Google's Silent Monopoly

An anonymous reader writes "Isaac Garcia from Central Desktop Blog writes, 'How much does Google pay *itself* to claim the top ad position for searches relevant to its own products? Google holds the top advertisement (Adword) slot for the following key words: intranet, spreadsheet, documents, calendar, word processor, email, video, instant messenger, blog, photo sharing, online groups, maps, start page, restaurants, dining, and books... ...if you are trying to advertise a product that is competitive to Google, then you'll never be able to receive the Top Ad Position, no matter how much money you bid and spend. How different is it than MSFT placing its products (Internet Explorer) in a premium marketing position (embedded in the OS)?'"

Comments

It's fine for Google to do that

[UbuntuDupe]

Obviously, it's no big deal because Microsoft has a lot more power than Google, so for Google to leverage a monopoly to get into other markets is AOK.

I got that insight from Vellmont et al.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[tomstdenis]

I don't see them as the same thing though.

Microsoft leverages their monopoly to trap you into using MSFT tools, most of which are in some way or shape flawed compared to alternatives. Microsoft also holds a fairly large portion of the market share.

Google doesn't force you to advertise with them, nor do they limit your ability to advertise with others. And they're not the only website on the internet. I don't see that Google has a monopoly on "the Internet."
Tom

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[arifirefox]

Once upon a time there was a company called Netscape. It had 90% of the browser market. Google has to remember that there is no reason why they must be #1 in a few years just like Netscape. Leverage your monopoly too much and you're gone!

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[porkThreeWays]

How different is it than MSFT placing its products (Internet Explorer) in a premium marketing position (embedded in the OS)?'"

Simple. Microsoft is a convicted monopoly, google is not. Next there will be complaining that Linux distro's bundle media player software. You play by a different set of rules when you are a convicted monopoly.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[eln]

Microsoft leverages their monopoly to trap you into using MSFT tools, most of which are in some way or shape flawed compared to alternatives.

So if Microsoft's tools were technologically superior to the alternatives, the behavior would be okay? I don't think so.

I don't see that Google has a monopoly on "the Internet."

No, but "the Internet" isn't a product. Google has a near-monopoly on web searches, and it is (allegedly) leveraging that monopoly to gain a competitive advantage in other industries that also happen to be web-based. Just because a product is offered on the Internet doesn't mean the product is "the Internet," and it doesn't mean that product isn't distinct from other offerings on the Internet.

Leveraging your position in the market for one product to increase your competitive advantage in the market for another product is nothing new. The problem comes when you are so dominant in Market A that leveraging that dominance in Market B would cause others to be unable to effectively compete in Market B.

The question here is whether Google is sufficiently dominant in Market A, the web search market, to be classified as a monopoly. If they are, then what they are doing could be classified as illegal abuse of that monopoly.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Anonymous Coward]

As others have pointed out, Google is not an illegal monopoly like Redmond et al. I do wonder how the article author concluded no one else could buy the top slot for those topics. Since his article has no evidence to support this, it appears he just assumed it, because he wished it were true. Please stop buying into this sensationalistic crap and actually go out and provide some evidence to support your conclusion before you tell us we need to buy Microsoft products to get out of another jam.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[eln]

Netscape didn't leverage its monopoly though. Netscape gained the monopoly by virtue of having a technologically superior product in a new market. After they gained the monopoly, though, they sat on it and stagnated. Version 4 (Communicator) of its product was bloated and bug-ridden. Meanwhile, Microsoft came out with a product that was (eventually) technologically superior to Netscape.

Now, Microsoft did (probably illegally) leverage its dominance in the OS market to undercut Netscape by offering its browser free of charge, but had Netscape maintained the technological edge, they probably could have at least survived long enough to come up with a strategy. Instead, they had the double whammy of trying to push an inferior product against a monopolistic competitor. They were doomed to failure at that point.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[teh kurisu]

Microsoft has been convicted of abusing its monopoly. Having a monopoly is not something one can be convicted of.

I wouldn't say that this constitutes an abuse of a monopoly. This is akin to Apple placing iPod adverts in the iTunes installer, a newspaper placing job adverts in its own jobs page, or Microsoft placing an MSN advert on the desktop on a fresh Windows install.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[tomstdenis]

So if Microsoft's tools were technologically superior to the alternatives, the behavior would be okay? I don't think so.

Monopolies only become a problem when they stop doing what's in the best interests of the customers. If Microsoft produced quality software and listened to the customers, then I suspect most people wouldn't have a problem with them. Oddly enough, a fairly common criticism of MSFT is that they're all closed source. So if they listened to their customers and opened up more of the kernel, file formats, and what not, we wouldn't have this vendor lockin problem and hence no abuse of monopoly.

BTW there are quite a few natural monopolies like gas, water, telco, cable, etc. Which usually don't get broken up until they start really abusing their customers. (I'm waiting for Rogers to get a bitch slap...)

As for Google, I guess I can't comment since I'm not in the market to advertise and I mentally block out Adsense advertisements. But that said, I see [or acknowledge] more ads from slashdot and fark than I do from google.

Tom

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Grishnakh]

Don't be ridiculous. Google is nothing like Microsoft. Here's a few important differences:

1) Cost to the average user. When you decide you want to or need to use Microsoft software, it'll cost you. Non-OEM copies of Windows are quite expensive (~$300?). When you decide to use Google to look for a website, it's free, other than having a few ads on the right side of the screen. I've never sent Google a dime, even though I've used many of their services (search, maps, etc.) for years.

2) Availability of alternatives. If you have a copy of TurboTax or AutoCAD and want to use it, you need a copy of Windows installed on your computer. You might be able to get it to work with WINE on Linux, but don't count on it; most likely it won't work fully. If you work at a company with an internal website that uses ActiveX crap, you're basically forced to use Windows/IE. However, if you want to search for a website, you can choose from Google, Yahoo, and MSN searches. Nothing's stopping you from using one of Google's competitors. The only reason they command the overwhelming majority of search uses is because they have a reputation for returning the best results. But most searches will probably work fine with any of them. Similarly, you can use Google Maps to find directions someplace, or you can use Mapquest or one of several others. People happen to like Google Maps, but the others all work fine, and will probably find your destination for you as well (and the results may actually be more accurate, though the user interface will suck more in my experience).

Google only has a huge market share because people like them and choose to use their services. This could change at the drop of a hat since several competing services are available which do all the same stuff (just not as well), and there's absolutely no lock-in forcing anyone to stick with Google.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[x_MeRLiN_x]

Wouldn't this only be comparable if Windows included Firefox (for example), but only placed a shortcut in the Start Menu whereas Internet Explorer could be launched from the desktop?

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has a near-monopoly on web searches...

Google has nothing like a monopoly on web searches. There are countless close substitutes. Even if Google has a large portion of the market share, as long as those substitutes exist (or can exist), Google cannot function as a monopoly. (If Google could function as a monopoly, they could charge for their search services and anyone wanting to search would have no choice but to pay.)

We're talking about their advertising business, though. In that context, whether they have a monopoly on searches is irrelevant because they're competing against the entire internet for eyeballs. In this context we would be even less justified in calling Google a monopoly.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[jkauzlar]

I guess I haven't been made upset or surprised by google's self-advertising, because it's ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE. In a perfect world, they would probably use unseeded, honest algorithms for searches, but...

Like Microsoft's monopoly, in the case of packaging products along with their operating system, you have to forgive them. It's the Department of Justice that needs to be doing its job to make sure competition is not unfairly stifled, as is obviously the case with IE & Windows Media Player. I can't see a fifty word advertisement alongside its competiters' to be half as bad as what Microsoft has gotten away with. And it doesn't matter whether the products are superior or not, it's wrong either way.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[cHiphead]

When the hell was IE 'technologically superior' to Netscape in its heyday? IE 3.0? Netscape Communicator was the 'hotness' in comparison, it was the MS monopoly that ended up making NS look outdated or broken b/c of pages designed for IE (especially sites made with that legendary POS Frontpage). Netscape got pwned by the monopoly machine that was MS, but they were never technologically inferior to MS until their business model suddenly became useless and stagnated.

Cheers.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[rainman_bc]

Monopolies only become a problem when they stop doing what's in the best interests of the customers.

Make no mistake about it, people who use Google's free services are not Google's customers; they are Google's product.

Advertisers are Google's customers. They are the ones who pay. Granted they treat their users well with their offerings, but in no way are you a customer of Google's.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[paralaxcreations]

Google has a near-monopoly on web searches...

From Dictionary.com:

monopoly /mnpli/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-nop-uh-lee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun, plural -lies.
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.
7. (initial capital letter) a board game in which a player attempts to gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from other players whose pieces land on that property.

Last I checked, Google had nothing near a monopoly. More people choose to use Google because it offers a superior product. But it is just as easy to type www.yahoo.com or www.live.com or www.msn.com or www.dogpile.com or...you get the point.

The article is FUD. If Google wants to place its services in the top results, it's their choice to. As long as they are willing to accept that they won't make as much money off of PPC (their only real source of income, outside of partnerships) for those keywords, they can do whatever they want. The law has no place there, because they aren't doing anything illegal, or even questionable.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Twench]

No, but "the Internet" isn't a product. Google has a near-monopoly on web searches,

You might want to check that again:

Zune: http://seo.zunch.com/search_engine_usage_statistic s.htm
Pew Internet: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/167/report_displa y.asp
WebSideStory: http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=33 34881

Three independent reports show that while they have a good share, Google accounts for less than 50% of all web search engine usage. Last I checked, that's not really a monopoly

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[x_MeRLiN_x]

My point being that prominence (or lack of) is not the same as non-inclusion.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[teh_chrizzle]

google adwords are not exactly a bankable commodity... the fifth entry is often to "buy X on ebay" where X is the thing you are searching for. i currently have filed a class action lawsuit against ebay over their claims that they have the lowest prices on slarphdoojies.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Damastus the WizLiz]

Just to point out, This isn't even an article. It is just someones blog.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Irish_Samurai]

Google has almost 73% world market share in search. That gives you 73% world market share in search advertising.

That's the monopoly. Not search itself.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[d_strand]

No, but "the Internet" isn't a product. Google has a near-monopoly on web searches, and it is (allegedly) leveraging that monopoly to gain a competitive advantage in other industries that also happen to be web-based

I'm not sure it is possible to have a monopoly on something on the internet. There is *no* penalty for using other products. They are not harder to find, they are not more expensive to use, and google can't do anything to prevent you from using them. The definition of a monopoly on a product is that it is the only (or "almost" only, se MS Windows) available one of its type.

There are plenty of other search engines, the reason people dont use them is that they suck compared to google. I'm not sure that makes a monopoly. If google went around buying up start-up search engines to close them doen or bullying isps to block acces to other engines besides google, then you might have a monopoly.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[mysidia]

When you buy a computer, it's your property, your desktop, every application is yours. If you're reselling the machine, the OS maker shouldn't get to dictate what you do and what you don't put on the machine, to be able to profit from the resale, when you don't have other OS choices.

Anti-competitive monopoly practice due to a company negotiating terms that demand IE be the default browser, to get the preferential pricing, is very different from prioritizing ads for your own products on your own web site, which is not ever re-sold. Google retains editorial control over their own web site, and is free to reject ads they deem unacceptable.

It occurs, that Google search is not nearly a monopoly. There is MSN Search, which is available from the default start page when you start Internet Explorer, which ships on a vast majority of computers sold in the world as the default web browser, and while it is unpopular, it is a viable alternative, and often used.

The ability to perform a web search is not a product you own. It is a service provided to you. Google does not charge you a tangible fee to use this service. They are not selling you a product, they are attempting to attract you, in order for you to see (and possibly respond to) advertising.

Advertising is also not a product you own, even though you see it, or you bought a placement. It is still just a service provided to you by the publisher: that service is exposure, and when time runs up, your ad is no longer exposed.

Nothing requires Google to publish your ad, they can refuse it at their discretion. Nothing requires them to sell the top slot. As a publisher, they have wide latitude to express themselves, their 1st Ammendment rights. Which are different from packaging two physical goods together, and requiring you buy both, and that resellers cannot split them, and only sell you one.

There's no way to "re-sell" advertising, or to "re-sell" a web search. In fact, you can't re-sell the contents of a Google search, it's Copyright by Google.

Google may have reserved the ad keywords. However, Microsoft still has it so when after you install windows, setup your internet connection, and click the "Internet" icon, the first thing you will see is the default home page with MSN search on it.

There are also other methods of search, one doesn't need to use Google, and web searches are not a scarce resource (Companies don't sell web searches to customers), nor is Google obliged to sell advertising space.

The only reason it is valuable to have an ad placed on Google, is due to value that Google has built through offering a free search service. And that they have been successful in selling some advertising placements.

Compare this to the reason it is valuable to have a browser ship as the Windows default. It is partly due to value Microsoft has built. It is also due to the fact that Windows was the only viable choice, and OEMs' hands were tied.

Advertising is one obvious way of getting revenue out of that traffic. But getting visitors hooked on other Google products is important to keeping the traffic.

This is nothing like what the abuse of MS forcing IE by default was. Which was (a) Forcing the OEMs to include Windows with every machine, or lose a pricing advantage. (b) Not allowing OEMs to remove Internet Explorer and make Netscape the default.

Nothing obliges Google to sell any particular keyword. If they think it's more valuable to them, they can certainly advertise their own products, on their own web site, wouldn't you agree?

Also, someone searching for Google's spreadsheet product is very likely to search for spreadsheet on Google. Users searching for spreadsheet might be confused if a Microsoft product appeared at top, clicking that link, and thinking they were using a Google spreadsheet applet.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Irish_Samurai]

1) Cost to the average user. When you decide you want to or need to use Microsoft software, it'll cost you. Non-OEM copies of Windows are quite expensive (~$300?). When you decide to use Google to look for a website, it's free, other than having a few ads on the right side of the screen. I've never sent Google a dime, even though I've used many of their services (search, maps, etc.) for years.

As I, and other posters, have been pointing out. You are not the consumer, nor the customer. You are the product. The advertisers are the customer. They are most definitely charged by Google for their services. Google also has close to 73% world market share for search. That directly translates into 73% world market share in search advertising, which is the monopoly.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Irish_Samurai]

That's just Google.com, not all of the other sites they own. Google has more like 73% world share.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[ThogScully]

When the hell was IE 'technologically superior' to Netscape in its heyday? IE 3.0? Netscape Communicator was the 'hotness' in comparison

Not then. IE4 was what turned things around. Netscape 4 was barely better than 3 with more bloat while IE4 was monumentally better than IE3. You're referring to the time when Netscape had the monopoly of convenience because that's what everyone used, what everyone got free (if they were lucky) with their dial-up software, etc.

-N

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[morgan_greywolf]

Agreed. And Google has nothing like a near-monopoly on searches. According to the search engine stats I've seen, Google hovers somehwere around a 45% viewer share. Sure, that's bigger than anyone else, but it's less than half of total searches.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[quisph]

Just to keep it in context, "Google has a near-monopoly on web searches" was the GGP's claim. The GP was simply responding to this.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Arctic Dragon]

Availability of alternatives. If you have a copy of TurboTax or AutoCAD and want to use it, you need a copy of Windows installed on your computer.

How is it Microsoft's fault that software developers are not interested in porting their software to other platforms? Blame the makers of TurboTax and AutoCAD, not Microsoft.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[gevil]

From the advertiser point of view, Google is a monopoly. As they have most of web searches, if you need to advertise on web searches, you have no choice but to buy from them. And yes, they could charge more for it. Thats obviously not a big problem, unless Google starts using this leverage.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Irish_Samurai]

Actually, Netscape got pwned because developing for their DOM model sucked. Also, they tried to make a play at becoming the Netscape portal, splitting their war chest in two and leaving them underfunded on the browser front.

It wasn't all Microsoft's fault. Netscape made some bad decisions themselves.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Irish_Samurai]

That's only for Google.com, not their other offerings such as google.jp and such. World share is about 73%.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[geekoid]

We are the customers of the people placing the ads.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[D'Sphitz]

"Google has a near-monopoly on web searches"

No they don't, they are popular because people like their services, not because they don't have any alternatives.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[QRDeNameland]

The article is FUD. If Google wants to place its services in the top results, it's their choice to. As long as they are willing to accept that they won't make as much money off of PPC (their only real source of income, outside of partnerships) for those keywords, they can do whatever they want. The law has no place there, because they aren't doing anything illegal, or even questionable.

While I agree that any "monopoly" argument is out of place and that there is nothing *illegal* happening here, I have to take issue with "or even questionable".

Sure, it may be their playing field to run however they fit, but the value of Google ads to the customer is that it purports to be a free and open market for ad placement. If it becomes free and open *except for the company that owns the marketplace*, I'd hope their customers would start abandoning them in droves.

Also, Google search results placement are purported by Google to *not* be for sale. Again, if the perception become that Google won't sell search placement but will alter them for their own purposes, then people should rightly question whether or not Google is a level playing field.

If these allegations prove substantial, then I think Google's customers should absolutely consider these practices "questionable". However, the market, rather than the law, will be what sorts this out.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Irish_Samurai]

True. But that has no bearing in this discussion. Once you click the ad and are moved to my landing page, you are now my responsibility to keep as a surfer or a consumer. Google's part is done.

The issue is that before you click and become my customer, you are a Google product and I am the customer shopping for you.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[smilerz]

The vast majority of Microsoft consumers couldn't care less about closed source, it is only a small, vocal minority that whines about it. Microsoft gained market power in the Office Suites because it offered a better product for most consumers than the competition did.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[b.burl]

Its not that hard to customize your google experience. Proxomitron anyone? I haven't seen a google ad in my search results for years.
   

& a company that is a convicted prdatory monopolist is categorically different from a company that has a large market share and has NOT been convicted of anything.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[suman28]

Now that is just plain silly, since no one is really forcing you to go google's website to do your search. Ofcourse no one owns the Internet, but Microsoft does own the Windows OS and they know the ins and outs of every thing in the OS. So for them to use it to their advantage to say start their own products faster than others or include the products in such a way that you cannot remove them (IE comes to mind, *before the govt lawsuit ofcourse*), and because there are no real alternatives for Windows, then it is definitely wrong for Microsoft, but not wrong for google.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[kthejoker]

Um, no. Monopolies are a problem inherently *because* they don't have to do what's in the best interests of customers. Just because they choose to makes them no less of a problem.

Advertising is not a natural monopoly. Natural monopolies have to have a terminal point: once everyone in the world has a water connection, the water industry is done growing. Advertising has no such point.

I don't necessarily believe Google is a monopoly, and I firmly believe that MS and Yahoo should be able to promote their products #1 on their own searches. But that doesn't mean it's not, for lack of a better word, suspect. It certainly means Google isn't necessarily interested in pulling down top dollar for its advertising spots.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[e4g4]

This seems a little too cut and dry. Without the users, Google would have no customers - it seems to me that we are customers of Google by proxy. In other words, we pay the advertisers (with eyeball/click through time) and the advertisers pay Google (with money). Remove any link in that chain and it all falls to pieces; therefore I'd say that we are indeed (though indirectly) Google's customers, as it is in Google's best interest to keep both us and the advertisers happy.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[jkauzlar]

I'm not sure it is possible to have a monopoly on something on the internet. There is *no* penalty for using other products.

You have something there, but you could say the same about IE vs. Firefox. There's no penalty for d/ling firefox. The difference is, to use the words of another poster, in leveraging your 'monopoly' to improve your market share in other areas. Most do not need to d/l a web browser or a media player because their computer already comes with one. You're right that it's equally as easy to type in one url as another, but name recognition plays an enormous part on the internet. I don't think what Google is doing is all that bad (it's not suppressing competitors' search results), but in this case Google is leveraging it's market share, based a large part on its name recognition, to gain market share in other areas. I think you're right in that the nature of the monopoly changes on the internet-- youtube, myspace, wikipedia, amazon, imdb, allmusic, etc., have all taken huge chunks of their market spaces, in large part because of the information and community. If they were 'real world' entities, you might call a few of them monopolies, but they seem to have naturally and honestly taken hold over the internet for the reasons I just mentioned.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Irish_Samurai]

Its not that hard to customize your google experience. Proxomitron anyone? I haven't seen a google ad in my search results for years.

That has zero effect on whether or not google actually supplies the ad. Just whether or not you can see it.

a company that is a convicted prdatory monopolist is categorically different from a company that has a large market share and has NOT been convicted of anything.

Comparing the "character" of the two companies is a logical fallacy. It in no way changes what the actual behavior of google.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[mtwhelan]

If you want to compare this to anything, compare it to FOX airing The Simpsons commercials during the Super Bowl this year. Super Bowl vs. Other Television Shows at the same time is very equivalent to Google vs. Yahoo, MSN, Ask.com, etc. Do they pay themselves for this advertising? No. Is this creating a monopoly for advertising? Certainly not.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Comboman]

BTW there are quite a few natural monopolies like gas, water, telco, cable, etc. Which usually don't get broken up until they start really abusing their customers. (I'm waiting for Rogers to get a bitch slap...)

True, but natural monopolies (like the utilities you mention) are normally regulated by the government (some like water are usually run by the government). These regulations are supposed to provide the restrictions that competition would provide in a non-monopoly situation.

BTW, Rogers got slapped in 1995 for it's negative option packaging of new cable channels. If the abuse of monopoly is obvious and enough people complain, the government will eventually act.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Ucklak]

If Microsoft offered their tools for other platforms, it would be a different matter.
IE is only available for Windows.
Most of their Live crap works 100% on IE, crippled for other browsers.
Office for Mac is 60% different from Office for Windows. There is no Linux MS Office with 100% file compatability.
*Microsoft has leveraged their position to be the only OS to be installed on systems delivered or be paid for all systems delivered regardless of OS installed.

That's a lot different than using a single website for services that works for most of the popular web browsers.

That is really all what Google is, a website that users can choose or not choose to go to. They do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a monopoly for searches.
They are a popular search engine like iPod is a popular portable digital media player.

