LOL!) When was the last time Apple openly supported the OpenSource movement or didn't try to destroy Linux? Hell Microsoft spends millions each year helping the Linux Community and so does Google. So how the hell is Google a monopoly?

avatar

win7fanboi

my friend, ever heard of 'divide and conquer'?

 

Republican - Democrats

Christian - Non Christian

Yankees - Southerner - Californians

Whites - Minorities

 

While these distinctions help make up our world view, they are only useful if used in a constructive fashion. I can't believe people in this day and age think - "Yea our neighbor got robbed, but he is from <insert any immigrant's country>". "Yea they shouldn't harness the poor child, but she is not <insert religion> here.". "Yes politicians are screwing our country, but the bad ones are <insert party name>".

 

Get the point? Both parties want enough hatred amongst their supporters to have them overlook their scams. Then they just have to rape the country alternately.

 

avatar

Carlidan

" Libs hate to see anyone but them succeed and then when they do succeed they feel the need to apologise for it."

Any proof of this, nope. Just another B.S. statment to make you feel better. 

avatar

Danthrax66

Yep that is pretty much an asshole comment, and the reason why this country is fucked. Anyone that has fallen into the 2-sided view of the political landscape is just fueling the continuing failure of the US government. Instead of looking at it as two sides look at the individuals and their individual actions/beliefs/voting history. And once you do that you will see who is actually fighting for the people not their own personal gain. And you will also see a lot less solidarity on the democratic side than the news (and the quotee) present you on a daily basis. While some libs may think this way a lot are looking out to make sure innovation isn't stiffled (which it most likely is not but can easily slip in that direction) and that is why there is an investigation (key word) to make sure it isn't happening. The face of business has changed and so has the face of monopolies, while many of us would agree that there are far worse offenders that does not mean that google is 100% clean from any wrong doing.

avatar

chop_slap

"Justin make sure that you are well rested before posting professional articles, got to be extremely embarrassing."

I need clarification because this sentence was poorly written. Now, is it Justin that "got to be extremely embarrassing", or is it the situation that you claim has "got to be extremely embarrassing" to Justin? Also, you missed a comma after Justin's name in the first sentence.

If you're gonna critisize so much, at least do it right because people other than yourself read this and wouldn't mind at least being able to decipher the comment without having to correct your statements :) Thanks Keith, I wish you a grand day.

Chop Slap

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

I'm not a professional, Justin is supposed to be. And when even I have trouble making out what he is saying in that sentance then there is a problem. LOL.. 

avatar

Justin.Kerr

If professionals never make a mistake, then I guess i'm out! :)

And a writer thats never made a typo? I have yet to meet one.

avatar

chop_slap

You have made a mistake unacceptable to the Whis Priest and must suffer. Justin Kerr...No more professional for you! Come back ONE year. Next!

avatar

gatorXXX

@ chop_slap

"You have made a mistake unacceptable to the Whis Priest and must suffer. Justin Kerr...No more professional for you! Come back ONE year. Next!"

Usually an adjective (unacceptable) comes before a (verb) mistake and it should so in this case. So it should read: "You have made an unacceptable mistake to the Whis Priest and must suffer....."

Also, you forgot to put an "in" in front of "ONE" and should read: "Come back in ONE year!"

So my point is don't criticize someone for bad grammer when your grammer isn't all the hot itself. I'm not sure if you were just poking fun because you know them but if that is the case, then let 'em have it!

 

 

 

avatar

chop_slap

This was done in the character of the "Soup Nazi" from the hit TV show "Seinfeld", Dr. Intelligence. The Keith is just being mean to the author. I, the spelling troll nazi fighter does not like that. GatorXXX...NO COOL FOR YOU! Come back, ONE year. Next!.......Just messin a bit, of course I'm poking fun. These articles are free to read, some people could certainly loosen up on the speeling of the werds and gramer sumtimes.

avatar

gatorXXX

LOL man!! I agree with you 100%!

Maybe we need more cowbell??

avatar

chop_slap

Cowbell is swell.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

"Google has literally thousands of engineering’s  working to improve the service, some of the brightest minds of our time, and an almost bottomless pit of resources to pump into R&D."

 

 

WTF!

avatar

chop_slap

WFT is a question, not a statement, and therefore requires a question mark, not an exclamation point. Here is a correct example for your perusal: "WTF?"

If an exclamation is absolutely required, then we could mark it "WTF?!" Glad that I can be of service, Keith.

avatar

twister753

I don't really consider them a monopoly, but I really don't care if they are. I realize competition is good for the consumer it isn't really my place to tell them they should be less successful.

avatar

weavil

@msft, @apple,

Google is fine, l2p

avatar

weavil

double post

avatar

majorsuave

I fail to see G as a monopoly. Yet I use Chrome, Gmail, Google maps, reader and Google Search as default apps/services in their distinctive areas. I used to use IE, Netscape, Firefox, Opera as browsers, Hotmail and Yahoo mail (as well as ISP mail), Bing maps, Altavista, Yahoo, Ask, About... they all were relevant at one point, I just believe that Google offers a better option now. 

But still, free competition is easy to type in the address bar.

 

NOTE: I am a paying subscriber, I subscribed using the same email address I used to register online, I would appreciate it if Captchas were turned off for subscribers thanks.  

avatar

gatorXXX

It seems that the competitors just can't keep up with google so they are crying foul. Just because Google can throw unlimited resources at R&D and brilliant engineers doesn't make them anti-trustworthy. It means that they are on thier game and doing something right and that the competition is doing something wrong. If the competitors want more business, make us the consumer, want to use it. Just because bing is a microsoft product doesn't mean I want to use it.

Now google's own android is slaughtering WP7 and rightfully so. Microsoft had the smartphone business in the bag but decided to not update until AFTER Google came in and started to take market share from them. Then MS said OH CRAP! We need to do something here! So they feverishly spat out WP7 to counter android but it's a little to late. Now as Google dominates, I'm sure MS and others is going to try to throw this same crap at Google spouting that it's not fair that they dominate. I think the Fairsearch.org just needs to STFU and go after the idiots that throw frivolous lawsuits at anyone...like apple. Oh wait....apple doesn't do search....yet.

 

 

avatar

Morete

Although they might be considered a monopoly by some, I wish all monopolies would be more like Google.  If they were, I wouldn't have such an issue with monopolies to begin with.  Google doesn't charge me money every time I use their search engine, nor do they charge me to use Chrome, G-Mail, etc.  What I do take issue with is privacy.  Google does need to do more in protecting users privacy and advocating for it.  Now if we could just get high speed Internet Service Providers to give us free or even dial-up priced service....lol.  Make us watch ads or something.  Personally I have more time than money, so yeah.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.