My * Microsoft comment makes Microsoft a monopoly which is completely different from what Google offers.

No one forces a computer user to use Google.

Opera may force a user to primarily use Google for searches.
Firefox may force a user to primarily use Google for searches.

Those browsers may be removed from the system altogether.

Google can never be a monopoly because they don't provide the method of delivery of their content or supply the only content to the end user.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Anonymous Coward]

People really need to think about the weakness within their own arguments before posting and looking like fools.

This "article" is a waste of a front page spot on /.

Obviously written by someone suffering from sour grapes, and ignorance of basic business concepts.

Go back to school.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[JimDaGeek]

Google has a near-monopoly on web searches

Not even close. While Google has the number one spot for search engines, they don't come close to being a monopoly. MS has 95%+ of the desktop market share. Try buying a computer from one of the big vendors or at most stores here in the states without paying the MS tax. If I want a computer without MS windows, I have to buy the parts myself and build it.

Leveraging your position in the market for one product to increase your competitive advantage in the market for another product is nothing new. The problem comes when you are so dominant in Market A that leveraging that dominance in Market B would cause others to be unable to effectively compete in Market B.

Well said. And since Google does not come close to having the monopoly power MS does on the desktop, there is nothing to worry about for now. However if Google get 85%+ of the search market, then what they are currently doing would need to be stopped. As it is now, there are plenty of ways to advertise a competing product against Google that can be just as, if not more, effective.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[arifirefox]

sitting and stagnating is one way of leveraging a monopoly. why spend resources improving the product if everyone will use it anyway? Also, Netscape did come up with quite a few non standard tags.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Maxo-Texas]

Actually, what they did was fairly clever.

When windows 95 came out, they said you needed to use standard OS calls if you wanted to be "CERTIFIED" for win95.

If you used those API's your product was very slow. If you didn't, you didn't get the sticker.

Word95 performed wonderfully and was certified and the developers had been able to work and test with the operating system all during it's development. As a bonus, it was much later that they proved that it wasn't using the official APIs but was in fact making illegal calls to inappropriate places in the operating system toget that performance. So it should never have been certified in the first place.

By the word perfect and others were no longer a factor.

---

They USE their OS to make THEIR NON OS products work better and competitors break or work worse.
They purposely write their operating systems to break competitors products (proven twice at least by assembly review- for DR DOS it was blatant- basically "If DR DOS, FAIL".)

---
Sounds like google is doing something similar with a spin. They are using their SEARCH capabilities to produce a warped google centric view of the world.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[jZnat]

If Microsoft used and followed current and open standards (e.g. POSIX, OpenGL) rather than making up their own proprietary, secret standard for everything (e.g. SMB, Active Directory, ActiveX, DirectX, Windows' COM), developers might have been able to port their software easily and efficiently to many operating systems. However, this was and is not the case, so therefore we have a problem.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Ucklak]

You should read up on the definition of a monopoly:

From Reference.com

1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

Google has exclusive control of THEIR product as most busines owners do - not a monopoly.
73% of a market share is not a monopoly.

There are orther search engines.
Advertisers can choose to not use Google and place banner ads themselves.

Users ARE NOT forced to use Google, they just have a popular product that a lot of people use.

That being said, Google does not have EXCLUSIVE control of search content ergo, they are not a monopoly or even close to it.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[nine-times]

No, but "the Internet" isn't a product. Google has a near-monopoly on web searches, and it is (allegedly) leveraging that monopoly to gain a competitive advantage in other industries that also happen to be web-based.

Tell me something about Google's "monopoly" on searches that prevents me, the searcher, from using a different search engine. Tell me some way in which Google's "monopoly" on searches prevents me, as a company, from placing ads through other services.

When you talk about Google leveraging their "monopoly". How is Google making it difficult for me to not-use their services, or to use competing services.

What you're complaining about would be comparable to DishTV having ads for DishTV on channels delivered via DishTV. If you hated DishTV so much that their commercials would bother you, then why are you using their service? Likewise, if you have a problem with seeing references to Google's services, why the hell are you going to Google for your web searches? It's not as though you have no alternative. The *only* reason Google has managed to stay on top is that they've done a much better job than anyone else.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[arifirefox]

for every company that failed next to Microsoft, there was always an element of unfairness with Microsoft's marketshare advantage. But it's also because the company screwed up. For example, PalmOS also had the majority of the PDA market but failed to keep up with a modern OS, split itself into 2 companies and other stupid things.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Ucklak]

You have to have a computer to install said software.
Computer makers (not assemblers like a good bit of hobbyists) are forced to pay Microsoft a fee for every unit shipped.
The makers might as well ship Windows since they are paying a fee and face a penalty if they ship a different OS.

So, it is Microsoft fault that software developers do not port to other platforms since Microsoft doesn't allow computers to ship with other operating systems installed.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[HuckleCom]

I don't feel trapped by using MSFT tools. If I don't like IE7, I can download FF2 and use that instead. If I don't like Outlook, I can download Thunderbird instead. If I don't like MS Office, I can download Open office instead. I can use all of these alternatives on their operating system. Therefore, I have no real problem. I think it's just LAZY people who complain about Microsoft not shipping windows XP with firefox pre-installed.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[nine-times]

No, I think the GP had it right. You're saying that Google couldn't exist without its users, which is true enough. It's also true that Dell couldn't exist without computers.

If you want to know what the business model is, follow the money. We don't pay Google when we use their services. Who pays Google? People wanting to place advertising. What are they paying Google for? Your attention.

So, just like in the broadcast TV business model, viewers are not the customers being served. Viewers are the products being sold. Google is selling quality consumer eye-ball time to advertisers. That's the business they're in.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. You're right, when you're in the consumer-eye-ball business, it's good for business to show the eyeballs what they want to see. If you don't do that, you won't stay in business.

At the same time, you shouldn't have any illusions about what is going on. TV networks could have the best show ever, and it could be something that would attract loads of viewers and make viewers happy. However, if for some reason they couldn't sell advertising time for that show, it wouldn't air. They might sell a DVD, but it would not make it onto broadcast TV.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[L7_]

Yeah, this is analagous to ClearCast using some of its own billboards to broadcast how to advertise with them.

The services and what not are (bad analogy forthwith) just the roads on which to get people to travel to look at the billboard type advertisements.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[b.burl]

The point is, google has no power over me. Either as a user of their free services or a purchaser of their ads. That is not true about microsoft.

and its not about 'character'. All corporations are souless abstractions designed to produce profit. Its about whether a company's leadership have been proven to engage in illegal activities without remorse in order to make more money. If they have, they deserve a different category.

But if you want to use character analogies, then its like this: person A is a remorseless convicted criminal. person B has never had any trouble with the law. If I am looking at moral or ethical categories, chances are pretty good they will fall in different ones. I.e., they will be categorically different people.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Anonymous Coward]

Google doesn't need to keep us happy, they just need to keep us coming, in order to sell us (our eyeball/click-through time) to their customers. In this sense, we are precisely their product.

We can be happy or unhappy -- what keeps us coming back is the belief (whether true or not) that no alternative is preferable. A great many people are unhappy with Microsoft products, but they continue to use them exactly because of this belief. This is of no concern to anyone. Radical capitalism is based on an assumption of some kind of radical choice, which is basically a fantasy.

What is in fact happening is the continued alienation of human beings from each other and our social worlds. Google is a company who is in service of other companies by the means of keeping flocks of humans as product. If only there had been a thinker who had warned us that this might happen.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[demonbug]

It doesn't matter what their market share is... it could be 99.9%, and there still wouldn't necessarily be a problem. It could only be described as a monopoly (really an abusive monopoly) if they then leveraged that market share to artificially raise the barrier to entry into the market for their competitors.

For example, if Google started telling it's advertisers that they can't advertise with anyone else if they want to be able to advertise with Google, that would be an attempt to illegally (or at least abusively) leverage their position in order to harm their competitors. Sort of like Microsoft telling computer manufacturers that if they want to be able to sell computers with Windows installed, they better not be selling computers with any other OS (or with no OS) - at that point, they are abusing their market position to build artificial barriers to entry in the desktop OS market.

There can only be a monopoly if there is a significant barrier to entry in a market. It is only an abusive monopoly if they either use their position to raise artificial barriers, or if significant "natural" barriers exist, when they start abusing their customers.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[nath_de]

As I, and other posters, have been pointing out. You are not the consumer, nor the customer. You are the product. The advertisers are the customer. They are most definitely charged by Google for their services.

We just bought a Google Enterprise product, so I think I am a customer...
Selling their search technology is an important part of Googles business.
I could argue that the free search at Google.com is just a demo of their product and to finance the costs that this demo creates, they put up some advertisements.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[stry_cat]

What accounts for this "Market Share" place having such different numbers than searchenginewatch?

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[bugnuts]

Google has a near-monopoly on web searches If under 50% of the websearch market is a "near monopoly" then I'm not sure where you get your definitions. Microsoft had about 90% of the PC OS market when it was called a monopoly... this is half that. Google has 48% (iirc from the NYT 2 days ago), yahoo has 25%, and MS has 12% of the search engines used.

Google doesn't have any sort of monopoly. What they do have, is a nice clean interface with no popups and few enough ads that I will tolerate using them. And so will about half the computer users out there.

I like the parallel between MSIE and google ads, but it doesn't fit very well. The problem with IE was that it was intentionally made difficult to use the OS with competing browsers. With google putting itself on top of its own ads, it doesn't affect your computer usage at all.

You might ask a question such as "how much does Comcast pay themselves for Comcast commercials?" Or how about, how much does Qwest pay itself for those phonesecks commercials?

The right answer is: who cares?

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[TubeSteak]

World share is about 73%.

A lot of people in this discussion have quoted that figure.

So what?

Is the world going to prosecute/fine Google for having a monopoly?

If Google does not have a monopoly in [Your Country's Jurisdiction] then it is misleading to quote Google's world share, because that number is neither relevant no actionable.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Irish_Samurai]

I agree with what you are saying. The existence of a monopoly is not necessarily a bad thing. But we are entering a time where online advertising is more than just banner ads and content advertising. New avenues are being created and the existing ones are being redefined with more granularity. Search advertising is still legally a new beast. Laws have had a hard time keeping up with their relative online charges.

The definitions of monopoly in place today lean on the limitations of the product delivery vehicle or naturally occuring physical states of the product. Its very similar to how copyright law leans against the shortcomings of the delivery mechanism to make up for its crappy definitions.

More to the point, with new business models that leverage non physical assets, cultural, and social behavior in order to generate revenue - the existing definitions seem lacking. When people choose enmasse to use a particular service, in this case Google, and this service has majority influence on how the population uses the vehicle (the Internet and the web) - you need to take a look at it. There are no currently acceptable legal precedents for this occuring.

As an example, a brick and mortar probably views online advertising as one conduit of marketing. If they choose not to use Google, fine - they have other options: TV, Print, ect. These methods can get traffic into your store.

Now lets look at a virtual business. A t-shirt shop for instance. While you CAN advertise in Print and TV, the behavior of the consumer will be much different. They won't be able to go to your store. They have to find your store online. Now, while a small percentage of people will type your websites URL directly into their browser - a much, much larger percentage will type your company's name into a search engine hoping it will lead them to your store.

It just so happens that Google has 73% of the search market share. Now, Google is not obligated to list your website in their organic listings - so your only other "guaranteed" option for visibility is AdWords. This advertising conduit is only available through Google, and if you want your business to function - you MUST use them.

In my opinion this needs to be explored to a deeper level. Social behaviors and business conduits have changed to such a degree that there are many ways we can manipulate the laws our way due to fuzzy definitions for online behaviors. Some legal definitions might not even be useful in certain circumstances.

What is a "natural" barrier for online business? What is an "artificial" barrier in online business? Does the term monopoly even apply when the supply of a service or material is infinite? In an environment where change is "one click away", what constitutes true competition?

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[ben there...]

Advertisers are Google's customers. They are the ones who pay. Granted they treat their users well with their offerings, but in no way are you a customer of Google's.

Yeah, it's kind of like free newspapers.

I did a paper route a while back (unfortunately). But it was interesting that it wasn't as important that we consistently delivered the free weekly paper to customers as the subscribed daily paper. We were actually told to deliver the free papers to any box we could, whether they asked for it or not, as long as the stack was gone when we were done. The point was to please the advertisers that their ads were being seen by X number of people, not to actually satisfy the customers that requested and successfully received their free paper. In the case of the free paper, the customers were the advertisers, not the readers.

In Google's case, they need to at least somewhat please their visitors though, because they can't just force their website in your box. ;-)

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Anonymous Coward]

> No, but "the Internet" isn't a product. Google has a near-monopoly on web searches, and it is (allegedly) leveraging that monopoly to gain a competitive advantage in other industries that also happen to be web-based. Just because a product is offered on the Internet doesn't mean the product is "the Internet," and it doesn't mean that product isn't distinct from other offerings on the Internet.

The word "monopoly" implies, among other things, a barrier to entry in that market created by the monopolist. There's no such thing with web searches, it's just that Google can do them better than other people and that Google is more popular.

You're free to say, for example, that Joe's is the #1 cheese shop in the universe on your own web portal. That doesn't imply that anyone else will listen to your judgment, even if they do stock Venezuelan beaver cheese.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Irish_Samurai]

The fact that they use ALL google properties instead of just google.com. Google.jp IS NOT google.com.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[l0b0]

I'm not sure it is possible to have a monopoly on something on the internet. There is *no* penalty for using other products.

While that's certainly true for search engines, it's a whole other ballgame when customers create a lot of data bound to the service (MySpace, del.icio.us, Flickr). Geeks have come to expect high portability of web-based data, but not everyone plays nice. That's when it really costs.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[FrostedChaos]

Um, maybe the slight "element of unfairness" was the fact that Microsoft was giving away their product for free, hence destroying their business model?
Common sense, have you heard of it?

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[therealking]

Considering Google complained that MS was making thier live.com search engine the default search engine I think google might be being hypocritical here.

If it's not ok to use your advatnage as the provider of the dominate web browser to promote another product of yours, then it's not ok to use your advtange as the domniate advertising network to promote your other offerings in the most advantageous position.

I think google's "Do no evil" marketing campain has sold too many of you into thinking they are benevolet. Google is as bad as any other company, microsoft included.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[griffjon]

Could Google get top advertising on Yahoo? MSN Search? I'm sure everyone does it. Web search is probably a hard oligopoly.

Also, even if it becomes more monopolistic, the cost of switching for users to a new upstart is zero. Sure, this new search engine won't be able to advertise in Google's AdWords (at the top spot), but they can put out print ads, tv spots, hell, they could even buy a super bowl ad where all the employees sing off key if they want to.

The problem with MSFT is not as much the monopoly they hold, but the switching cost/lock in effect that prevents new entrants from doing well. Tried to buy a "headless" PC from any of the big, reliable names recently? It's *still* really difficult.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Haeleth]

Google has a near-monopoly on web searches

According to this, Google has about 45% of the market. Since when was less than half equivalent to "a near-monopoly"?

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as there is such a thing as net neutrality that is.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[randal23]

A: Microsoft leverages their monopoly to trap you into using MSFT tools, most of which are in some way or shape flawed compared to alternatives.
B: So if Microsoft's tools were technologically superior to the alternatives, the behavior would be okay? I don't think so.

Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to broaden your understanding English usage, and, in particular, to learn the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/062.html. You would then realize he implied that leveraging one's monopoly to trap consumers into using one's tools is a bad thing in general (but, admittedly, this attitude is even more shameful if these products are flawed).

"Microsoft leverages their monopoly to trap you into using MSFT tools, [...] *WHICH* are in some way or shape flawed compared to alternatives."
!=
"Microsoft leverages their monopoly to trap you into using MSFT tools *THAT* are in some way or shape flawed compared to alternatives."

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to know what the business model is, follow the money.

Money is just a proxy for something of value. It's more convenient to get pieces of paper than, say, a fattened calf, but there can be other ways to exchange something of value. Google sells us their service in exchange for our attention. Google sells the opportunity to get our attention to advertisers in exchange for money. Everyone's getting value.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Buchenskjoll]

I don't see the problem. Search for "web search" and AltaVista comes out on top. Try "internet search" and Google isn't even there.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[mabinogi]

No, but "the Internet" isn't a product. Google has a near-monopoly on web searches A monopoly isn't "eveyone uses your product", a monopoly is "your product is the only one people can use"

Google's "monopoly" could dissolve at any minute if they made the wrong move, there's plenty of other search engines out there, and no barrier to using them.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[samkass]

We were actually told to deliver the free papers to any box we could, whether they asked for it or not, as long as the stack was gone when we were done. Ye gads, I hate that. I've been tempted at times to report the local paper boy for littering when he throws those papers on my lawn. They're the physical precursors to spam and I have as much sympathy for those involved as I do for spammers.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[2short]

Or paid-for papers. For most newspapers, the subscription price is not a significant revenue source; it probably doesn't even cover the cost of printing your paper. The point of charging you for the paper is chiefly to convince advertisers you're going to look at it, and not just throw it away (or to convince them you even exist in the first place).

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[BBird]

Monopolies only become a problem when they stop doing what's in the best interests of the customers -- sorry -- i don't agree, as well as most economists incl nobel prizes -- monopolies are a problem always due to their pricing power and much more.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough, a fairly common criticism of MSFT is that they're all closed source.

Dude! The only people who complain about that are /.ers!!

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[nine-times]

Everyone is getting value, but Google is a business, and when it comes to business, the real issue is money. Where is Google getting its money, that's the question. Once you know that, you know where their business interests lie.

For example, my company buys office supplies from staples. That doesn't mean our core business is buying office supplies. The owners want to keep the employees happy because you can't function without employees, but that doesn't make the core business "employee-pleasing". If you want to know what our company is really about, you look at our income. What is it we get paid for?

Same thing with Google. What do they get paid for? Ad placement. Therefore their customers are advertisers. Everything else is a cost of business.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[PitaBred]

The cost of switching from google is next to nothing. That alone forces Google to remain competitive, because if it stops providing what customers want, it's trivial to switch. They may become a natural monopoly of sorts because of the amount of data they have, but nothing (except funding and time, which is to be expected) is preventing any other competitor from indexing the Internet like Google does and competing with them. Google is a "level" playing field insomuch as it is providing a service people want (search), and doing it well enough that more people search it than any other place, so they can command the advertising dollars. But their position is only as good as their results. If someone else provides a better service than Google on search, people can (and will) switch. Google has their "monopoly" only because they do what they do better than anyone else.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Metaphorically]

I think you meant ClearChannel since they do billboards and I can't find ClearCast. So, no, this is more like ClearChannel advertising their radio stations on their billboards and refusing to sell space on the best billboards (by placement I guess) to any competing radio station.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[DragonWriter]

Actually, Netscape got pwned because developing for their DOM model sucked. Also, they tried to make a play at becoming the Netscape portal, splitting their war chest in two and leaving them underfunded on the browser front.

Also, IIRC, they made the dumb move of starting from scratch after version 4.x, which left them for a couple of years with no new releases while they reinvented the wheel for Netscape 6, by which time they'd been pounded into the dirt.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[dryeo]

Back when developers were interested in developing for other platforms, about a dozen years ago, MS did everything they could to stop them. IIRC they basically threatened to cut of all support for any ISV who developed for OS/2. This meant no up to date tools, no info on bugs or the changing API

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[ecuador_gr]

It is absurd to suggest that MS is a monopoly. Don't believe me? Let's do a quick poll: who in here is running Windows? ;)

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[edumacator]

this is more like ClearChannel advertising their radio stations on their billboards and refusing to sell space on the best billboards

Okay, but does that equate to abuse of a monopoly status? And, what if they only reserved one fourth of the billboard? What if they sold their competitors the next billboard over, but not the one on the top of the hill? I guess it seems that we are oversimplifying the issue here. Google hasn't kept its competitors from advertising through them. They are just saying they want some of the best real estate. I don't know if that is wrong. Do we complain if NBC broadcasts commercials for its shows during a major event?

I just did a search for spreadsheets in Google, and although GoogleDocs came up at the top of the search page, there were eight ads for their competitors down the right hand side. Are we saying that if they don't give the top of the page to a competitor, then no customer will look to the right to see the plethora of alternatives to GoogleDocs?

And to continue the billboard analogy, if Google makes the highest billboards, buys the land, convinces people to look there, don't they have somewhat of a right to use that space as they see fit?

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[QRDeNameland]

Being that my post pretty explicitly avoids any argument as to Google being a monopoly (or not), I have no idea why you're replying to it. To sum my point, I don't think Google is a monopoly, nor do I think that, even if the allegations of TFA are true, are illegal. However, if in fact Google does game ad placement or (worse) search results in their favor, then they are *not* providing a level playing field and their customers should be duly concerned about that.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Freakstown]

Ditto, Google has sufficient market share to dominate some fields. However, I tried to verify the mentioned searchs using google.com.au and found most pointed not to google but wikipedia. And books the highest ranked is Amazon, suprise suprise. So the original posting is inaccurate and misleading. Google doesn't monopolise the internet, the mearly have the best search engine which most people currently use. Have you ever tried to search for something using micro$oft's home page. Even something like gmail returns irrelevant results from blogs and no google sites to be found.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Grishnakh]

Exactly. They basically forced AutoCAD to cancel all their ports on non-Windows platforms.

It's not the ISVs' fault, it's Microsoft's.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[aftk2]

Clearly, you were not a web developer in 1999.

Us production folk (at the time) bitched as much about developing for Nutscrape (we weren't the cleverest bunch) as we do about Internet Explorer today.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[sumdumass]

It is ironic that Google has received the stature that in whatever it does, It is considered the leader or authority of it.

The candid facts are that Google is just one of many search engines that offer advertising as well as just one of many more companies offering to advertise. I wold call into question if Google is even a monopoly in the first place. As bug as they are, i doubt they would be considered a monopoly. Even further, i doubt it would be considered an monopoly specifically in advertising or searching.

But as your quick to point out, I also see nothing out of the ordinary with them keeping the best positions or real estate for themselves. Other companies do it. Even other very large companies do it.

Some in other threads try to make a connection between Google and Microsoft's similarities. And hear i just don't see it. Out side of favoring their products, there is no attempt to control anyone else's product line, there is no attempt to unfairly compete with them and there are other viable competitors in the same league as Google is in almost every area. I'm just not seeing it here.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

No, but "the Internet" isn't a product. Google has a near-monopoly on web searches

Does that matter? Unlike with an operating system, the cost of switching from one search engine to another is virtually nil. If Google starts harming the public, it could become irrelevant overnight. That isn't so with Microsoft (and it certainly wasn't so with Imperial Oil).

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[DJCacophony]

Yeah, Google advertises themselves on their own product. Big deal. UNLIKE Microsoft, if you don't like Google's products, you can switch to a competitor's products with little or no hassle. You can't do that with Microsoft, because the learning curve for switching between OS's is much higher than the learning curve for switching from Google to Yahoo.

It's pretty obvious that this story was submitted by "An anonymous reader" because anybody who gave their name out when submitting something this moronic would be a fucking laughing stock. Get a clue, anonymous submitter.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[fiannaFailMan]

>25% market share is still a monopoly.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[larytet]

...and you can block Adsense not only mentally - GreaseMonkey script solves this small problem of getting clean area on the right side of the screen.

On all other non google.com WEB sites adblock with rule http://pagead2/ will do wonders (Adblock plus conveniently comes with this rule preinstalled)

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[UKRevenant]

The general wisdom appears to be that once you pass 30% market share you can begin to have monopoly influence. How true this is depends on the nature of the rest of the market. Whilst Google are currently the number 1 search engine, they are constantly being challenged by competitors large and small.

Googles ability to make use of their power in the search market is limited by this. However, for them to fall foul of anti-competitive laws you would have thought that they would in the first instance have to do something to actively damage the prospects of competitors in other markets.

The headline caught my attention so I tested it in google.co.uk:
keyword - result - sponsored
Intranet - wikipedia - orchisoft.com
spreadsheet - google - compasssoft.com
documents - www.official-documents.gov.uk - simply-docs.co.uk
calendar - timeanddate.com - google.com
word processor - google.com - techready.co.uk
email - yahoo.com - fasthosts.co.uk

Google manage to be the top search results for spreadsheets and word processor, and only calendar for the sponsored (i.e. adword) links. When you type in email, google dont appear on the results at all, yet one of their biggest competitors do. This appears to show the article is either flawed or google have adjusted already.

Whilst they may take advantage to place themselves higher in the results than they would otherwise merit and certainly appear to take the top sponsored link when they wish, this does not demonstrate any abuse for the simple reason they do not return only themselves. The results of any search appear fair so, I have no problem with them. It is something that people may need to be aware of, but as long as they continue to return search results that place their competitors highly it will be very hard to make a complaint stick.

What they are doing is no different to a TV or radio station advertising their other channels and programmes.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[Anonymous Coward]

You wrote: "What is in fact happening is the continued alienation of human beings..."

If you look at the happiness research, you might have to use a search engine (say google) to find it, you'll find that most people are happy (astonishingly so). Also you might want to read a little about a somewhat more influential thinker, Adam Smith. Karl Marx's ideas founded a country that didn't even last a 70 years while Adam Smith's ideas created the greatest country in the world which has lasted 220 years. The simple fact is that communism doesn't allow for economic competition. Without competition there's no technological progress (similar to evolution). The ironic thing is that every year the world moves closer to a worker's paradise, like Marx envisioned, mostly due to the increases made from capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith/

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[nine-times]

The problem isn't really the learning curve. From an administrative/UI standpoint, you should be able to move to another OS without too much difficulty. The real problem is interoperability/compatibility. Most of the world uses Windows, Office, and IE, so if you want to work with most of the world, you need to be able to interface with Microsoft protocols and formats. It seems like every time the FOSS community makes headway in that area, Microsoft comes up with a new protocol or format in order to break compatibility and force users onto the upgrade treadmill.

If switched people over to Linux or OSX before, and I've had other times where I've tried to switch someone over and failed. The failures are never due to a problem with the new OS itself or the learning curve. The problem is always an application that the user needs, or a file format that can't be read/written properly by any applications but those which exist on Windows.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[smilerz]

Interesting theory - any actual proof to back it up? There was nothing wrong with the speed of WordPerfect, the feature set just wasn't as good as Word provided and that has nothing to do with the APIs.

Re:It's fine for Google to do that

[tehcyder]

If Microsoft used and followed current and open standards (e.g. POSIX, OpenGL) rather than making up their own proprietary, secret standard for everything (e.g. SMB, Active Directory, ActiveX, DirectX, Windows' COM), developers might have been able to port their software easily and efficiently to many operating systems. However, this was and is not the case, so therefore we have a problem.

But that's the joy of capitalism, MS as a business do what they want, and it's up to consumers not to buy their products if they hate proprietary standards so much.

so slashdot can decide which stories they choose?

[tronicum]

thats an evil monopoly!

Google

[jrwr00]

and? any company that is sane would do the same thing

Re:Google

[Friar_MJK]

I'll second that. Could you expect any company to do otherwise than to shamelessly plug itself at any turn? If I owned a company, I think I would have a slight interest in doing everything I could to make it succeed. Including but not limited to placing my own ads at the top of my ads place, extortion, bribery (lobbying), blackmail, murder, and the occasional mafia hitman when needed.

"Do No Harm"

[Reverend99]

Doesn't anyone watch movies? Any company that claims to "Do No Harm" is obviously the most evil vile company of them all.

Re:"Do No Harm"

[Reverend99]

Sorry, meant Do No Evil... whatever. You get the idea. Stop being so anal.

Re:"Do No Harm"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you meant "Don't be evil". Sorry.

Re:"Do No Harm"

[jorgeleon]

was suspecting that my doctor was evil... specially because of the bills

Re:"Do No Harm"

[Anonymous Coward]

If the parent post was accidentally listed as "Insightful" rather than "Funny", then I understand. Otherwise, the following statements stand.

Microsoft destroys businesses left right and centre, fakes evidence in the courts, bullies companies to stop supporting competitor's products, infringed on the stac compression technology, forced people to buy DOS using a "lie" ... and Google did what? Made an impossible claim to "Do No Harm" - and has not fully met that promise. IMHO, Google has put a lot of effort in to being as publicly ethical as is possible for a large organisation. I can't comment on what happens behind closed doors.

Rest assured, I know which company I hold the most disrespect for out of Google and Microsoft. To say Google is "obviously the most evil vile company of them all" is patently absurd.

On a side note, Microsoft is not the most unethical company I can think of ... but it's sure in the running.

AC
PS If Google do a "Citizen Kane" with their promises, rest assured, I will be at the front of the anti-Google queue.

Re:"Do No Harm"

[DamnStupidElf]

Doesn't anyone watch movies? Any company that claims to "Do No Harm" is obviously the most evil vile company of them all.

I suppose that means that the intelligence agencies and the military industrial complex are actually our best friends? They've never claimed to be harmless, after all.

Re:"Do No Harm"

[Bun]

Doesn't anyone watch movies? Any company that claims to "Do No Harm" is obviously the most evil vile company of them all.

Are we talking about Google or the AMA here?

Re:"Do No Harm"

[Daniel Phillips]

Any company that claims to "Do No Harm" is obviously the most evil vile company of them all

Microsoft astroturfers out in force tonight?

Overlooking the obvious...

[__aaclcg7560]

Maybe you need to find a product or service that doesn't compete with Google Enterprises?

Re:Overlooking the obvious...

[gfreeman]

Your search - a product or service that doesn't compete with Google Enterprises - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords.

email keyword

[ivarsv]

btw at at the moment then on search for email yahoo is top resiult, gmail comes 2nd.

Re:email keyword

[jabskeeterbug]

Probably because Yahoo! mail has been out a LOT longer than GMail.

Re:email keyword

[Irish_Samurai]

We're talking about ad listings, not organic listings. Google is number one in the ads.

Re:email keyword

[Phisbut]

Probably because Yahoo! mail has been out a LOT longer than GMail.

Or maybe because Yahoo! mail is a real official service offered by Yahoo!, while Gmail is just some piece of beta software that you can't subscribe to anyway. Where's the "Create a new account" button on http://www.gmail.com/ ?

Google doesn't control your computer

[Anonymous Coward]

not yet...

Did I miss something?

[Colonel Angus]

Google is the only way one can advertise a product on the web anymore?

Last I checked, Google was *one* place where you could buy ads. If you don't like it, advertise elsewhere.

Re:Did I miss something?

[truthsearch]

Exactly. The analogy to Microsoft isn't accurate because Google isn't a monopoly. And even if they were a search engine monopoly, they're certainly not a monopoly in the online advertising business. Yahoo, for example, is one of the most popular destinations on the web, and they have their own keyword advertising service.

Re:Did I miss something?

[yuriyg]

Last I checked, Windows is not the only operating system out there.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a bullshit argument

once a company achieves a certian marketshare in a field with no *real* competition, they start to take on charastics of a public works company and should be treated as such.

Microsft does it, so should google.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Grishnakh]

What the hell are you talking about? Google has plenty of competition that works nearly as well as their services (but not quite, IMO). Yahoo Mail, MSN search, Yahoo search, Hotmail, Mapquest, etc. There's nothing forcing you to use Google for anything.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Irish_Samurai]

Sorry. Wrong.

Google has almost 73% world market share in search. That gives you 73% world market share in search advertising. That is a monopoly. No one is arguing that there isn't competition for online advertising companies, there are. Google's content advertising has many competitors - as do their free email services, map tools, ect.

Back to the 73% search advertising market share. If you have that much of the market captured, AND you leverage it to get placement for your OTHER services - you are manipulating a monopoly unfairly. Everyone complained when MS did it with IE and Office, now people are defending it it because Google did it.

Re:Did I miss something?

[businessnerd]

So you're saying you agree with the parent?

Re:Did I miss something?

[businessnerd]

Last time I checked, 73% market share does not constitute a monopoly. Google still has plenty of competitors, they are just the most popular. I also don't see the problem with recommending your own products/services over your competitors. When you buy a car, they always recommend that you get the car serviced at the dealer. Why would the dealership recommend going to a competitor? It makes no sense. If the dealership told you that Joe's Garage can take care of it for half the price, I would be a little confused as to why they are even telling me this.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you did miss something. You missed the state of Illionios vs GM decision last year.

So just to follow up with your car anology.

Dealerships userd to do just that.

A federal judge ruled it was AGAINST THE LAW to require work be done by a dealership or risk voiding the waranty.

Basically, if you ask the dealer abotu a car they tell you abotu a car. If you ask abotu service they tell you about service.

You ask google about a car adn it tells you to chekc out gmail.

Re:Did I miss something?

[lys1123]

The problem here is that the Microsoft debate has watered down the word Monopoly.

You only have a Monopoly if you have exclusive possession or control. The word exclusive is key here. 73% is nowhere near exclusive, especially with something like online advertising where the product isn't shipped with any particular physical product and the market has a great deal of freedom to move around.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Irish_Samurai]

This isn't all online advertising, that term is too loose. Online advertising encompasses content advertising as well as search advertising.

We are talking about search advertising in particular. In this context 73% share is command of the supply. If you own the search traffic, you own the search advertising. Google isn't about to show MSN or Yahoo ads next to their search results, and they shouldn't have to. What Google shouldn't be doing is reserving the top advertising slots for their own products when they are the only real search advertising game in town. That is unfair leveraging.

Re:Did I miss something?

[DragonWriter]

Google has almost 73% world market share [hitslink.com] in search. That gives you 73% world market share in search advertising. That is a monopoly.

73% marketshare is not, in and of itself, a monopoly. A monopoly is defined by monopoly power; having a substantial majority of the market without the ability to exercise monopoly power is not a monopoly: monopoly power is principally the ability to set prices without concern for competition, which is something which you only get when there are considerable barriers for people switching to competing offerings on top of (though perhaps resulting from) your existing marketshare—interoperation needs that affect Windows and Office, for instance—or the fact that there are genuinely no other suppliers in the case of the old steel, oil, and railroad trusts.

Further, 73% of search "marketshare" does not mean 73% of search advertising marketshare. The two are separate things. Its also dubious whether search advertising, as opposed to online advertising more generally with which it is arguably fungible, is legitimately a component of the market in which there can be a monopoly—the availability of alternative venues for online advertising makes it harder for substantial search advertising marketshare to translate into monopoly power.

Back to the 73% search advertising market share. If you have that much of the market captured, AND you leverage it to get placement for your OTHER services - you are manipulating a monopoly unfairly.

No, antitrust law does not define "monopoly" by what percentage of the market you have captured, but by the existence of monopoly power.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Irish_Samurai]

Further, 73% of search "marketshare" does not mean 73% of search advertising marketshare.

Show me a search engine that shows another providers advertising and that will be true. Since it doesn't exist, the argument is semantic.

Its also dubious whether search advertising, as opposed to online advertising more generally with which it is arguably fungible, is legitimately a component of the market in which there can be a monopoly--the availability of alternative venues for online advertising makes it harder for substantial search advertising marketshare to translate into monopoly power.

That's why the argument is in place. Online advertising is quickly becoming too nebulous a term. It's ridiculous to lump in the YouTube "will it blend" videos with the content advertising on that site. It's also foolish to add search advertising into that mix as well and label it "all the same".

monopoly power is principally the ability to set prices without concern for competition

You mean like showing advertisements for your products on top regardless of what anyone else bids for the spot? This is effectively done by ether a) making the keyword email so expensive that only google can afford it or b) charging themselves nothing for it. I'm of the opinion that it needs to be looked at.

Re:Did I miss something?

[fredricodagreat]

He said recommend getting the work done at the dealership, not require it.

Perhaps you missed something?

Re:Did I miss something?

[DragonWriter]

Further, 73% of search "marketshare" does not mean 73% of search advertising marketshare.

Show me a search engine that shows another providers advertising and that will be true. Since it doesn't exist, the argument is semantic.

Um, no. The share of the two "markets" is not the same. Search and search advertising are different markets, and marketshare in one is not the same as marketshare in the other. In fact, most search engines can be, and are, used in ways which do not involve serving ads at all, which affects search marketshare, but clearly detaches it from search advertising.

monopoly power is principally the ability to set prices without concern for competition

You mean like showing advertisements for your products on top regardless of what anyone else bids for the spot?

Nope, I mean the ability to set the prices that you will charge others for the good or service in question without concern for competition. If you don't have the power to do that, you don't have a monopoly to leverage. What you are talking about is something that might be leveraging a monopoly if it existed, but you've done nothing to establish that the monopoly exists in the first place. A monopoly is not defined marketshare. A monopoly is defined by price-setting power; now, overwhelming marketshare is usually a prerequisite to price setting power, and it is a common consequence of having that power, but it can exist without that power. Having lots of marketshare, alone, is not having a monopoly.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Irish_Samurai]

Um, no. The share of the two "markets" is not the same. Search and search advertising are different markets, and marketshare in one is not the same as marketshare in the other. In fact, most search engines can be, and are, used in ways which do not involve serving ads at all, which affects search marketshare, but clearly detaches it from search advertising.

Semantic. One market is inextricably attached to the other. You can't have search advertising without someone searching. Please detail how I can utilize search advertising on someone who isn't using a search engine. You can't.

Peoples use of the search engine does not effect its state as the only vehicle for the advertising. It isn't whether or not Google has the most effective search advertising, it is the fact that Google has the most search advertising opportunities. More searchers = more opportunities to advertise. It's that simple. When you have the most searchers, you have the most search advertising opportunities.

A monopoly is not defined market share. A monopoly is defined by price-setting power;

A monopoly can also be defined as control of supply. When Google has 73% world market share in search, they most definitely have control of the supply.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm replying to this so that I won't have the temptation of moderating half your posts "redundant". Stop posting the same reply over and over to rack up karma.

Re:Did I miss something?

[b.burl]

I could advertise through different channels and reach the same eyeballs. I have $X ad dollars earmarked for the internet to spend to reach Demo Y. Do I have to give google my X to reach y? Of course not, so where is google's power over me? No power, no potential to abuse, no potential to abuse, then whatever monopoly they have is inconsequential to the health of our society.

That is NOT the case with microsoft.

I took the liberty of editing your last 2 sentance:

"If you have that much of the market captured, AND you leverage it to get placement for your OTHER services in order to MURDER your competion, ELIMINATE consumer choice, FORBID new market entries, STRANGULATE innovation, and drive prices up - you are manipulating a monopoly unfairly. Almost no one with any political power complained when MS was doing it with IE and Office, and now people are being duped into believing Goggle is doing it in order to make microsoft's ethos look less psychopathic and damaging to the human condition.

Sound OK?

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably would if more people didn't keep posting the same incorrect statistic.

Re:Did I miss something?

[JesseMcDonald]

This isn't all online advertising, that term is too loose. Online advertising encompasses content advertising as well as search advertising. . . . We are talking about search advertising in particular. . . . What Google shouldn't be doing is reserving the top advertising slots for their own products when they are the only real search advertising game in town. That is unfair leveraging.

If you draw the boundaries of the "market" narrowly enough anyone can be considered a monopolist, provided that enough consumers are interested in buying their products. If anything, determinations of "anticompetitive" behavior ought to be based on the broadest possible market boundaries, not the narrowest ones; in this case that would mean the advertising market, not "online advertising", much less "online search advertising". If you intend to draw narrow boundaries simply to twist the meaning of "monopoly", why not just say "the market for advertising on Google's search result pages" and be done with it?

Furthermore, the producer has no direct control over the popularity of its products or its corresponding market share. If anything, a high market share correlates with the company's ability to satisfy the demands of the consumers in that market relative to its competitors. You propose to punish Google -- their investors and their consumers, both in search services and in advertising -- for satisfying the desires of their consumer base better than their competitors. Certainly the popularity of their search service, a major capital investment on which they make no direct returns, contributes significantly to the popularity of their advertising services. Their other services (GMail, calendar, spreadsheet, etc.) serve a similar purpose. In effect the visibility Google's free services grant its advertising space is the product Google sells to potential advertisers.

Lastly, a critical part of any antitrust ruling is the demonstation of actual harm to consumers in the form of higher prices. If there is no such harm there can be no illegal abuse of monopoly status. I don't think anyone has successfully argued that they've driven prices up in the advertising market -- quite the contrary, in fact -- and all their other services are free, and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Ergo, there is no convincing argument for antitrust intervention.

Standard Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Re:Did I miss something?

[DragonWriter]

Semantic.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

One market is inextricably attached to the other.

To a certain extent, that's true. That does not mean that X% marketshare in one implies X% marketshare in the other, as you have (falsely) claimed.

You can't have search advertising without someone searching.

But you can use a search engine without being exposed to any, or the same share as another user making the same number of searches, of ads. Which invalidates the equivalence you have asserted between shares of the two different markets.

A monopoly can also be defined as control of supply.

Control of supply can be a source of monopoly power, particularlyl if it is absolute (100%), but control of some large share of supply in circumstances which do not provide monopoly, that is, price-setting, power does not make a monopoly.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Irish_Samurai]

That does not mean that X% marketshare in one implies X% marketshare in the other, as you have (falsely) claimed.

This would be true only if there was another provider for search ads other than the search provider, there isn't. I cannot place or serve ads on Google search through a 3rd party. Well, I could - but they would then be forced to use Google as a conduit.

These numbers are the same. No one else can facilitate search ads on Google other than Google. If Google has X% share in Search they also control that much share in raw search traffic available for advertising to.

Control of supply can be a source of monopoly power, particularlyl if it is absolute (100%), but control of some large share of supply in circumstances which do not provide monopoly, that is, price-setting, power does not make a monopoly.

We gotta keep this debate in one spot. I address this issue in my reply to your other post along the same lines as this thread.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

last I checked MS wasn't the only provider of OS's, don't like it go buy and apple, OS/2 or this new fangled linux thing. hmmm yeah great excuse.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Daniel Phillips]

Google has almost 73% world market share

What is that, new math? Add up your own figures, troll.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Eivind]

73% is a large fraction. A monopoly is more damaging the higher the barriers to entry are, and the harder it is for the customers to select another provider.

If barriers to entry are high, and it's a lot of cost/hassle to change provider, then a monopolistic provider can demand a far to high price, or too onerous terms, and the customers still have no realistic choice but to accept it.

Microsoft Windows is a good example.

To enter the competition you need a complete modern operating-system and a large selection of software running on it. Which is a humongous investment. Linux just *may* have that by this point, but that was only possible trough cooperation of hundreds of organizations and thousands of individuals over literally decades.

But worse, selecting a different provider of OS is a large hassle and costs a lot. I don't mean that the OS needs to cost a lot, I mean that the process ends up costing a lot. Installation of OS and applications, training, conversion of documents, dealing with network-effects (Windows has the advantage that most of your customers, sub-contractors are likely to run it) etc.

It does look as if Linux has a fair chance of breaking trough despite this, but it's hard going.

Contrast with Google as a search-provider.

Changing your search-engine is literally 2 mouse-clicks if you're on Firefox. You migth need a few more to update your bookmarks etc. But it's still *tops* 10 minutes of work. You also don't require much retraining, there's details for the advanced users (do "site:.no" work in the new search-engine, or is the syntax different ?) but most are simple users who do nothing more than enter 1-3 common english words and pressing search -- which works without change in all search-engines.

Network-effects are also weak. It doesn't much *matter* if your customers still use Google and you switch to some other searchengine.

So yeah, Google is dominant in search. But no, I don't think they can abuse the position much without losing it.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Irish_Samurai]

The monopoly is not on search, it on on search advertising. It is completely different.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Irish_Samurai]

Troll? New math? Fuck you're an idiot.

Google *does* pay itself.

[pdabbadabba]

Consider: When Google grants itself the top ad slot for a search term, it denies itself the revenue of a third-party advertiser who might have paid for that slot. Thus, in a very real sense, Google pays exactly the same rate as everyone else.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[UbuntuDupe]

And when I **** my wife, I'm denying myself the revenue of a third-party john who might have rented her for that slot. Thus, in a very real sense, I pay the same rate as everyone else.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[lastchance_000]

No. Since you're married, you pay much, much more.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[pdabbadabba]

That sounds ridiculous, but its true, really. Opportunity cost. Bet you didn't know that about your wife. :)

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[Anonymous Coward]

No that'd be your wives money, you are denying whatever revenue you might get from renting yourself out.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[pdabbadabba]

To go a little further:

This is in contrast with the MS situation. Software vendors do not normally pay MS to provide software for windows. Thus, when MS adds 'features' that break other software, they are not directly depriving themselves of anything. And they do not have the 'normal' market-based checks on their business practices because they are a monopoly.

So, in short, when Google screws others to promote itself, it pays. When MS screws RealMedia (among many many others), they lose nothing but a little bit of goodwill in the market - which doesn't matter because they're a monopoly. Hence: regulation.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[Oz0ne]

You are exactly right. Thank you.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the Google accountants are aware of this and use it to their advantage when running the numbers. There's bound to be an advertising expense in one department and a revenue in another from this.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange. When I **** your wife, I don't pay anything. I think you're getting ripped off.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[UbuntuDupe]

Well, actually, it's not "the same". By "renting out" that "slot" (!), we take on additional risks and costs (psychic and tangible) that don't inhere to regular marital relations.

My point was just that you have to be careful when tabulating an "opportunity cost".

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[Andrewkov]

You are obviously not familiar with how a typical pimp/ho relationship works.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, while you f**k your wife, HER and YOUR's backdoors are still available and can be rented out - so things can be evened out. And she and you also have mouths, don't you?

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[caduguid]

Good point. It's not so much a question of whether they get the top space on the results page for free, though, as the fact that they are guaranteeing it to themselves. Nobody else has a shot.

Now that you bring it up, I think the analogy with leveraging a desktop pseudo-monopoly to leveraging a search pseudo-monopoly is not completely off-base.

I still haven't decided if I care, though. The Google has built up a lot of goodwill over the years.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[nahdude812]

Further, the Microsoft/IE analogy breaks down in that Google lets others advertise in these spaces, while Microsoft does not allow others to ship browsers in its default install.

The existing analogy would only be equivalent if Google prevented others from advertising in this space. Alternatively you could construct a better analogy with a hypothetical Microsoft that shipped IE, Opera, and Firefox all with Windows, but just always put the IE icon first. I think most people would see that as acceptable.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[Ezubaric]

Well, the opportunity cost is all of the beautiful women you turned down so that you could exclusively sleep with your wife.

This being slashdot, this is all theoretical anyhow, and fictional women rejected to sleep with an equally fictional wife cost you nothing.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[cyberianpan]

But does it reduce revenue ? 2nd slot after Google is worth more than 2nd slot after a direct competitor surely ? Also how transparent are their auction allocation rules: have we seen the detail published in order taht we can ensure ourselves that the bidding is fair when Google is in play ?

One of the key features of competitive stock markets is transparency.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[Anonymous Coward]

No that'd be your wives money

Ah, but in a community property state, like California, that amounts to the same thing.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[Pollardito]

that's only true if the revenue gained from the advertisement is the same as their fee would have been (if there are figures stating that then i'm sure that their adsense customers will be interested to read how they're buying ads for no reason at all). what they're really paying for these ads is the difference between what they earn using the slot themselves and what they'd earn having someone else use it, and although google is not selling a email product for real dollars with their keyword ad they are getting even more eyes on their ads when you use their mail service.

personally i think this guy has qualified his view of the advertising marketplace to make Google look more dominant than they are. the advertising marketplace for the term "email" is not just search engines, an advertisement like that could fit on websites across the internet in all niches. therefore even if you prove that they hold a monopoly on search, if they don't hold a monopoly on advertising across all sites on the internet, then you can't say that they hold a monopoly on internet advertising. the narrow scope of "advertisements that appear on a search engine" is not really a market in itself

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[RallyNick]

Consider: When Google grants itself the top ad slot for a search term, it denies itself the revenue of a third-party advertiser who might have paid for that slot. Thus, in a very real sense, Google pays exactly the same rate as everyone else.

I'm not buying this. Slots are not sold individually with a price tag on each. They are being auctioned in batch. Whoever pays most gets 1st, next guy gets 2nd, etc. When Google takes 1st slot for themselves they don't really lose much since they just shift everyone else 1 slot down and still take all their money.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Quite. Google grants itself the top spot, but only pays the bottom spot's price. Why? Because every spot gets shifted down one, and the bottom one drops off (denying this revenue to google). This also assumes that all of the spots are taken, if not, then google doesn't lose any revenue.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[alienmole]

And they wonder why economists aren't the life of the party...

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[mofag]

"slot" - interesting pet name

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[nacturation]

Slots are not sold individually with a price tag on each. They are being auctioned in batch. Whoever pays most gets 1st, next guy gets 2nd, etc. When Google takes 1st slot for themselves they don't really lose much since they just shift everyone else 1 slot down and still take all their money. The top slot almost always has the best clickthrough rate. By pushing everyone else down a slot, not only do they push the bottom slot to the next page of results but the others get a slightly lesser clickthrough rate. Because companies pay per click, Google gets less revenue.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[paulpas]

It's safe to say that her SLA needs to be evalutated at the EOY.

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[zerocool^]

By "renting out" that "slot" (!)

Was it really necesary to give us an ascii representation of the female anatomy after you describe it as a slot?

~Wx

Re:Google *does* pay itself.

[UltimApe]

ITs called eating your profit... happens all the time. you might make 2500$ in drugs, but if you use up that much worht of drugs yourself, you aren't really making a net gain.

Google isn't a monopoly

[jonnythan]

Google can do it because it isn't a monopoly.

End of story, really. MSN Search, Yahoo Search, Ask.com, etc etc, make up a significant part of the search market.

Re:Google isn't a monopoly

[hashfunction]

How long before it becomes a monopoly? Its into so much stuff now that its hard to know whats coming next. So after it has become a monopoly THEN we can all start hating it or doing something to curtail its monopolistic urges? I do not see how Google can be seen as anything but a monopolistic beast worth hating every bit as much as Microsoft! :) Cheers!

Re:Google isn't a monopoly

[earnest murderer]

Natural monopolies are an entirely different animal.

You can do something to relieve your hate right now, and it's trivial to do so. Just change your bookmark to yahoo, or msn, or any of the dozzens of other equivalent offerings.

Of course that pretty much blows your "monopoly" argument out of the water doesn't it.

Re:Google isn't a monopoly

[LO0G]

By that logic, Microsoft wasn't a monopoly either - MacOS, OSX, Linux, etc etc made up a significant part of the OS market.

Re:Google isn't a monopoly

[twocents]

At what point has MacOS, OSX, and/or Linux made up any significant desktop market share compared to Windows?

Re:Google isn't a monopoly

[mcrbids]

*BSD is for People who Love *nix; Linux is for People who Hate Windows.

Ahem...

I'm a Linux lover. I don't deny it. Windows is great for games, and often for desktop use. MacOSX is the SHIZNIT for my grandmother - I'd use it more myself but the UI is a tad simplistic. (for me, annoying) Linux makes a great database/web/dns/mail/etc server.

BSD? What is it about BSD that you are enamored with?

A few years ago, I reviewed a switchover from our Linux infrastructure, and found the following:

1) SMP support was very green. Linux, OTOH, had been SMP capable for years.

2) Driver support was weak.

3) "Hot hands" support at colos was weak - they were frequently RHCE but never BSD.

4) Updates frequently (usually) required recompile.

5) BSD has a somewhat better security track record, but mainly because it usually comes configured with basically no services enabled. Since most of the vulnerabilities come from the applications used, the security benefits appeared to be minor.

I'm really asking: What is it about BSD that prompts you to use such an inflamatory sig?

Keyword "OS"...

[Rastignac]

...doesn't give "GoogleOS" as a result. Someone else has operating system monopoly, indeed.

Re:Keyword "OS"...

[aardvarkjoe]

Based on a search for OS, I conclude that Oregon Steel Mills has the OS monopoly.

Or, looking for results that pertain to operating systems, would you like to guess which major desktop OS is left off of the first page? A hint: both OS X and Linux are represented. When searching for "operating system" instead, Windows makes the first page, though still below those two.

Just an interesting observation, is all.

Re:Keyword "OS"...

[heroofhyr]

My IP address is not in the US, so I guess that explains why only of the keywords complained about ("photo sharing") returns Google in the top ad spot. All the rest are companies I've never even heard of.

As for regular searching, when I tried the list of keywords in TFA, only "spreadsheet," "word processor," "video," "photo sharing," "maps," "start page," and "books" came up with Google in the first four results. It comes up for "instant messenger" in 6th place.

In conclusion, I doubted this was really some sort of conspiracy before reading the blog post, and now I doubt it even more unless Google simply doesn't give a shit about its international competition.

Speaking of competition, is it just a coincidence the author of the blog runs a company that makes and sells products which would have to compete with Google's free offerings? How much of this anger is just sour grapes? I would be pretty pissed too if I spent a lot of time making DHTML and Wiki-based company office software and Google offers basically the same stuff online at no cost.

Monopoly

[El Lobo]

Two areas of "monopoly" which do concern commentators and commercial organisations are only indirectly commercial. In one sense, although it is a search engine, Google has some of the powers of a major newspaper or periodical. It does and can exercise editorial control and influence.

Secondly, the power and use of on-line purchase is growing. Google, and other search engines for that matter, have more power to influence the selection, availability and immediacy of purchases in the way it sets the so-called algorithms for prioritising and selection of websites, bringing distinct commercial advantage to some and disadvantage to others. Much of that will invariably be determined by the commercial power of advertising revenues. This could trigger investigation by Competition Authorities.

Re:Monopoly

[GiovanniZero]

Google, and other search engines for that matter, have more power to influence the selection, availability and immediacy of purchases in the way it sets the so-called algorithms for prioritising and selection of websites...

Way to point out the real truth. Google's "so-called algorithms" are in fact switch boards run by ferries, ferries with an agenda!

You mean like TV channels?

[ShadyG]

Sounds a lot like a television channels running ads for their own shows. How often do you see NBC airing an ad for a CBS show? Is that wrong?

Re:You mean like TV channels?

[JazzHarper]

ESPN, which is owned by ABC, regularly advertises on CBS. CBS runs an ad for ESPN's Monday Night Football during the Sunday night game. If NBC were willing to pay for ad time, I think CBS would be willing to take their money, too.

Re:You mean like TV channels?

[Triv]

Just to clear up your org chart: ABC doesn't own ESPN. Disney owns both ABC and ESPN. S'scarier that way.

--Triv

Re:You mean like TV channels?

[Triv]

How often do you see NBC airing an ad for a CBS show?

As often as CBS wants to pay for it. If CBS sees a show on NBC that attracts a demographic they think their programming can tap, CBS will pay the standard rates for advertising that airs within that show. It works for both networks, really - CBS gets eyeballs and NBC gets ad revenue from a competitor. In a way, it's an acknowledgment that NBC has something that CBS wants and is willing to pay for, ie that NBC is doing something right.

The catch is, CBS rarely WANTS to give that kind of money to a competitor - It's much more effective (and cheaper) to advertise on other networks that they control - that's why you'll see ads for Sci-Fi on USA because channels are NBC/Universal properties.

Counterintuitive, ain't it?

Triv

Re:You mean like TV channels?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, ABC used to own ESPN.

When ABC was out on its own, it bought an 80% share of ESPN in 1984: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN

Hearst Corporation still owns the other 20%.

Re:You mean like TV channels?

[barzok]

CBS doesn't air a Sunday night game. NBC snagged the rights to that one.

Re:You mean like TV channels?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they can advertise during the normal commercial breaks. BUT all the major networks reserve that last 15 second or so bump for their own shows. In the same way that Google reserves the top slot for their services. In essence that last bump is the top slot, it's the last thing you see before your show starts again. Also, if you have a DVR which doesn't do auto commercial skipping then you generally end up catching that last bump since it is not the standard 30 second ad. Just something else to think about.

Re:You mean like TV channels?

[neo]

But networks don't bump someone else's ad down in quality to put their ad on. The analogy is flawed.

Re:You mean like TV channels?

[colmore]

Agreed. The Microsoft case is more like Toshiba Televisions (in a theoretical market where Toshiba controls 90% of Televisions) inserting extra ads for Toshiba products and not showing and requiring that any ads for Sony (and worse, any small competitor competing in any area of any of Toshibas products) be programmed in by an expert.

Brand recognition, even on the scale of Google, does not make for market control the same way that hardware compatibility lock-in does. There are plenty of near functionally identical equivalents to both end-users *and* advertisers. Google is leveraging a powerful advantage, but that doesn't mean they're abusing a monopoly.

So...

[PieSquared]

So should google specifically change its system to make sure that it *doesn't* show up at the top of searches? Or does someone have proof that google spoofed its own system to make sure it came out on top. Lets face it, google is the best (or at worst most used) search engine. People link to google with all kinds of words... so it comes up high in all kinds of searches. That's just how the system works.

Re:So...

[amliebsch]

TFA is not about search results, it's about AD PLACEMENT.

Re:So...

[LO0G]

No, Google should follow the same rules that apply to other companies that take out ads on themselves (for instance, when Time Warner runs ads on AOL, or when ESPN runs ABC ads).

So the business group that runs Google Office should be charged the cost of the ad placement for "word processor". Right now, Google is giving itself free advertising which doesn't show up on its bottom line, and that's just wrong.

Re:If you are going to use stock symbols to refer

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you are trying to be cute by saying MSFT, M$ et al, but it just comes off as immature.

pot, kettle.

Umm...

[hanssprudel]

How much does Google pay *itself* to claim the top ad position for searches relevant to its own products?

The cost to google is loss in revenue from not being able to sell those top positions, presumably...

How hard was that?

Re:Umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost to google is loss in revenue from not being able to sell those top positions, presumably... Which isn't a loss seeing as they advertise their services over competitors keeping more of us in their house where they can give us more ads. Even if they don't promote in their service (gtalk has no ads) they're taking resources - us, from competitors which is in essence gaining resources themselves.

Maybe not diffrent.

[Devv]

The guy who wrote this were sure that slashdotters would protect google. Why not just say that it isn't any diffrent in the behavior.
  with that said

I think the fact that Microsoft tries to convert their monopoly on OS'es to monopolies in several other markets by forcing customers to buy somthing or toying with compabilities is a lot more serious than google giving itself a good ad position. That's just affecting the customers a little and they're not forced to buy crap.

Re:Maybe not diffrent.

[DeadChobi]

The guy who wrote this article is very clearly a troll. He's "concerned" because his ads frequently take second place to Google's ads. He even blows the whole thing out of proportion by claiming that it's the same as Microsoft embedding IE into its operating system. This, of course, assumes that we all(95%) use Google, that Google is in fact the only search engine that anyone is aware of, and that Google actively prevents us from using alternatives. None of these things is true.

Microsoft actually has a monopoly and has abused it, whereas Google has no monopoly and doesn't appear to be willing to abuse it, judging by their past behavior. Even if all they care about is shoving as many ads down our throats as possible, they at least present the ads in a tasteful manner, where I can choose to click or not. They don't display flashing ad banners that distract from the material on the page, which I do consider an abusive practice. When Google has 90% of the search market, and everyone is advertising with them, then they have to start allowing competitive ads to appear in whatever slot the advertiser pays for. They also have to be careful to not abuse their customers by losing mail in gmail inboxes, filtering mail from competing companies, etc.. As it stands, it's impossible for Google to exploit a monopoly Google doesn't have.

Breaking News!

[Anonymous Coward]

The GNAA has announced a hostile takeover of Google INC.
More news to cum.

Fine by me..

[Entens]

Sure, it has a monopoly, in its own domain. I would only be concerned about it if I started to see Google's ads at the top spot on multiple search engines.

Its the difference between seeing Mobile ads at a Shell gas station. Of course your going to see ads from Shell rather than Mobile, but if you don't want to see that, just go to a different service station.

Re:Fine by me..

[asylumx]

Not quite. It's more like this:

What if Shell owned ALL or a vast majority of gas stations. Then, Shell decided to start building cars and advertised them at their gas stations. Wouldn't the other auto manufacturers then have a legitimate complaint the Shell is abusing their position as a monopoly on gas stations in order to push their new product out the door?

I tend to think that the real question is whether or not Google has a monopoly, and I don't think it does.

Re:Fine by me..

[tilandal]

No. Shell owns the property. They can put whatever they want on their property. Auto makers would have a claim if Shell would only sell you gas if you drove a Shell car. Similarly, Google has the right to sell or not sell, whatever advertisement space they want.

The difference is in the price and the monopoly

[Vlijmen Fileer]

"How different is it than MSFT placing its products (Internet Explorer) in a premium marketing position (embedded in the OS)?"
I's say the differences are in the price (MS OS + Office is hugely expensive, Google is free), and monopoly position (MS has an almost absolute monopoly, while Google is just big and has real alternatives).

I think that is called "Smart"

[moore.dustin]

This is important like a press release saying the sky is blue is important. Of course a company that is in competition with other companies is going to promote its products before theirs. Google is not trying to launch all these services as individual entities, they are all part of Google. That means that Google will try to cross promote and advertise (for free) its own products. It is common sense as far as I can tell.

Why don't you go to a cab company and ask to advertise another cab service on their cars. Good luck!

Re:I think that is called "Smart"

[kthejoker]

When Microsoft did it, it was called a "Monopoly."

In fact, in a brief moment of surreal hilarity, read all of the justifications here on /. for Google being about to do it. Now substitute MS for Google and "Internet Explorer" for "#1 advertising spot" and see where it takes you.

Re:I think that is called "Smart"

[jtaylor00]

Except that MS didn't allow other browsers to be bundled with their OS. Google on the other hand does not prohibit others from advertising also on the keywords they take first place on.

"#1 advertising spot" implies there are others available.
If it was "only advertising spot", then I might be worried.

You can't compare singular to plural.

Re:I think that is called "Smart"

[manthrax3]

Remember the hissy fit google had when MSFT made Live the default search in IE7? Now THAT is the same thing.

Of course, I have no problem with anything that MSFT or GOOG does as long as they don't actively hurt me (steal my intellectual property, kill my first born, etc). The structure of their business is... well, their business.

In a free market, global economy, you can't hold on to a monopoly without government (ie, barrel of a gun force) help, especially in media and technology.

Re:I think that is called "Smart"

[kthejoker]

Not allowing them to be bundled and not allowing them to be installed are two different things.

I don't see how MS's infraction is any worse than this *except* that I don't think Google has a monopoly on advertising. But they are (again) walking a very thin line.

it's so different

[yagu]

It's a lot different, so different it's not a point of discussion, yet. There are so many alternative options for search engines out there.

I've tried many other search engines. I like that there are so many to choose from and try. And try again. But so far Google for most uses is the best first choice (for me). Google isn't forcing me to use them.

When I do use Google, I have no qualms they would ratchet up any ad placement or search results in their favor, it's their widget, and as long as it is giving me results that help me get through my research requirements,... hmmmm, not really the issue. Oh yes, abuse of monopoly.

Google isn't a monopoly. Google is dominant because they are good. They haven't stifled competition, they've created red hot innovation competition. Heck, Google has even gotten Microsoft to look like they're at least now trying to innovate.

Google's behavior is nothing like Microsoft's.... at least not yet, but additionally Google's beginnings look nothing like Microsoft's. Google emerged from a couple of people putting together cool ways of getting to information and grew that into some pretty amazing technology (do a Google and find and check out how their Google File System works -- it's amazing in its elegance, simplicity, and power). Google caught on in a world technology dominated by others and by dint of excellence have taken top spot.

As for the author's claim Google holds the top spot for the words:

• intranet
• spreadsheet
• documents
• calendar
• word processor
• email
• video
• instant messenger
• blog
• photo sharing
• online
• groups
• maps
• start page
• restaurants
• dining

I tried a bunch of these -- while I do see google as a top spot ad, it's hardly a dominant position. And there are many other sponsored links. This is nothing like the old Microsoft "don't dare put any icons or links of any competitor on any machine you sell or we won't give you license to sell Windows" fiat.

I don't care if they hold on to the top spot... I just care that the playing field remains level. I'm sure Google plays tough, but in the big picture I still hold faith Google plays fair.

Re:it's so different

[supremebob]

The results for "spreadsheet" are kinda fishy, though... Both the top three search links and the top sponsor links are for Google's spreadsheet product, and I don't see ANY links to Microsoft's Excel spreadsheet sites on the first page of results. Considering that Excel is the dominant spreadsheet product (for better or worse), doesn't it seem odd that it didn't it was excluded?

Re:it's so different

[Qzukk]

Considering that Excel is the dominant spreadsheet product

Maybe Microsoft felt that Excel had already reached the maximum mindshare and that advertising wouldn't do anything for them anymore. After all, if everyone thinks spreadsheet: Excel, then paying google to tell people spreadsheet: Excel doesn't help.

Re:it's so different

[M-G]

Maybe, but it would be much more fishy if the results for 'Excel' returned a bunch of non-Excel info.

Re:it's so different

[yagu]

Fishy maybe. I don't know. Again, I don't have any problem with Google snubbing Microsoft. Google isn't stifling any competition by doing so. It would be different if Microsoft couldn't move their product because of Google's "anti-Microsoft" behavior, but that scenario isn't even on the radar.

And for those interested in information about Excel, I would guess there isn't anybody anywhere that doesn't have an idea about how to get information on Excel.

As for not seeing Excel in the first few links, appropriately Microsoft does land in the top five. So, there is Microsoft representation to be found and with very high (just not number one) ranking. I give credit to Google for algorithms that use more than pure raw numbers to assign top placement to links. Are Google's algorithms pure?, and are the results real that Google would come out number one? I don't know, but I don't care.

Like I said, they give ample "other" representation in their results, and at the same time give drop dead great result results for research. As long as they continue to do that, and there is continued competition I'm loving it.

Re:it's so different

[Xentor]

"Microsoft Excel"
"Google Spreadsheets"

Now, which one of these more closely matches the keyword "spreadsheet"?

That explains why google comes up first in the normal search results. That they come up first in the sponsored ads is more of an issue (With which I don't see a problem), but this doesn't prove that they're seeding the actual results.

Re:it's so different

[Darth Cider]

Excellent post. Amen, brother. You got it right.

Re:it's so different

[Aladrin]

Maybe, just maybe, most of those have the top spot on Google because when people want google maps, they go to google.com and search for 'maps'. And groups. And spreadsheets. I do that quite a lot, rather than go to maps.google.com.

It's entirely possible that they aren't even affecting these searches AT ALL. That natural tendencies put them at the top.

BTW, restaurants and dining didn't produce any Google stuff at all, from what I could see.

Re:it's so different

[morningstar8]

Nope, it doesn't seem odd to me.

My understanding is that the ranking of a site according to Google's PageRank algorithm relies on how many quality sites link to the given site.

How many links are there in the wild to Microsoft's main Excel page? I'm guessing not many. Frankly, their front page is primarily a sales portal. (In fact, for me it only turns up fourth in a Google search for Excel!)

If I were Microsoft, and I were trying to increase the PageRank of my Excel page, I'd try making it more useful to users. Make it a destination worthy of quality links, and quality links will come.

Re:it's so different

[Kopretinka]

FWIW, when I tried intranet and word processor in Austria, none of the ads were for anything recognizably related to Google.

Re:it's so different

[raynet]

One reason for that might be that people usually don't speak of Microsoft spreadsheet, instead of they just call it Excel. On Microsoft Excel homepage the word 'spreadsheet' is mentioned only twice and neither of those are in the top of the page or on any header. Thus many search engine would not rank Excel page near the top when searching for 'spreadsheet'.

I searched for 'spreadsheet' in msn.com and alltheweb.com and neither of them give top links to MS Excel, but Google Spreadsheet and Wikipedia entry for spreadsheets are close to top on both search engines.

Re:it's so different

[QRDeNameland]

I don't care if they hold on to the top spot... I just care that the playing field remains level.

Actually, my only concern about this is, assuming these allegations are true, is whether Google *is* a level playing field.

In my view, Google AdWords is much the same as a stock market. Such a market needs to perceived as fair, level and transparent in order to have the confidence of those who will invest in that market. If the owners of the market are perceived to tilt that market to their own benefit, that will erode confidence in that market.

The other, and I'd say larger, concern is whether Google games the actual search results to their own advantage, since Google explicitly *does not* sell search result placement. That policy is a large part of the confidence people place in Google, that though they take bids on *ad* placement, search results are only supposed to reflect the results of their search algorhythms. If they are bending that policy to their exclusive benefit, then the market should rightly question its confidence in Google as a level playing field.

Re:it's so different

[kisielk]

Funny, I tried a bunch of them and in many cases I don't even see *any* Google ads or hits. True in some Google comes up first, but actually when I searched for "email" Yahoo! mail was actually the first link, not Google. The article is a load of bs.

Re:it's so different

[Daniel Phillips]

The really interesting thing is that Wikipedia beat Microsoft in "spreadsheet".

not true

[Lehk228]

I just tested "intranet"

.Net Office Intranet www.intranetdashboard.com .Net CMS - Over 35 apps included. Free 30 Day Trial - Download Now !
Intranet www.google.com/a Create a custom start page for all users on your domain. Learn more.


google's ad comes in at #2 on this one Google Checkout

Re:not true

[6031769]

Nor are they top for restaurant or dining (I got bored after two. Further testing is left as an exercise for the reader.).

Re:not true

[nogginthenog]

Not email. mail.yahoo.com is the first

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will)

[emor8t]

But wouldn't Google be a monopoly if it bought out all the other search engines and forced you to use Google? Google claiming top spot is simply them controlling their product. Your not forced to use Google. There are many other search engines out there, yahoo, ask.com, etc.
Is this just a case of trying to find fault with Google because it's big and can be used as a verb?

Does this really derserve an answer?

[_iris]

Microsoft was not at fault for putting their browser in an exclusive position on Windows. They were at fault for using their OS monopoly to stunt competition in the browser market. Every large multi-market company uses their products to enhance their other products (e.g. Apple = iPod + OSX + iTunes). The difference is that Google does not have a monopoly on search or advertising.

Re:Does this really derserve an answer?

[kthejoker]

I'm glad that we have a system to decide who has a monopoly on things, and not just Slashdot comments.

Google has 75% market share on advertising. Yahoo! is sputtering, and MS is slow to the door. It might bear out that Google doesn't have a monopoly, but they certainly have a very shaky antitrust position.

Re:Does this really derserve an answer?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The difference is that Google does not have a monopoly on search or advertising"

search is not the issue, advertising is, and they have very close to a monopoly with online advertising and are hence walking a fine line, once the government declares you a monopoly many things that previously were ok and perfectly acceptable (like making your own results number one in search) suddenly become illegal, exactly the same thing happened to MS and google are setting themselves up for the same fall. Remember once declared a monopoly it is already to late to change your ways and just because they were previously legal for you is not an acceptable excuse.

And what about TV networks?

[Nethergoat]

His line of thinking would suggest that the likes of NBC, ABC, and CBS shouldn't be allowed to advertise for their own shows, either. There's a significant difference between an ad slot and an embedded browser. He might have a slightly stronger case if Google's "I'm Feeling Lucky" results for those keywords went straight to its products, but this is not the case.

Grey area

[squoozer]

While I don't have a problem with Google placing it's own services at the top on it's own site I am concerned with the fact that they make it appear as if their adverts are like any other. This may lead people to believe they can in fact compete whereas the reality seems to be that they can't. This could easily lead to people paying far more for ads than is necessary. It would be more acceptable if Google were to indicate that your ad will always feature below their ad so that you can make a more informed decision about whether it is worth your money.

Re:Grey area

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows by now how the google ad thing works. If they don't like being so close to a google advertisement, then they should go somewhere else. Besides, even if google didn't reserve top ad spot for themselves, the fact that you're using google when you see the ad is a pretty good pitch for google.

Re:If you are going to use stock symbols to refer

[Anonymous Coward]

who cares?

AdSense feature

[El_Muerte_TDS]

In AdSense you can block ads from competitors. Every AdSense client uses it, well most of them anyway, so why wouldn't google use that feature either?

More on this feature: Competitive Ad Filter

Re:AdSense feature

[tilandal]

Exactly. Google is in no way obligated to sell advertisement space to their competitors.

Re:AdSense feature

[DragonWriter]

Exactly. Google is in no way obligated to sell advertisement space to their competitors.

And yet, they do. Check the ad results for "search engine" or "online calendar" or "web-based email" (the first sponsored result I get for that last one is for AOL's service), or lots of other possibilities.

Re:AdSense feature

[tilandal]

So, whats your point? Its their web page. They do with it as they see fit.

Re:AdSense feature

[DragonWriter]

So, whats your point?

My point is pointing out a potentially interesting fact. Not everything posted on Slashdot is part of a argument.

In other news...

[maxume]

Walmart refuses Target's request to advertise in Walmart stores.

Monopoly? Rly?

[wiz31337]

First of all trying to relate Google's free services to Microsoft is just an all around bad comparison.

When I do a search for "email" on Google the first sponsored link that comes up is of course Gmail, this shouldn't be any surprise. I'd put my services on the sponsored link section too, its just good business. Saying that Google wouldn't put anyone else in the top spot for any amount of money is probably correct, but it makes sense. Pepsi, wouldn't plug coke on their website for any amount of money either. They are choosing to use a spot someone else could pay millions for put themselves there.

It should be noted that the first result that shows up in the general results section is "Yahoo! Mail." If it was rigged, don't you think that would be Gmail too?

There is a big difference between something showing up first in the sponsored section versus the general results location.

Restaurants?

[CodeMonkey22]

Since when is Google in the food service industry? Remember this: If Google chooses to *pay itself*, it has every right to choose to miss out on potential additional revenues. If they decide it is a better value for them to shamelessly plug their own email service, rather than receive cold, hard cash from Yahoo to advertise Yahoo's email, so be it. Free market... free world.

Analogy Time

[old_skul]

Comparing Google to Microsoft for something like this is like comparing Luke Skywalker to Darth Vader.

Oh, wait a second.....

Re:Analogy Time

[revlayle]

So.... you are saying that Microsoft is Google's daddy??

MICROSOFT: No. I am your father.

[Shocked, Google looks at Microsoft in utter disbelief.]

GOOGLE: No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!

Re:Analogy Time

[raynet]

So Microsoft is Google's father... and.. in the end, Microsoft will turn to the light side??

Re:If you are going to use stock symbols to refer

[Anonymous Coward]

if len("microsoft") > len("google") {
   print "STFU";
} else {
   print "GOOG";
}

Thats the great thing....

[Anonymous Coward]

About owning your search engine. You can do whatever the hell you want with your searches. whats the point of owning something if you cant make youself better with it?

whole 'story' flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

due to a lack of substance...it's not even NEWS
uggg...

That is really important...

[Sfing_ter]

Jesus Cunt Punching Christ, what the fuck is with you people? This kind of shit actually gets placed as a story?
If you don't want to see commercials get a tivo or don't watch tv;
if you don't like microsoft products, DON'T USE THEM;
if you don't want to see googld ads, DON'T USE GOOGLE.

BTW Google does not have a monopoly on the search market, just ask yahoo, or microsoft (don't ask balmer, he may heave... a chair).

This is a non-issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is a private company that offers a service to its customers- they are free to do what they want with this service, including giving themselves preferential treatment. If other companies think this is unfair, let them create their own search engines and advertising tools, giving themselves un-preferential treatment.

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft didn't provide the best software, but told its customers buy our crap, or don't buy anything at all. I am sorry, but this makes no sense as an arguement. MS produced a product that gained such wide appeal that it earned the largest market share, and long after that they used their position to include things like IE by default, and that is illegal monopoly power (according to the US DOJ). You cannot say they forced anyone into using their software ever, since there has always been a choice (Mac and Linux come to mind).

Rubbish!

[kooky45]

Google doesn't even appear on the first page for searches on intranet and documents!

Re:If you are going to use stock symbols to refer

[HikingStick]

I don't believe it fair to characterize as immature those who use assorted replacements for company names. IMO, it's the same as using emoticons--it's another way of compressing meaning into a message. If I type a missive on Microsoft and use M$ in the prose, I give you clear insight into my views of that company. Also, MSFT is actually Microsoft's stock ticker, so I don't see that one as "being cute" in any way.

People do this verbally as well, as some who visit Target stores refer to them as [pronounced] Tarjhay, a pseudo-French pronounciation used to imply their view of that retailer as a purveyer of goods that are in high-style compared to other discounters. When K-mart stores took a dive, some referred to them as K-fart. Wal-Mart is often called "Wally-world" in veneration of the company's founder.

Certainly there are times when such personal meanings should be set aside (e.g., business memos), but in a public forum such personal expression is entirely appropriate.

Screw Google

[Reverend99]

The only direction all of these threads are going to go is in complete and total support of Google and anything and everything they do. Every nerd and financier on this planet has an engorged hard-on for this company, and to even hint at any disrespect will mean instant ostracization. Even though I use Google (much like an abused wife who won't leave her husband), there's something about the company I just can't stand. Every time they come out with another me-to product or buy up some other company the whole world celebrates and rejoices them. You may all now begin your long-winded dismantling of my post in every esoteric nerdly way that you will in the defense of the all-mighty Google.

Re:Screw Google

[abscr]

Everyone rejoices because the products they put out are so good, that when someone hates them, they still go back to them like an abused wife who won't leave her husband.

And just because you put "You may all now begin your long-winded dismantling of my post in every esoteric nerdly way that you will in the defense of the all-mighty Google." at the end of your comment doesn't mean that people are wrong when they do so.

How can it be a monopoly?

[Rik Sweeney]

According to Alexa, Yahoo! is the most visited site on the net, followed by MSN* and then Google. You could say then that Google is the third most popular search engine and therefore not a monopoly.

*This is probably only true because Microsoft attempts to set the default homepage to MSN with every update to IE.

Re:How can it be a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's probably only true because Hotmail is hosted on that domain. Read the "Where do people go on msn.com?" part of the Alexa page: 84% of the traffic to msn.com apparently goes to Hotmail.

one billion dollars

[Jerom]

per hour. That's how much google pays itself for the topspot.

Who the hell should they be giving the money they pay too? The author of the [sarcasm] intellectual masterpiece [\sarcasm] linked to?

No of course not, for advertising on google you should pay to ... (wait for it) ...

that's right, google

So let us see how this works out

Googles money = Googles money - [advertising cost] + [advertising revenue]

in case they are paying themselves, these two numbers are of course equal,
thus after minimal simplification we get

Googles money = Googles money

or

1

In other terms

the question "how much does x pay itself" is NOT EVEN WRONG.

*sigh*

this has to be one of the most fucked up, sensationalist articles about google on the front page for quite a while.

J.

Re:one billion dollars

[ThomsonsPier]

The sum isn't quite that simple, but if Google weren't generating more revenue by using the space than they would by renting it, then they'd be renting it, wouldn't they?

[Cost of advertising Google on Google] = [Revenue lost in advertising space] - [Revneue generated by advertising]

It's in Google's interests to make that value negative.

GOOGLE FUNDED BY CIA http://www.prisonplanet.com/a

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/ 061206seedmoney.htm

Ex-Agent: CIA Seed Money Helped Launch Google
Steele goes further than before in detailing ties, names Google's CIA liaison

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, December 6, 2006

An ex-CIA agent has gone further than ever before in detailing Google's relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency, claiming sources told him that CIA seed money helped get the company off the ground and naming for the first time Google's CIA point man.

Robert David Steele, a 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer and a former clandestine services case officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, is the CEO of OSS.net.

Speaking to the Alex Jones Show, Steele elaborated on his previous revelations by making it known that the CIA helped bankroll Google at its very inception.

"I think Google took money from the CIA when it was poor and it was starting up and unfortunately our system right now floods money into spying and other illegal and largely unethical activities, and it doesn't fund what I call the open source world," said Steele, citing "trusted individuals" as his sources for the claim.

"They've been together for quite a while," added Steele.

Asked to impart to what level Google is "in bed" with the CIA, Steele described the bond as a "small but significant relationship," adding, "it is by no means dominating Google in fact Google has been embarrassed because everything the CIA asked it to do they couldn't do."

"I also think it's very very wrong of Google to have this relationship," cautioned Steele.

The former agent went further than before in identifying by name Google's liaison at the CIA.

"Let me say very explicitly - their contact at the CIA is named Dr. Rick Steinheiser, he's in the Office of Research and Development," said Steele.

Steele highlighted Google's blatant censorship policies whereby press releases put out by credible organizations that are critical of Dick Cheney and other administration members don't make it to Google News even though they are carried by PR Newswire.

We have repeatedly highlighted past examples of censorship on behalf of Google, including their blacklisting of a mainstream news website that was mildly critical of China, and also the deliberate stifling and manipulation of Alex Jones' Terror Storm film ranking on Google Video. Google was also caught red-handed attempting to bury the Charlie Sheen 9/11 story at the height of its notoriety.

Saying Google had become "too big for itself," Steele opined that Google was "long overdue for a public audit."

"One of the problems with privatized power is that it's not subject to public audit," said Steele, arguing that groups should rally to "put Google out of business unless they're willing to go the open source software route."

We regularly highlight Google's damaging role in aiding the march towards a big brother society, but the admission that Google were planning on teaming up with the U.S. government to use microphones in the computers of an estimated 150 million-plus Internet active Americans to spy on their lifestyle choices and build psychological profiles which will be used for surveillance and minority report style invasive advertising and data mining, astounded even us.

Steele said that our previous story about Google's ties to the CIA, which was picked up by dozens of top technology websites, concerned Google enough to lie to the public about it and deny its validity.

It remains to be seen how Google will react to these latest revelations.

Listen to the interview with Robert David Steele, in which he also questions the official version of 9/11, by clicking here

Two ex-CNET boo-hooing over Google?

[jpellino]

please.

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[nasch]

See, Google got the monopoly by providing the best software. Microsoft didn't provide the best software, but told its customers buy our crap, or don't buy anything at all.

Legally, what difference does the quality of products make? If you leverage a monopoly in one market to stifle competition in another, it's illegal. It doesn't matter if you have the best product or not.

This is Horribly Wrong.....

[Puls4r]

I mean... It should be illegal for ABC, CBS, NBC, and all the other networks to decide who gets their key time slots for advertisement, right? Or not.

Re:so slashdot can decide which stories they choos

[corky842]

You can always go to a different site for your news. You can submit your own stories. Or you can use tags so you don't confuse the moderators.

Oversimplification (Re:Google *does* pay itself.)

[HikingStick]

Your comment is true in one sense, but then consider that Google does not need to cultivate a customer relationship with itself, provide an externally-accessible website for this service, and it does not need to process payments around the transaction. Looking at the entire picture, Google is getting a better return on its own placements. Besides, those placements send users to other Google services which (potentially) generate additional advertising revenue for the company. It is a sweet deal, to be sure, but it is no different that a grocery store placing it's house-brand products on the shelf next to the major brands. Let's use ads that offer services similar to those offered by Microsoft as an example. Those who want Microsoft products will most often select the link for the Microsoft products. Those who want a Microsoft alternative will most often select the link(s) for the Microsoft alternative. In reality, I doubt there are very many people who will really do a comparison between the two, unless the offerings are relatively new or if the user is uneducated.

Re: [OT] Wally World

[Anonymous Coward]

Wally World is a reference to National Lampoon's Vacation starring Chevy Chase. In the movie, Wally World is a borked knock off of Disney. Thus, calling Walmart "Wally World" is a strong insult, not a term veneration for good ol' Uncle Sam (Walton).

Ooops? :)

How different is it than MSFT...

[sim82]

I didn't have to pay google for a product (+free advertising) I didn't need, when I bought my laptop. That's the difference. They can advertise for anything they like on their page, as long as no one is forced to use (as in 'pay for') it.
End of the story.

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[jrsimmons]

There is no such thing as an illegal monopoly. A company with a monopoly only breaks the law by using a monopoly to obtain an unfair advantage over a competitor, ie MS leveraging their Windows monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in the Web Browser market.

I'm not quite sure I understand your references to Toys R US or Wal-Mart. Neither of those retailers are anywhere near to having a monopoly, nor am I aware of any instances where either has been legitimately accused of unfairly leveraging a business advantage.

Re:GOOGLE FUNDED BY CIA http://www.prisonplanet.co

[threv]

"also the deliberate stifling and manipulation of Alex Jones' Terror Storm film ranking on Google Video."

NOW we see why prisonplanet.com is upset with Google.

Nosense

[diegocgteleline.es]

So wait, google needs to bias their search to advertise his own products?

If they wanted to bias people to use their products wouldn't they clutter instead their front page (the most visited frontpage on the internet) with advertising of their products?

Haven't you still realized that if google keeps their front page clean is because they want people to use their products based in how users like their products, not in how much google encourages people to use them?

They still have to deliver what they're paid for.

[Stopher2475]

When you make an adbuy with Google aren't you paying for impressions. I used to work in outdoor and that's what they did. Google may get it's own product for free but that doesn't mean they can't deliver what someone else pays them for.

The rules for a monopoly are different

[hellfire]

Why is it so hard to understand that the rules for a monopoly are different? People are constantly trying to compare what MS does with other company's and they keep saying "well they can do it, why can't MS?"

What really bothers me is the slashdot editors continue to allow this shit to get posted. They are geeks, they damn well know better. Oh but they have to get ad hits :P

1) Monopolies have an overwhelming power on the market. They can set prices, muscle suppliers and customers, they can have a "do it or else" attitude, and generally are the bully on the block. Monopolies can do almost anything they want without repercusions, if the government did not step in.

2) Microsoft is a convicted monopoly. While the penalty phase dried up after Bush took office, and nothing is curtailing their behavior now, they were convicted and that has not been overturned. So that is not in question.

3) The next step is that you have to argue that Google is a monopoly or has too much influence. I Think at this stage that's still a tough argument to make, because Yahoo, ask.com, and MSN, despite crappy performances, are at least trying to catch up to Google. I will say Google has a huge mindshare, so anti-monopolists should keep an eye on them, but searches are still happening frequently on the other engines.

4) That's not to say that such a practice isn't sleazy. Frankly, I find this violates googles "do no evil" slogan. This is evil. If I as a small time developer were to introduce one of these types of products and I need to advertise, Google's ads will show up higher ranked and my product will get fewer viewers. In terms of large companies, this isn't as big a deal, because MS and yahoo can turn around and do the same thing with their engines. But when the big boys step on the small boys, I cry unfair.

However, that's a more complicated problem than being a monopoly.

Re:The rules for a monopoly are different

[casings]

4) That's not to say that such a practice isn't sleazy. Frankly, I find this violates googles "do no evil" slogan. This is evil. If I as a small time developer were to introduce one of these types of products and I need to advertise, Google's ads will show up higher ranked and my product will get fewer viewers. In terms of large companies, this isn't as big a deal, because MS and yahoo can turn around and do the same thing with their engines. But when the big boys step on the small boys, I cry unfair.


This is for sponsered ads, not general page results... google has every right to advertise it's own products ahead of yours, and there is nothing immoral or evil about it. You do not like it, don't use their ad services.

here's an analogy:

say you create a small time AM radio station. Do you think it makes sense that you should be able to advertise your station's programming on other stations?

fuck no.

Change Ad Content

[somethinghollow]

If you know you are going to be #2, gear your ad text to your position. Instead of saying, "Innovative Blog Software," say, "Blog Software That Is Better Than Google's." According to some paper about Joe Sixpack's searching habits that I read once and can't find a link to, searchers take the first two results and decide which they think is better, then click whichever they decide. If you know you are one of the first two, and you know who is above you, all you have to do is be better than them. Being number two in a list doesn't mean you are screwed.

your wife owes you $300 then

[Anonymous Coward]

that's how much she has been paying me

Re:GOOGLE FUNDED BY CIA http://www.prisonplanet.co

[onkelonkel]

Wicked funny!

Hmm ... differences?

[Twench]

Is there a difference? Let's see:

Google: Puts own product at the top of a paid advertisement section that is clearly differentiated from the actual results of the search on a web site you can choose to use or not
Microsoft: Using its virtual monopoly in the operating system market to force customers to use their own browser including eliminating the ability to remove the browser when the user has clearly indicated another choice.

Nope ... can't see a difference here.

What monopoly?

[Isochrome]

I started trying out some of the queries. Google was third on intranets and nowhere to be found for restaurants. Google does have prime spot, including the blue bar on top for others.

Also, Google has only 51.41% of the search market, which means the search ad market:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid= 4

Last I heard, 51% isn't a monopoly.

Finally, even if there isn't a direct payment, there is an opportunity cost. Google promotes the ads that get clicked on the most so they make more money. If there is a Google ad in the top slot, that means they didn't get a click they could charge for.

Re:What monopoly?

[Irish_Samurai]

Please see my previous post here, it addresses the fact that 51% is an inaccurate number. The number is more like 73%.

Just a reminder of what Googles product is..

[The Creator]

It is not web searches

It is web searchers

And the people who buy advertizing space are the customer, not you.

The difference is

[bberens]

Google is not capable of vendor locking for their biggest revenue maker. Consumers can be very fickle. It only takes about ten seconds for me to change my home page from google to msn, yahoo, metacrawler, ask, etc. It would take about 5 minutes more for me to figure out how to get my gmail forwarded to another mail account (or I could ignore it altogether). Now if I decided to switch from Microsoft products, that's a journey which costs much more than 5 minutes and ten seconds.

what is the secret of google search?

[aleksiel]

google search is people!

Re:what is the secret of google search?

[Don853]

And here I thought it was pigeons.

[they're probably just as tasty]

This is very different

[twocents]

This is very different because while Google is top in search, other search companies make money and are easily accessed. In order to use Yahoo! search, simply plug in yahoo.com into your browser. In order to use an operating system other than Windows on your PC, it's a bit more difficult, not to mention that Microsoft is trying to use its leverage as a Monopoloy to bring more people to their search technology.

It's about vendor-lock, not market share

[walterbyrd]

Can I be vendor-locked by google? Can google take control of computer technology standards?

If so, then maybe the article has a point.

Difference from Microsoft

[almostmanda]

"How different is it than MSFT placing its products (Internet Explorer) in a premium marketing position (embedded in the OS)?"

When Microsoft does it, there's not a link to Firefox directly underneath the link to IE.

A search for "email" reveals that Google was more than happy to sell AOL some ad space above their search results. Not to mention that Yahoo! mail leads the actual results. I'd be a lot more concerned if Google artificially ranked themselves at the top of the results for all of these searches, instead of just giving themselves ad space.

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[AusIV]

Yes, but Microsoft frequently uses shady tactics to smear the alternatives. An example is the recent claims that Linux violates Microsoft intellectual property. They won't say what IP, they simply charge people a royalty for using this undisclosed IP. I suspect that once SCO has cleared up, Microsoft may be seeing some Linux distributors in court over these accusations (and not by Microsoft's choice).

Another example of forcing people to use Microsoft products is how they won't let vendors sell PCs without Windows. Last summer I spent a lot of time searching for somewhere I could buy a PC with no OS, intending to install Ubuntu on it. The only places I could find them were small mom and pop shops in my home town, and they were severely overpriced. HP, Dell, Sony, Gateway, etc. will not sell computers without operating systems, and won't advertise operating systems other than Windows. Ultimately I bought the parts and built my own machine. When I decide to upgrade my laptop, I'm not sure I'll be able to avoid buying Windows if I ultimately want to put Ubuntu on the machine. So while they aren't forcing me into using their software, I still feel they're forcing me into buying it (and really, what do they care if I use it once I've paid for it?).

There is no relevance between them

[unity100]

On the web, you are free to compete, and CAN compete if you bring a better product.

There is no problem of adaptation/transition/framework/learning problems for an internet surfer that chooses to go a simple google.com or comparably simple newcompetitortogoogle.com site.

in operating system arena, operating system is THE framework on which many programs run. Microsoft has monopoly on the FRAMEWORK, not the programs running on it. Even there were better operating systems, the users of windows 'framework' wont be able to make transition to it still, since they NEED the programs running ON the windows framework, and there are millions of programs on it, and on the better operating system there are not.

Had google been the owner of 80% of the actual internet infrastructure, only then the situation would be comparable. It is not.

Post article is null and void.

Makes sense to me...

[whogben]

Here, the fact is many people who go to google and type in "mail" are looking for Gmail. I've witnessed people go to Google looking for some google tool and search for it. It makes sense that if you search for something that may be a Google tool, Google will let you know with a "Hey - do you mean Maps?" And Google have just chosen to do this with the top ad slot. There's nothing special about this not-so-nefarious practice.

google vs. MS

[DrBdan]

How different is it than MSFT placing its products (Internet Explorer) in a premium marketing position (embedded in the OS)?

I think there is a huge difference between MS bundling Internet Explorer with Windows and Google putting itself at the top of it's own searches. With IE and Windows the average user just sees IE and uses it because it's there with no mention of other options. With a Google search you have easy access to multiple options. It's not like Google only gives you the Google solution and leaves you to find other options yourself.
Don't forget that Google is a company and they have to make money to continue to exist. This is no different than another company paying to be at the top of the list, it's called advertising. Are you upset that UPS doesn't have FedEx ads on it's trucks? Or that McDonald's doesn't advertise that Wendy's also serves burgers?

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[heinousjay]

Obviously the answer would be to force Microsoft to advocate for its competitors. Nothing else makes sense.

Re: [OT] Wally World

[HikingStick]

A perfect example of how terms hold different meanings--the world of expression and frame-of-reference...

In my circles, "Wally World" has no reference to National Lampoon's Vacation (I don't think anyone in my family ever saw the film--shocking, I know--is it worth watching?). We've been using it for so long, it may pre-date Vacation.

If we have been using it that long, perhaps I have a valid DCMA copyright claim against National Lampoon?

Google 50% of searches, Windows 90% of OSes

[PRMan]

Google only makes up 50% of searches, while at one time Windows had a whopping 90% of the OS market. As much as Google might SEEM like a monopoly, they have a ways to go.

All Google has to do is keep spidering everyone else's search engines and they will remain with only 50% of searches forever... ;)

Fer Pete's sakes, people

[mstone]

Microsoft never got in trouble for putting its own products on its own desktop. It got in trouble for setting up vendor licensing deals that prevented OEMs from putting anyone else's products on the desktop.

There's absolutely no comparison between that and Google giving itself top billing for specific product searches. In the rare event that your Google search puts a Google service into the #1 slot, all the remaining paid ads appear on the same page. Google isn't shutting off competition by hiding other vendors ads, it's getting right in the thick of competition by showing users exactly what other vendors offer services that compete with its own stuff.

All we have here is some little bitch whining because there's a theoretical limit to his ability to buy the #1 slot in any category he wants. Boo hoo. If someone can give me a nice, solid financial breakdown of the difference in value between the #1 slot and the #2 slot, I probably still won't give a damn.

Y'know what else Google moonopolizes? The logo on its search page. Everyone who does a search sees that logo, and our whiny little bitch can't buy that, either, no matter how much he wants to.

The author does not show Google is a monopoly.

[QuietLagoon]

Google appears to have less than 85% of the search market, less than what is needed to be a monopoly. (for example, Windows has over 90% marketshare)

Having failed in proving that Google is a monopoly, the basis for the rest of the article is vacuous.

Re:The author does not show Google is a monopoly.

[GigsVT]

In the US at least, there is no marketshare threshold for being a monopoly. To be an illegal monopoly you only have to have the power to distort the market, and be using that power in a way that has been deemed abusive.

Re:The author does not show Google is a monopoly.

[QuietLagoon]

To be an illegal monopoly you only have to have the power to distort the market, and be using that power in a way that has been deemed abusive.

Having a monopoly is not illegal. There is not such thing as an illegal monopoly. What there is is the illegal usage of a monopoly.

For example, Microsoft's desktop monopoly is not illegal, it is the manner in which Microsoft uses that desktop monopoly that has been found to be illegal. The author of the article has not shown that (1) Google has a monopoly, and (2) if Google does indeed have a monopoly, that it is using that monopoly illegally.

Re:The author does not show Google is a monopoly.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what GP said.

Re:The author does not show Google is a monopoly.

[DragonWriter]

In the US at least, there is no marketshare threshold for being a monopoly. To be an illegal monopoly you only have to have the power to distort the market,

Specifically, you have to have price setting power.

No one has given any reason to believe Google has this in the search market.

Re:The author does not show Google is a monopoly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Adding up all the sub-Googles, I find 76.47%. That's actually a larger share than I expected.

I wonder how that estimate is made. It seems to have only very tiny shares for Japan, South Korea, and China. Probably their tools target mainly English-speaking users and Western European users.

Search

[Phlubbub]

But the first listing when you search google for "search" is MSN. um, . . .

Marketing, not monopoly

[trianglman]

This isn't Google flexing their "monopoly" in the search field (a monopoly they don't have, and, judging by the way the internet grows, never will). This is simply them advertising their products, its no different than GE advertising thier movies ad-nauseum through thier media outlets like the Today show. It is annoying, but is far from an anti-trust breach.

Compare this to MS's actions re: IE.
No other browser, at all, ships with Windows. Windows will break, horribly, should IE ever be removed. Here, MS is using its position as the market controlling OS vendor to push another (very shoddy) unrelated software product on consumers in an attempt to edge out competition in that second software arena.

It is not a monopoly

[jas2803]

How can you consider it a monopoly? You are using their web search engine, looking for spreadsheets/email/im/etc.... so, theirs show up first, if you are home and misplace your car keys where do you look first? your own house! Of course they are going to try to make theirs first, where they could abuse their power is if you click on a competitors link and a message would appear say that theirs is better. or you search for email and it just automatically takes you to their email portal. They are not doing either, MS on the otherhand tries to make other products not work, or work not so well. The want you to use their media player, they do not even give the option, unless of you install the competing one and tell it to be the default, even then when new updates come out and you install the updates, it takes back over... Google vs MS in this issue is not comparable.... Google is good because their page loads fast without all the other shtuff that is not necessary. Also, look at yahoo, do a search for Instant messagenger, weather, email---they do the same. I will say quite to my suprise, msn did not do this, but like yahoo the advertisers go first....money rules.

How is it different than MS?

[jwd-oh]

Here is how:

I choose to use or not use Google. I buy a computer and the OS is already installed. I never get the chance to choose.

Hardly a monopoly

[cwgmpls]

Google has a near-monopoly on web searches

44 percent is hardly a monopoly. Or a near-monopoly.

Re:Hardly a monopoly

[Davey McDave]

It depends upon what context, actually.

Take supermarkets. If a supermarket chain had a 44% marketshare, and its competitors had around 5-10% then what they could do is temporarily lower all their prices to WAY lower than their competitors, watch them all lose huge chunks of marketshare, and then restore prices gradually to what they originally were. Now the large supermarket chain has significantly larger share, and still has the same profit margins, and will slowly claw back what they lost in that (relatively) brief interim. There are many other schemes like this which a large enough company can do to squirm its way higher and higher, which do nothing but harm competition and customers.

This is why, by British law, a monopoly is defined as possessing more than 25% of a single market, believe it or not. This is why Tesco has been forced to diversify its range of services, and why certain mergers get blocked if they exceed this limit. It's not really a monopoly, but it holds such sway over the market by altering its prices that it leads to anticompetitive practises.

Anyway, google's product is Adwords, not their searches. If they held a 40% share in internet advertising, then there would be problems.

Tevevision Networks, Newspapers

[Kenshin]

I don't see CBS complaining that they have trouble advertising on NBC. I also don't see the Toronto Sun complaining about advertising space in the Toronto Star...

Is it such a big deal that a service makes it difficult for a competitor to advertise on it?

Just wrong and sour grapes to boot

[hacksoncode]

Did anyone else actually *check* the assertions of this article? This guy is so full of it I can't even begin to describe it.

But that never stopped a Slashdotter before, so...

Half a dozen of those search terms do *not*, in fact, have Google AdWords, and at least 2 of them have Google AdWords, but Google isn't in the top spot.

What again, is the complaint?

Huge difference

[feranick]

Quote: "How different is it than MSFT placing its products (Internet Explorer) in a premium marketing position (embedded in the OS)?'" You choose to use Google. Microsoft chooses you (by forcing you to use their products).

I don't get the issue

[pkcs11]

It's "Google AdWords". Not "Non-Competative Democratic Means of Displaying AdWords".
Business is a method of making money, not a method of establishing goodwill with other companies in your industry.

Adsense

[slashkitty]

This article completely(!) ignores AdSense. AdSense is the syndication of AdWords on content websites across the internet. It is a little less than 1/2 of google's profits. (The claim that 99% of their profits came from search alone is completely false)

Adwords ads and AdSense ads are many times one in the same thing, but of course there are differences. The main one being that Publishers get the majority (up to 80%) of the profit on clicks in Adsense. That means that it is very likely that these are are also being shown on many content sites across the internet. It's also very likely that Google IS actually paying the publishers for clicks on these ads.

Monopoly Behavior

[dch24]

It would be easy to spot monopolistic behavior on the part of google. They would do it like Microsoft does it:

Searching on Live Search:
[google]: 751
[google -DummyZXCVB]: 65,806,166
[microsoft]: 80,139,835
[microsoft -DummyZXCVB]: 80,722,350

I turned off adult content filtering in the options:

google
Page 1 of 65,601,473 results

Very strange

Google searching "microsoft": 39,500,000 results
Google searching "google": 52,800,000 results
MSN searching "microsoft": 80,139,835 results
MSN searching "google": 648 results

All this was from a slashdot article two days ago.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

Given it was on Slashdot, I kind of doubt the accuracy of that info...

But if you do it now, results are as follows:

MSN searching "google": 66,259,640 results
MSN searching "microsoft": 81,650,578 results

Google searching "microsoft": 525,000,000 results
Google searching "google": 773,000,000 results

So they both look similarly "biased" towards themselves.

However, if you search for "spreadsheet" on google, there isn't even a link to Microsoft in the first 10 UNPAID links. 4 of the first 10 results link to sites about google spreadsheet, and 3 of the first 10 to sites about Excel

If you search for "web search" on MSN, 4 of the first 10 links are for google, with 1 link to MSN live.

Forget their paid links, I think google's search engine may be coded with some specific biases in mind...

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[DragonWriter]

The argument is that since Google has close to 73% world market share in search traffic, that they also have that same 73% in search advertising.

An argument which is invalid, to start with.

If you leverage that by showing your listings first in the adverts, you are unfairly manipulating a monopoly.

Which is, as stated, false as well, as a monopoly is defined by price-setting power, not marketshare.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[Irish_Samurai]

An argument which is invalid, to start with.

How is it invalid? Show me an example of something that invalidates it. NO search engine shows other providers advertisements. Monopoly on search traffic = monopoly on search advertising. A blanket statement of "not true" means jack.

Which is, as stated, false as well, as a monopoly is defined by price-setting power, not marketshare.

And setting your own price for key placement of certain advertisements at zero is not price setting power how?

Also, monopoly is defined by many more facets other than price setting power.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[Headcase88]

I would (and will) argue that giving yourself top ad-space is not leveraging a monopoly unfairly. Someone could have paid you $x money and got the top spot. Instead, they effectively paid themselves $x money and got the top spot. Remaining spots don't demand as much money, so Google is, in actuality, paying for this.

Now let's look at Windows. Say Opera paid MS $x money to bundle their web browser on Windows. Even though it's not IE, it's still not cool, because it gives Opera an unfair advantage since it's bundled with an OS that has a monopoly.

Basically what I'm saying is that if it's ok for someone else to pay for it, you should be able to pay yourself. No one's arguing that Google is eligible to charge for ad space just because it's a search engine monopoly (I think?), so that's the difference to me.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[Best ID Ever!]

And setting your own price for key placement of certain advertisements at zero is not price setting power how?

What he means is that Google cannot raise their prices arbitrarily, because they do have legitimate competitors that their customers can utilize.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[typobox43]

search.msn.com is giving me 806 results on a search for google and over 65 million on a search for google -asdfghjkl.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[notthe9]

There are times when Google doesn't hold top results. A Google search for "email"/"e-mail" has a top result linking to Yahoo. A search for "directions" links to Mapquest and Yahoo Maps before Google Maps. For "driving directions" it links to those two plus two more sites first. Google Maps is currently the top result for maps, but I recall it not being a few months ago. "News" links to CNN and FoxNews first. "Search Engine" links to MSN Search before itself.

About your specific evidence:

However, if you search for "spreadsheet" on google, there isn't even a link to Microsoft in the first 10 UNPAID links. 4 of the first 10 results link to sites about google spreadsheet, and 3 of the first 10 to sites about Excel

And if you search for "spreadsheet" on MSN Live, there isn't even a link to Microsoft in the first 10 UNPAID links.
3 of the first 10 results link to sites about google spreadsheet, and 1 of the first 10 to sites about Excel.

If you search for "web search" on MSN, 4 of the first 10 links are for google, with 1 link to MSN live.

If you search for "web search" on Google, there seems to be an avoidance of repeats. After Yahoo and AltaVista, Google does link to itself, with MSN Search on the page.

There might be some biasing (I can't bring myself to think this is altogether a heinous thing, myself) but it doesn't seem to be all that hard-and-fast.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[Dekortage]

The argument is that since Google has close to 73% world market share in search traffic, that they also have that same 73% in search advertising.

Unfortunately the chart you link to cannot possibly be accurate. Search engines are not operating systems or phone companies. Studies indicate that people typically use more than one search engine. So while 70% of people may use Google, it's not that Google has 70% of a "search engine market"; it's that 70% of Internet users have visited Google. 40% may have also visited MSN. But you can't graph 110% on a pie chart.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[DaveJay]

How is it invalid?

The Search Marketing/Search Advertising market relies heavily on ads generated by the search providers (google, yahoo, et al) but placed on OTHER web sites. Search Traffic is restricted to the portals on which those search results are displayed. So, invalid.

Also, the Search Marketing/Search Advertising market can be segmented by ad views, ad revenues, ad clicks, or other methods. Search Traffic is judged essentially by unique visitors within a given period of time. Without clarification of the market segmentation, your argument cannot be proven. So, invalid.

Glad to be of service.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[Oddscurity]

If Google has a 73% market share in search, it does not follow they also have a 73% market share in online advertisement. I'd even go as far as to posit that advertising with a search engine is of limited value as punters will be spending more time on the page they've found, than on the search engine's SERPs. Google's search market share and AdSense's market share are two different things, the can increase and decrease in popularity irrespective of one another, I would assume. It may very well be possible that companies will more and more find AdSense to be a useful platform, whilst more and more people turn to MSN for their actual search needs. Or vice versa.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[Irish_Samurai]

The Search Marketing/Search Advertising market relies heavily on ads generated by the search providers (google, yahoo, et al) but placed on OTHER web sites. Search Traffic is restricted to the portals on which those search results are displayed. So, invalid.

That's content advertising, not search. Google places ads on other peoples websites based on the content of that website - hence the name.

The ads shown in search results are search advertising.

Also, the Search Marketing/Search Advertising market can be segmented by ad views, ad revenues, ad clicks, or other methods.

Sorry, tracking methodology does not define the delivery vehicle. It is derivative of it.

Search Traffic is judged essentially by unique visitors within a given period of time. Without clarification of the market segmentation, your argument cannot be proven. So, invalid.


SO WRONG IT HURTS! Uniques are worthless. What if 20 people behind a corporate firewall click through your ad or look at your landing page. 1 unique.

I'm not even sure you know what market segmentation is. You lump search and content advertising into one group when it is clearly two. You also use wholly unrelated elements when trying to prove your case. Tracking methodology, once again, has nothing to do with determining segmentation. Tracking is derivative of segmentation.

The segmentation is based on delivery vehicle. Content distribution, search distribution, direct distribution, and viral distribution.

Thanks for playing.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[Irish_Samurai]

Google's search market share and AdSense's market share are two different things, the can increase and decrease in popularity irrespective of one another, I would assume.

I didn't say AdSense. I said search share. To be more precise, Google allows you to advertise on other sites based on Content through other people using AdSense. You can opt in or out for this. Google also allows you to advertise on search results. You can opt in or out of this also. The two are not synonymous.

I am being very precise when I use the term search advertising. I am only referring to the advertisements that show up on the right and top of Google search results page in response to terms entered. Being the case that these ads are only served when you search on Google, 73% of search share does equate to 73% search advertising share.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[DragonWriter]

How is it invalid?

Its invalid since search engine use is not the same receiving search engine ads.

Show me an example of something that invalidates it.

The availability of means to use search engines without receiving ads invalidates it. The fact that different uses of the same search engine may expose one to more or less of the ads it serves also invalidates it, since the share of ads does not equal the share of searches, in either case.

NO search engine shows other providers advertisements.

Perhaps true, but in any case irrelevant.

Monopoly on search traffic = monopoly on search advertising.

That was not the argument, though that too is invalid. The earlier false argument was that X% marketshare in search traffic = X% marketshare in search advertising. Monopoly is price-setting power, which Google doesn't have in search to start with, whatever marketshare it has there.

And setting your own price for key placement of certain advertisements at zero is not price setting power how?

Price setting power is the ability to control the overall prices in the industry, usually the monopolists ability to raise the prices it charges without fear of losing its dominant market position because of barriers to competition associated with its market position (not mere marketshare.) Every participant in every market has the ability to set the price it charges for services to itself at "$0", that is not the price-setting power that defines a monopoly.

Also, monopoly is defined by many more facets other than price setting power.

Monopoly power is precisely price-setting power; price-setting power may not always be clear directly, and other factors that may be more easily directly analyzed can be looked at to determine if monopoly power exists.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[Irish_Samurai]

The availability of means to use search engines without receiving ads invalidates it. The fact that different uses of the same search engine may expose one to more or less of the ads it serves also invalidates it, since the share of ads does not equal the share of searches, in either case.

Nope, because that requires action on the surfer using a 3rd party tool. The entity that serves the ad controls the share, not viewership of that ad. Unless someone else can serve ads to Google search results, they have equal share on their advertising as in their search market. There is no way around it.

Also, the frequency of a particular ad has no bearing on the ownership of all opportunities for that ad to show. Just because your ad shows 2 more times than mine doesn't mean that google doesn't serve ads to all 73% of its market share.

Once again you are refering to its effectiveness, which has nothing to do with share.

Price setting power is the ability to control the overall prices in the industry, usually the monopolists ability to raise the prices it charges without fear of losing its dominant market position because of barriers to competition associated with its market position (not mere marketshare.) Every participant in every market has the ability to set the price it charges for services to itself at "$0", that is not the price-setting power that defines a monopoly.

Your perspective on this is flawed based on your lack of understanding of search marketing. If you have dominant share of the market in search, you have dominant share on the market for search advertising. That being the case, you control the supply (another definition for monopoly btw).

Google frequently raises the rate of certain key terms it deems "underperforming", even if there is no competition for that term. Google does this because there is no fear of losing its dominant position of search advertising provider. This clearly is abuse of position. As long as it holds dominant market share percentage on search, it will be the default dominant position for serving ads to an equal percentage of searchers.

Monopoly power is precisely price-setting power; price-setting power may not always be clear directly, and other factors that may be more easily directly analyzed can be looked at to determine if monopoly power exists.

Control of supply is also a determining factor.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is, as stated, false as well, as a monopoly is defined by price-setting power, not marketshare

Since when?

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

Monopoly power is precisely price-setting power; price-setting power may not always be clear directly, and other factors that may be more easily directly analyzed can be looked at to determine if monopoly power exists.

Monopoly power can get complicated but it is easy to keep it simple. Can the company bend you over, rape you in the ass without lube, and expect you to say thank you when it is over and make a date for the same thing tomorrow? If yes, you have a monopoly.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[DragonWriter]

Nope, because that requires action on the surfer using a 3rd party tool.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

The entity that serves the ad controls the share, not viewership of that ad.

It doesn't matter who controls the share, the fact is the share of ads, whether measured (as marketshare usually is for a paid product) by $, or whether measured by number of page views with which ads are served, or the number of ads served, or any other measure, is not guaranteed to have any particular relationship to the number of searches served, or any other measure of search market share.

Unless someone else can serve ads to Google search results, they have equal share on their advertising as in their search market.

Wrong, they may have an equal "share" of the number of opportunities to supply advertising to their search market, which is not the same thing as having the same share of the advertising market, by any metric by which advertising marketshare is measured. By your apparent standard, a TV station that shows no ads whatsoever and one that is 24/7 paid advertising have equal advertising marketshare if they have equal ratings, simply because they have the attention of the same number of eyeballs for the same time. Unfortunately for your argument, that's not what advertising marketshare is.

Also, the frequency of a particular ad has no bearing on the ownership of all opportunities for that ad to show. Just because your ad shows 2 more times than mine doesn't mean that google doesn't serve ads to all 73% of its market share.

Nor did I say anything about how often a particular advertiser's ads show; what I did say was something about the differing frequency with which search results are accompanied by ads. The fact that some searches produce no advertising results (e.g. flying panda bears on Google, the first thing I thought of as a test, which performed exactly as expected) despite producing results ("about 799,000" in this case) means that Google doesn't serve ads to all 73% of its marketshare. And those searches that do have ads don't all have the same number of ads (if you are referring to marketshare by impression) or the same cost of ads (if you are referring to marketshare by $). Certainly, other services also have ad-free searches (though not, in Yahoo!'s case, flying panda bears, which produced two top, and four sidebar advertising links when I tried it.) The distribution of advertising on each service is one variable which makes it invalid to assume that the search advertising marketshare is equal to any measure of the search marketshare.

Once again you are refering to its effectiveness, which has nothing to do with share.

No, once again I'm referring to its marketshare by any meaningful measure of advertising marketshare. You are confusing "audience" with "advertising marketshare", and they aren't the same thing.

Your perspective on this is flawed based on your lack of understanding of search marketing.

Au contraire, your perspective is flawed due to your lack of understanding of what advertising marketshare is.

If you have dominant share of the market in search, you have dominant share on the market for search advertising.

While if you choose appropriate definitions of "dominant" you can certainly construct scenarios in which this is most probably true, and certainly having search marketshare makes it easier to get search advertising marketshare, there is no necessary, 1:1 relationship between the two in the way you have suggested.

Google frequently raises the rate of certain key terms it deems "underperforming", even if there is no competition for that term.

Most

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[Slashdiddly]

However, if you search for "spreadsheet" on google, there isn't even a link to Microsoft in the first 10 UNPAID links. 4 of the first 10 results link to sites about google spreadsheet, and 3 of the first 10 to sites about Excel

Maybe it's because Google called their spreadsheet "Spreadsheet" and Microsoft called theirs "Excel"? I searched for "car" and didn't find a single car maker in the top 10.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[EvanED]

What he means is that Google cannot raise their prices arbitrarily, because they do have legitimate competitors that their customers can utilize.

At a significant hit to their exposure. Remember, MS never was the *only* choice on the desktop; it was just the only *practical* choice.

It's what another poster said: the people doing searches aren't Google's customers, we're its product. We can pretty easily switch search engines with only a pretty minor hit in accuracy from what I've seen, but Google's customers are its advertisors. And if they switch it cuts their audience by, according to another poster who said that Google has 73% of searches, a factor of about 3.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[bugnuts]

If you have dominant share of the market in search, you have dominant share on the market for search advertising. True, mostly. Those certainly share a relationship.

That being the case, you control the supply (another definition for monopoly btw). FALSE Dominant != Monopoly

Dell does not have a monopoly on computer manufacturing despite their dominance in the market and ability to affect stock prices, like Intel's. CompUSA does not have a monopoly on retail sales.

And Google's market share is 45%. That is not a monopoly, and not even if it were the 73% you quoted.

If any of your arguments include "abuse of power" or "leveraging marketshare" or "Google's monopoly" it is immediately invalid. If you start with false premises, the result doesn't matter. There's no reduction to absurdity proof here. You're starting with wholly-incorrect assumptions, and ending up with wholly-incorrect conclusions.

Re:Monopoly Behavior

[Lost Engineer]

SO WRONG IT HURTS! Uniques are worthless. What if 20 people behind a corporate firewall click through your ad or look at your landing page. 1 unique. While not a panacea for the larger problem, this particular problem is easily overcome by just setting a cookie.

Television Commercials

[DeadboltX]

So I read this rumor that on popular television stations they use prime advertising slots to advertise other TV shows or the upcoming news in such key slots as during the end credits of a TV show (when the screen splits and you have the credits on one portion and an ad on the other) and that they won't even sell these kinds of ad slots.

Does that mean all of these TV stations have a "silent monopoly"? simply because they use key ad slots to advertise their own business?

What about all those DVDs you buy that come with previews or trailers for other movies? You're not going to see a movie from a competing production company on your DVD, is that a "silent monopoly"?

How about the movie theater, they put ads up for a half hour before a movie starts but right before the movie is about to start, the key advertising slot, they show you the ad with the dancing popcorn and soda for their consession stand.

Is that a "silent monopoly" ? If not, then why is google any different other than "because it is google" ?

Not quite the same thing...

[Der PC]

On the Internet Explorer thing...

It's not that different from Apple putting its browser (Safari) in a premium market position (embedded into the operating system) or the KDE group putting Konqueror in a prime position (embedded into KDE).

Being embedded into an environment or operating system does not mean that you MUST use it. There are plenty of options on all platforms.

The same goes for the Windows Media Player - Apple does the same with Quicktime but I have yet to hear an Apple user complain about that.

Ads are a whole other category. When you sell ads, you should be required to be impartial. If my local television should start hoging the prime ad space for its own ads, I bet the advertisers would take their business elsewhere. But since Google is the giant in online advertising it may be hard for the advertisers to "switch".

Sadly

[zoomshorts]

When you sleep with my wife, you NEVER KNOW where she has been.
She is a well known lady. Who here believes that oral sex, is
not sex? And IF AIDS is transmitted by bodily fluids, then spit is
not a bodily fluid. Kissy Missy. Oooops !

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[trianglman]

Not only this, but MS did force people to use their software. Not the OS, that they did legitimately (originally) through good marketing and by working with third parties (if it weren't for IBM, there would be no Windows). MS does, however, force other software on people who buy their OS, most specifically IE and WMP. In fact, they were so determined to force IE on users that they made removing it impossible. This is where MS levereged its popularity in an illegal way to form a monopoly (or attempt to).

Popularity doesn't make one a monopoly, the lack of alternatives makes one a monopoly. For a long time there was no viable alternative to IE, everyone was forced to have it so developers were forced to make websites look good in IE or push customers away. Google is trying to be popular; not by making it so nothing else can exist, but by making good products that people want to use.

Big Difference

[bryxal]

There is a big difference between being the top spot of advertising and not allowing others to even be on the list. if you google Kansas City you'll get as first result the google Map, the yahoo map and the mapquest. When i install Windows i don't get Internet explorer and Firefox with IE being first. Its the only one AND the thing that makes it a monopoly is that they make it illegal for resellers to change this.

Re:so slashdot can decide which stories they choos

[kestasjk]

Speaking of Slashdot censorship, can anyone tell me what happened to this story:
Apple Quicktime virus on MySpace

It was on the front page, but as soon as I clicked on it I got the "Move along, nothing to see here" message, and it was gone from the front page. If you look at the poster Spiked_Three's page you can see that the story is listed as accepted.
Did this get suddenly yanked off the front page while IE MySpace worms and MS Word 0-day exploits get through just because Slashdot has a lot of sensitive Mac owners?

I come here to read tech news, not to have my ego stroked. If something relevant happens I want to hear about it regardless of whether it makes a company I like look bad..

different

[idlake]

How different is it than MSFT placing its products (Internet Explorer) in a premium marketing position (embedded in the OS)?'"

It's different because it's ad placement--they offer a service, but using something else is as easy as using Google. Microsoft's bundled applications, on the other hand, are actually bundled: some of them, you can't replace at all, and others are hard to replace.

Besides, why would it have to be different? Microsoft has been doing this for many years and they are still getting away with it. Good or bad, if Microsoft does it, their competitors have to do it, even if they preferred that sort of behavior to be illegal.

It's right there on the page you linked

[Wee]

On the lower right hand side of that page is a link titled Sign up for Gmail. I'd bet -- and this is just a wild guess -- that you'd use that to subscribe to the service. Though I could be wrong. All manner of danger and obfuscation could live behind that link -- you probably won't even find a real official service or anything! But I wouldn't click it if I were you. I, too, share your fear and hatred of "some piece of beta software", no matter how well it works.

-B

Re:It's right there on the page you linked

[Phisbut]

On the lower right hand side of that page is a link titled Sign up for Gmail. I'd bet -- and this is just a wild guess -- that you'd use that to subscribe to the service.

We don't seem to have the same rendering of http://www.gmail.com/ cause there ain't no link titled "Sign up for Gmail" on mine. And the link you provided requires you to have a mobile phone. Why the hell do you need me to have a mobile phone for webmail?

Though I could be wrong. All manner of danger and obfuscation could live behind that link

Yep, see above, mobile phone requirement. Google already serves me enough ads as it is, I don't want them spamming my SMS.

I, too, share your fear and hatred of "some piece of beta software", no matter how well it works.

Google is a master in search, but they seem lousy in many other fields. I like Google as much as the next guy, but releasing a whole bunch of software or services, and leaving them perpetually in beta, just shows how much they really care about making quality software. They don't even consider taking the time to thoroughly test their software to call them anything other than beta.

Seriously, when shall I expect to see the final version of Gmail, Google Blog Search, Google SMS, Google Calendar, Google Catalogs and Google Video? What is the planned release date?

We all know the 80/20 rule. The first 80% of a software project takes 20% of the time, and it's the extra 20% of the project that requires 80% of the time and effort, but it's also that last 20% that makes it a complete and useful software. Just look at how many software projects (at sourceforge or anywhere else) that have been abandoned halfway because the developer only wanted to have fun coding the first 80% and not serious enough to do the last 20%. Nobody at Google seems to want to do that last 20% either, and that is pretty scary for a billion dollars company that we are supposed to take seriously.

Re:It's right there on the page you linked

[sholden]

We don't seem to have the same rendering of http://www.gmail.com/ cause there ain't no link titled "Sign up for Gmail" on mine. And the link you provided requires you to have a mobile phone. Why the hell do you need me to have a mobile phone for webmail?

And the link you provided does have a Signup link, which goes to the mobile phone required page. Do you have a google cookie indicating you already have an account, perhaps?

We all know the 80/20 rule. The first 80% of a software project takes 20% of the time, and it's the extra 20% of the project that requires 80% of the time and effort, but it's also that last 20% that makes it a complete and useful software. Just look at how many software projects (at sourceforge or anywhere else) that have been abandoned halfway because the developer only wanted to have fun coding the first 80% and not serious enough to do the last 20%. Nobody at Google seems to want to do that last 20% either, and that is pretty scary for a billion dollars company that we are supposed to take seriously.

I'm sure the owners care, they're losing money hand over fist after all right? What, they told the SEC they made $730 million in profit last quarter I guess they're all going to jail then.

50% Market share == Monopoly???

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems like a harsh definition.

Search Engine usage vs. OS usage

[rockstar1o9]

There's a difference between the two because Google, as popular as it is, has just under half of the search engine market (comScore, Nielsen NetRatings) while Microsoft pretty much dominates the entire OS market with "a global usage share of 96.97 percent"(http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_press box46-operating-systems-market-share.html). The other difference is that Windows is sold (and so one could argue that choices such as the browser or media player used should be given to person using the OS) while Google is pretty much a free service that sustains itself almost entirely through it's advertising. Let's put it this way. General Electric owns NBC. NBC makes its money through ads. If GE decides its dishwashers get better ad placement and cheaper rates, who's to say otherwise? If people don't like it, they can flip to another channel. The only one losing money is GE and Google, since they could've sold that spot to an outside competitor.

How do I put the $ sign in GOOG?

[cloneofsnake]

M$ ... GOO$LE?

RIAA, is that you ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the same, EXACT SAME, argument the RIAA makes about downloading music?

Who is to say anybody would have bough thtat spot anyway.....

A lost sale can not be counted as lost revenue.....

etc.....

Re: [OT] Wally World

[alienmole]

If we have been using it that long, perhaps I have a valid DCMA copyright claim against National Lampoon?

You can't copyright the use of a phrase or term. You could trademark it, but trademarks are limited in scope, and large retail stores and amusement parks are different fields. Both could get registered trademarks on the same name, in theory. Finally, National Lampoon, as comedy, is protected by fair use. So all in all, your legal claims amount to naught, even if there were a law called the "DCMA". ;)

i know whats differant

[wud]

How different is it than MSFT placing its products (Internet Explorer) in a premium marketing position (embedded in the OS)?'

because everyone hates microsoft, duh.

Google doesn't have a monopoly

[puppers]

The only thing that Google has is 1) brand loyalty, and 2) the quality of it's algorithm. That's it. There's no real network effect going on with their products. You don't HAVE to use Google at all. If someone can come up with a better engine and attract more ATTENTION than them it can all change.
-eyeraw

You can always disable the adds

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there is no problem since the adds can be disabled with plugins like customize Google for Firefox.

I stopped seeing Google's adds about a year ago. There is no Google monopoly in my world.

Google Search = FREE. Windows = $$$$

[themoneyish]

Heck, I paid for my copy of Windows. I don't want IE on it!

Google search is free. It's their product, they can manipulate their ads. In fact ads is their business. Why not use it for themselves? I'll still use it as far as it remains the best.

Who looks at those ads anyways? Besides, someone said Google is not a monopoly yet. Move along, nothing to see here.

How it is different

[cwgmpls]

How different is it than MSFT placing its products (Internet Explorer) in a premium marketing position (embedded in the OS)?

There would be no difference if Microsoft put the IE icon in a "premium position", say at the top of the desktop and the top of the toolbar, and then allowed any number of other web browsers to be fully pre-installed and place icons immediately beneath IE in those places. But Microsoft doesn't do that, so it is very different.

they pay

[ogarza]

well google pays market prce for those top positions, since by keeping them to themselves, they dont make money from someone else who could pay for them.

It's not true!

[bennomatic]

The allegation doesn't actually appear to be true. I just did a search on Google for web advertising, and the top three ads, in order, are for ingenio.com, looksmart.com, and finally, Google's own AdWords.

Based on this, and the fact that AdWords doesn't seem to be anywhere near the top for search results makes me feel like they are probably not doing anything evil.

Similarly, for click-through advertising, they aren't on top, although they are indeed on top for pay-per-click advertising

Google isn't a monopoly

[jonadab]

> How different is it than MSFT placing its products (Internet Explorer) in
> a premium marketing position (embedded in the OS)?'"

Applying the word "Monopoly" to Google in the same way as to Microsoft is disingenuous.

Microsoft's OS has _conservatively_ 85% market share in consumer OSes. (Some estimates put it as high as 95%.)

Yes, Google has the _largest_ market share of any individual search engine, but it's still less than 50% and *way* less than 85%. Yahoo and MSN both have _significantly_ more market share in search engine use than Microsoft's closest competitors in the consumer OS space can claim in their wildest dreams.

Google is not a regulated monopoly and does not need to be as long as they have so many healthy competitors.

Odd note

[king-manic]

Right now at google.ca if you put in"search engine" into google. The #1 response is msn.search.com. odd

I think a lot of you are missing the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of TFA is that Google is displacing Top Ad Bidders to its own benefit.

Sure, as was pointed out many times, a property has every right to monetize its space any way it pleases. Yes, this is a free market and we are all free to choose other search engines, advertising avenues, etc.

But the difference here is that Google is giving the impression that "anyone" can acheive the top position - when in reality, Google is reserving the right to change the definition of "what the Top Position really is."

For a marketplace to be fair, the "rules for bidding" need to be consistent - not mutable. Right now, Google have its cake and eat it too by taking the money from the highest bidder for the Top Position and redefining. Instead of the Top Position being #1.....its #2, after Google decides to insert its own self-serving Ad.

It's not a fair marketplace - no matter how you try to justify it.

Do they have the right to do this? Yes....they do actually. Its just not very ethical and they are abusing their position of power. So, its not a monopoly yet......give it a couple of years.

Lastly, don't you fret....we are still buying keywords on Google and other sites (and will continue to do so). You see, while Google might not have a monopoly today, they are pretty damn close. If any of you monitor your organic traffic and monitor your successful keyword buys - I guarantee you that Google's performance will dwarf the competition.

I don't care what any of you say; Google is slowly cornering the Search / Ad market. And, they are doing this by executing a business with good technology. Good for them. But the truth is their 'revolutionary' and 'egalitarian' platform is not a very level playing field.
-The author of TFA

Dystopic google?

[alexandre]

Here is a bunch of link i gathered about google and a dystopic future, they are a fun read ;-)

The future of google?
http://www.richardmartineau.net/museum/

Google and social control?
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19125691 .800

Generic google watch:
http://www.google-watch.org/

And what if google had an OS, would it give you privacy?
http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_conte nt&Itemid=&task=view&id=2309

This is normal in the ad-media business

[merreborn]

The cable company runs commercials advertising themselves.
The satellite TV company does the same.
The movie theater runs spots for themselves during their pre-show advertising.
Billboards advertise themselves with the classic "Your ad here" line.

This is what ad publishers do. It'd be absurd to insist that they not do so, to give others "a fair chance".

Why, as the proprietor of "Joe's Billboard Shack", would you use your billboards to advertise *any* billboard service but your own?
It's your advertising space, you're paying for it, and you'll do whatever is most beneficial to you.

45.4% of the market is not a monopoly

[bigpat]

The question here is whether Google is sufficiently dominant in Market A, the web search market, to be classified as a monopoly. If they are, then what they are doing could be classified as illegal abuse of that monopoly.

The latest market share figures put google at less than 50% of the US Internet search market. That is pretty far from a monopoly. If Microsoft had 45.4% of the PC OS market and Apple had 28.2 percent and Ubuntu/Linux had 11.7 percent, FreeBSD with 5.8 percent and SunOS had 5.4 percent, then we wouldn't be calling Microsoft a monopoly for desktop OSes. We would consider that a healthy competitive marketplace.

Microsoft, on the other hand, now controls 97.46 percent of the global desktop operating system market, which is clearly a monopoly. But then on the server OS side, Microsoft is pretty far from a monopoly with less than half of the server OS market, with healthy competition between Linux, Solaris and other server OSes.

How it's different

[Rix]

• It doesn't effect people, only businesses. Microsoft preinstalling IE into Windows and preventing its removal reduces individual choice, as the neophyte may not know that other options are available.
• Google does not, to my knowledge, block competing ads. You can still buy the second place spot on Google, while Mozilla and Opera cannot be pre installed in Windows at all.
• Google is not a monopoly. There are other search engines fully compatible with Google. There are no OS's compatable with Windows. Google's advantage is that it is a better search engine, not that it is a pre installed search engine.

Google has their fingers everywhere

[Serveert]

It amazes me why people use ad sense, google analytics, giving google a huge amount of data so google can peer through their data and decide that they can compete with you and make more money by cutting you out. When google knows how many products are sold, their prices, and also knows your page views.. You don't have to be paranoid to realize that this is a gold mine of information for them. If you can try to find someone who specializes in one thing and will not cut you out. Ever since Google went public they've expanded at eye-popping levels in order to please shareholders. I personally think they've grown too much to the point where I don't trust doing business with them, using their email for any business dealings or using their toolbar, ad sense, ad words. I think eventually they should spin off things like ad sense into seperate companies in order to win back trust.

Just like TV networks...

[droopycom]

I mean, do you expect to see a network advertising rivals shows ??

Duh... should you expect Google to advertise Yahoo maps ? I dont, but guess what ... When you type an address in the Google Search, you get links to Google Maps, Yahoo Maps and Mapquest in that order. And its not even ads, I bet they do it for free...

Also, they might keep the "messenger" adword for themselves, but yet if you type messenger in Google Search, guess what the results looks like ? Google Talk is not in them. Google Talk only appears in the small ad section on the right.

Also try "online maps" in google, and look at the results and ads... I dont think anybody is being stiffled here...

Google's & Long Term Information Strategy

[twifosp]

I posted this back in May: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=14922 5&cid=12509634 (Oddly enough I found it easier with google than I did by searching slashdot :)

This strategy is no different than offering a free search. When you search, google knows what you're looking for and gives you advertisements based on that. Now they are adding the where. Google is going to become the premier marketing company in the future. They are really good at providing a service that people want or need, but at the same time, that service also helps them collect data on you. Is this a good or bad thing? I can't really tell yet. However, I just had a flash back to Minority Report where people are getting customer advertisements based on who they are.

Let's look at what google can know about you, if you use all of their services (present and future):

1. Google Search: What kind of things you search on a regular basis. Your interests and hobbies.
2. Gmail: What kind of content you get in your email.
3. Google Cache Proxy: Where you surf the web and how often.
4. Google Maps: Where do you want to go?
5. Google Dodgeball: Where do you and your friends actually go?

Think about it. I could easily forsee LCD screens on streets, in bars, at your restuarant table which display custom google ads. As soon as you pass by them, your bluetooth enabled phone broadcasts your cell phone number to the receiver which transmits to the Google Person Database. This database spiders out and looks up your most recent searches, your friends searches, other people who search like you, accesses your e-mail indexes, looks up what locations you visit on a regular basis, and gives you a custom advertisement which has the best probability to sell to the thousands of other people who have a similar demographic to you.

I'm starting to think of Google as marketing powerhouse with really smart technology, rather a technology powerhouse with really slick marketing.

I'm struggling to find the answer: What can't Google figure out or make damned good assumptions about you, based on your Google use?

There are a number of things you can add to that list. Google's motto of do no evil is smoke and mirrors. They want information and lots of it. Why? So they can sell it. Google is no different than any other company. Are they bad and evil? No, not really. But they aren't some magical company where they fight the hordes of evil either like some nerds would love to believe. They only offer their servers for one reason and one reason ONLY. To collect information about you in order to make a profit. And they are damn good at it too.

Store brand vs name brand

[Cassanova]

I walk down the aisle in a grocery shop. Beside the name brand tissues, theres also the store brand tissues. Is the store owner unfarily leveraging his shelf space to sell his product and shut out competition? Let the analogy wars begin...

It's very different

[John Sokol]

  Most people are forced to use Microsoft, or at least pay for the OS by default when purchasing a system.
  It's quite a hastle to eliminate there OS and move to Linux or just get rid of explorer and use firefox.
  It's very difficult to totally eradicate Internet Explorer and still have a properly useful windows OS.

  While with google you not only have the option not to use there service, but you have to go out of your way to use there service!!

  If google starts to play games with there search results too much like many other search engines do, then I will stop using them and look elsewhere for searching.

Any tax implications?

[Anonymous Coward]

the subject says it all

not the top ad always

[kajumix]

I did a search on the indicated terms.. for the following searches google's ad was NOT the top ad:

intranet
blog
photo sharing
restaurants
dining
books (amazon's ad comes before google)

Re: [OT] Wally World

[HikingStick]

I guess lame attempts at humor are harder to spot than lame humor itself...

Ads? What ads?

[shitzu]

oh, right, the people without adblock have different concerns...

Sloppy Seconds

[Anonymous Coward]

As a matter of principle, I always click on the first link of the *second* page of Google search returns, just to spite the system a bit and trump the "top ad position" paradigm. Sure, I get a lot of mostly irrelevant stuff, but that's the price one often must pay for iconoclasm. Rather than "I'm Feeling Lucky" the first link on the second page should be called "Sloppy Seconds."

Re:GOOGLE FUNDED BY CIA http://www.prisonplanet.co

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever.

Gov. is good they love you.

Smile while TSA gropes your female sheep partner.

If you have one.

Don't bother to listen to the ex CIA spook talk..

http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/051206steele.mp3

I suppose you believe steel buildings can implode due to fire.

Now that is funny!

Think of Google users

[Infonaut]

For pity's sake, will someone think of the users?!

Seriously, this is all a bunch of hot air about nothing. We're talking about PAID advertising on a search engine. The vast majority of traffic to most sites still comes from ORGANIC placement, not from paid ads in Google. Yes, it's a huge revenue source for Google, and yes, the top spot is being taken by Google, but:

1. Most users will still click on the organic search result rather than the paid result, unless they're not finding what they need in the organic result.
2. The top link in paid results is not the only option. People scan web pages, they do not read them in a linear fashion. The top three or four paid ads show up very quickly in the user's field of vision, and are all pretty much absorbed at once. I've never been able to detect any measurable difference in referral rates between ads placed in the top 4 or 5 slots. They're all pretty much the same in terms of referral results.
3. At a certain point, advertising their own products in the paid search area may be counterproductive for Google. Just like banner ads, users may learn to simply gloss over ads for Google that appear within Google. Ostensibly if I'm using Google and I'm performing a search for something, I'm not looking for a Google service. Even if that's not true and there are many Google users who type in "online maps" when in Google, there's a point of diminishing return for Google with repeat Google users. They may find it simply not cost-effective, opting instead for an interface change or other means of marketing their non-core services.

As others have noted, Google is nowhere near a monopoly. Also, this is not like Microsoft advertising their own products inside MS Office, for example, and excluding other advertisers. Google is chock full o' ads. The ads Google places for itself are only a small fraction of the total ads being offered. Come to think of it, if Microsoft advertised its own products inside MS Office, that would probably be just another incentive for customers to jump ship. After a while, advertising within your own products becomes so annoying that consumers look elsewhere.

Google isn't breaking any rules.

[DougofTheAbaci]

Putting your broswer in the OS and integrating it to the point that removing it can seriously harm the operating abilities of that OS is not quite the same as paying for ad placement.

As a web designer you do this stuff all the time. You word paragraphs a certain way, you tag your images and put in key words and descriptions into the header, all of this is to make your the most relevant site. You can also go out and buy ad-placement. Google does it itself on it's search engine with sponsored links, as well as the links that come up on the right.

This is something that's wide spread throughout the web community and all major companies do it. Google pays for it's placement, it pays for what it gets. Windows forces it on you by making it harder to use something else. An equivalent would be Google hijacking your computer and not allowing you to use any other search engine by constantly redirecting you back to Google.com if you tried or that it'd crash your browser all the time if you changed your home page.

If someone else wants the top spot, it's simple. You pay more money. There's nothing stopping someone else from walking in and saying, "Here's 1 billion dollars. I want the top ad slot for Instant Messenger." and you know what? They'd get it because no one else is going to pay more. They could, but they won't. That doesn't mean the option isn't very much there, it just means someone most likely won't.

Of course, if Microsoft chooses to pay me money to use it as my default browser, I'd be more than happy to. It'd take a lot of money, but I'd do it. Unfortunately they aren't and so I won't.

It is like asking how much Safeway charges itself

[tim1602]

Nobody questions how much the grocery stores charge themselves to put their store brand products on their shelves. This is the exact same situation. If you own the store you don't have to let any product in that you don't want. It isn't so much a dollar amount as it is an opportunity cost. Would they make more by promoting their own product, or by advertising another one?
As for Google being a monopoly in search engine, do a search for "internet search engines". When I did it MSN came up number one after the paid results.
Simple, not really a concern in a free market environment. Now whether that exists or not is fodder for another discussion.

Marx is a wanker

[PsiPsiStar]

Perhaps you're just a troll, but I'll assume for a moment you aren't.

Radical capitalism is based on an assumption of some kind of radical choice, which is basically a fantasy.

There are generally a lot more choices in capitalist societies than in socialist or communist ones. As it is, I can search with Yahoo, Dogpile, or any other number of search engines.

Part of my problem with MS is that they prevent other products from being compatible with theirs, in order to maintain their monopoly.

What is in fact happening is the continued alienation of human beings from each other and our social worlds

This 'alienation of human beings from so and so' line (usually from the product of their labor) is one of the worst Marxist criticism of capitalism I've heard. As if I can't call up my friends and spend time with them if I want to. Or get a job outside a corporation making handmade art... if I wanted to. Corporations pay much better,generally, than smaller businesses. If people thought "alienation" was a problem, they'd work in jobs that didn't "alienate" them. (And how does Google alienate people? By making it easier to find people or businesses, it would seem to do the opposite.)

Re:Marx is a wanker

[bandmassa]

Off the main topic, I know, but it shits me to tears when people speak about how communism failed. Communism has never been tried. Ever.

No, never, not once, in any form.

A sort of socialist inspired, facist-run, managed economy has been, but nothing that Marx and Engels proposed has ever been tried on this planet at a national scale. So, the battle between capitalism and communism is a right-wing propagandist's construct on both sides, and we have no idea about Marx's masturbatory index, consequently.

And, as for work, be it in small or large business: it causes alienation when you don't enjoy it, and elation and community when you do (drinking the cool-aid). Own the responsibility for how you feel at work, rather than blame the boss, your colleagues or the environment, and work becomes at least tolerable, if not enjoyable.

Re:Marx is a wanker

[PsiPsiStar]

it shits me to tears when people speak about how communism failed. Communism has never been tried. Ever.

Has capitalism "been tried" technically?

The governing body which was supposed to 'wither away' after the destruction of capitalism in the soviet union never withered. It's kindof like opening your "socialism in 12 easy steps" book and getting irrevocably stuck on step 8.

Similarly, Soviet figures were sometimes criticised for taking a 'too left' position and moving too quickly towards communism.

If you prefer, we can say that "Marxist Leninism" has failed and non-market based approaches to problems have been shown to be suboptimal. And that collective ownership of goods without personal investment or personal risk is also sub-optimal.

Re:Marx is a wanker

[jkauzlar]

Marx's concept of alienation is still totally valid, although if the gp meant what you think he meant, then he was taking it a little far to assume that all alienating technology is bad. A good summary of Marx's concept of alienation can be found in.. ahem.. the Unabomber's Manifesto. Spending all day fitting bolts into drive shafts to get money for food is alienating; the purposefulness is misplaced; moreso if you're working 12 hours a day. Don't forget that Marx lived in a different era where capitalism was completely unchecked. You should be thankful for Marx that you only have to work 8 hrs a day, not calling him a 'wanker.'

Re:Marx is a wanker

[jkauzlar]

Read about the history of labor in Great Britian in the 19th century or later on in the United States. It's been tried and it was a nightmare.

Re:Marx is a wanker

[PsiPsiStar]

Milton Friedman discusses it here under GHOST OF CAPITALISM PAST.

ROBINSON Again and again you will hear that we've tried, the Western world has already tried laissez-faire, let her rip economics and it ended up with the London that Charles Dickens portrayed "dirty, filthy, child-labor" just a terrible mess. What do you do..how did that come to be?

FRIEDMAN It was a terrible mess but what cleaned it up?

ROBINSON Disraeli and his social...the child labor laws...

FRIEDMAN No, no what cleaned it up was the progress of private enterprise because you had a...the reason it was so messy was because you had to burn coal and the kind of coal that was available in Britain was very smokey and messy. And once you were able to use oil, natural gas, better furnaces, all of those things is what it made it possible to clean London up. Now so far as child labor is concerned..what happens is, what happens in the picture that's drawn of Britain in the 19th century is that there's no image of what went before. Of why is it that all these people from the farming, from the rural areas came to the city. Did they come to the city because they thought it would be worse? Or because they thought it would be better? And was it worse or was it better? In the early days, you know there are very few things that are 100% black or 100% white, there are various shades of grey. And what we aim for is the least shade of grey that's possible. I'm not going to say that all was rosy in Britain at the time, it wasn't. But look around the world today. Where is it least rosy? -In those countries where things that are run by the government not in those countries where private enterprises are. And the same thing was true in Britain, the conditions in the rural areas, on the farms, were far worse than conditions in the city, but they were not visible, they were hidden, nobody saw them. [ROBINSON Dickens didn't stroll around the countryside..] Right..

Milton overstates things a little, to the benefit of his personal philosophy. Problems like those described in The Jungle (the part that describes the food industry) did require government regulation.

Re:Marx is a wanker

[jkauzlar]

Thanks, the rural vs. urban comparison did put some perspective on the whole situation. His explanation of the 'messy' descriptive was silly and superficial, nor did he answer the question of 'let-her-rip' economics or even the child labor problem he acknowledged (I haven't read the actual article yet, but I will). The question of totalitarianism vs. free market is also handled superficially. Exploitation goes hand-in-hand with totalitarianism. If Stalin weren't exploitative, he would've had no need to exert power so forcefully; he would then have been a true communist (yeah, I'm sounding like one myself.. *shudder*) and not a totalitarian dictator. The government's setting of limits on market exploitation is what improved things-- that, and, subsequently, the social consciousness. If the government evens the playing field, then no business can use, say, child labor, to gain a competitive edge. Once one company goes into questionable territory (e.g. Walmart's current foray into 3rd world labor) it forces other companies to do the same and can result in a discomforting situation until the activity is regulated. Free markets can't work on their own without regulation.

Re:Marx is a wanker

[PsiPsiStar]

or even the child labor problem he acknowledged

Typically the reason for large family farms was so that the kids could help out with the farm work. In other words, child labor was an institutionalized part of rural life (and rural "social security" for that matter.) Though I don't think the article spells that out.

If Stalin weren't exploitative, he would've had no need to exert power so forcefully; he would then have been a true communist (yeah, I'm sounding like one myself.. *shudder*) and not a totalitarian dictator.

Perhaps, but he would also be a true capitalist and a true libertarian then too, no?

If the government evens the playing field, then no business can use, say, child labor, to gain a competitive edge.

This partly overlooks the problem of why so many families were willing to put their children to work to begin with. Of course, some families are not really interested in their children's best interests. Gov't regulation might help a little there. But "opposing child labor" overlooks the question of why so many families had been willing to "exploit" their own children. And why people collectively might favor moral laws that they wouldn't individually obey. Anti-child labor laws only seem possible when the majority of people already want their children's best interests, and also when they don't see child labor as an economic necessity to provide, say, food. In short, the economic and political desire has to preceed the creation of laws. Laws which preceed economic and political desire are probably not going to be effective, much less helpful. Social spending on education may help some if there's enough capital to support it. But social ownership of industry doesn't seem helpful.

Re:Marx is a wanker

[jkauzlar]

he would also be a true capitalist and a true libertarian then too, no?

No, unless you think laborors have no rights under capitalism. Even the creation of a labor union is a free market activity. If people are willing to give up a portion of their earnings to a union, then it's a market like anything else. I think a lot of pro-capitalist, anti-union people ignore this fact. True, they get to be a nuisance when they turn into capitalist organizations themselves.

child labor was an institutionalized part of rural life

But the institution was strictly managed by people who probably loved them. Businesses can work someone to death knowing the person can be replaced in a heartbeat.

But "opposing child labor" overlooks the question of why so many families had been willing to "exploit" their own children.

For the same reason the one-income family is becoming financially unmanageable, I'm just *assuming* it wasn't viable in 1850's London as well not to have your kids earning their own subsistence. Otherwise, why do that to you kid?

Re:Marx is a wanker

[PsiPsiStar]

No, unless you think laborors have no rights under capitalism. Even the creation of a labor union is a free market activity.

Not sure quite what you're arguing for here, but of course. The creation of a labor union can be a free market activity. Or, if the government institutionalizes the labor union, it can be an anti-free market entity and a tool of government coercion. If you didn't belong to the Nazi labor union, for example, it was next to impossible for you to get a job in Nazi Germany. The Nazis took control of industry and labor organization.)

I'm saying that if Stalin had refrained from exercising power and been 'non-exploitative' then he would have been libertarian. He couldn't union bust or control industry and also be non-exploitative.

"Communism," in practice, has ammounted to centralization of power and coercion. Without those two things, it would have been somthing else entirely.

But the institution was strictly managed by people who probably loved them. Businesses can work someone to death knowing the person can be replaced in a heartbeat.

You can be hurt trying to break in a horse, too. Parents moved to cities and allowed thier children to take dangerous factory jobs. The migration to the cities and the permission given to these children indicates a preference.

For the same reason the one-income family is becoming financially unmanageable, I'm just *assuming* it wasn't viable in 1850's London as well not to have your kids earning their own subsistence. Otherwise, why do that to you kid?

Yes, that's my point. Which would mean that, unless you advocate government funds be used to raise children, that being "anti-child labor" in some situations amounts to being "pro-child hunger." Opposing dangerous labor (especially for children, but also others) makes sense. But opposing all child labor might have a negative impact on children in the short term since they wouldn't be able to sustain themselves (and hopefully force smaller families in the long term.)

Not so for finance

[teetam]

When i google for "finance", the top link is for yahoo finance. Also, when I search for a stock symbol (say, MSFT or GOOG) the top of the result page includes links to other financial sites besides google finance. Doesn't seem anti-competitive to me. Also, their web clips on gmail etc. often include entries from yahoo answers. Reports of google misusing their monopoly are greatly exaggerated.

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[mrsbrisby]

There is no such thing as an illegal monopoly.

Sure there is. A company can break the law to become a monopoly.

A company with a monopoly only breaks the law by using a monopoly to obtain an unfair advantage over a competitor, ie MS leveraging their Windows monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in the Web Browser market.

Err, there are a lot of ways a company with a monopoly can break the law, and its not entirely clear that the whole "web browser thing" was what did them in.

When Microsoft signed contracts with SUN to produce JAVA a certain way, then violated those contracts, and tied SUN up in court for a few years was a much better example. Simply put, if Microsoft hadn't signed that contract, people would've complained to MS "why is YOURS the only browser without Java Support?"

I'm not quite sure I understand your references to Toys R US or Wal-Mart. Neither of those retailers are anywhere near to having a monopoly, nor am I aware of any instances where either has been legitimately accused of unfairly leveraging a business advantage.

That much has been obvious, but unless you're an expert, I wouldn't expect you to simply "be aware" of them.

Google "walmart antitrust", or "toys r us antitrust" (esp. Toys R Us' problems with the FTC a while back).

Tough shit if you're not Google

[fz00]

Top billing is not a problem. EXCLUSION is. As far as I can tell, Google doesn't exclude. If your search produces a relevant result it will be displayed. Next question? These conspiracy theories are a waste of time.

Re:GOOGLE FUNDED BY CIA http://www.prisonplanet.co

[onkelonkel]

Indeed I do. Don't you?

Forging temperature - 1800 F.

Boeing 767 fuel load 144,000 lbs.

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[mrsbrisby]

Legally, what difference does the quality of products make? If you leverage a monopoly in one market to stifle competition in another, it's illegal. It doesn't matter if you have the best product or not.

Because monopolies themselves aren't bad. Municipals tend to do a much better job than "private companies" because their charge isn't to their shareholders (which seems to let things like Enron happen), but to their communities.

Because the consumers aren't suffering by Google's actions, they're unlikely to be targetted by the FTC. This is in stark contrast to Microsoft's monopoly, where consumers are suffering.

Re: [OT] Wally World

[alienmole]

Oh, I spotted the humor alright. I guess lame attempts at ironic critique of humor are even harder to spot, though.

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[mrsbrisby]

I am sorry, but this makes no sense as an arguement. MS produced a product that gained such wide appeal that it earned the largest market share.

Well no kidding it makes no sense to you! You're assuming that because Microsoft had wide appeal, it MUST have been good!

Google "Windows sucks", and you'll see why this is a faulty assumption.

ong after that they used their position to include things like IE by default,

Did anyone even bother to READ the FTC's report on Microsoft?

Microsoft's illegal activities began in the late 1970s, and they were repetedly slapped with lawsuit after lawsuit. It wasn't just in 1995 that they were breaking the law.

The laws they broke allowed them to get a monopoly. Once they had the monopoly, they used it to hurt consumers. That's what the DOJ said. That's what the FTC report indicates.

You cannot say they forced anyone into using their software ever, since there has always been a choice (Mac and Linux come to mind).

You're living in a fantasy land. Show me how to buy a Dell without windows. Show me how to read a .docx file that my municipal sent as my "bill" with Linux?

Or did you mean that I could go without a computer and without internet access, so therefore I wasn't being forced to buy Windows?

Did you know that taxes in some contries have to be filed using a .NET application?

Did you know my mobile phone only came with drivers for Windows?

Or did you mean that I could choose not to run a business or backup my address book, so therefore I wasn't being forced to buy Windows?

Seriously, Bill has 50 billion dollars, what makes you think he needs you either?

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[jrsimmons]

You're confusing "being a company that has a monopoly in some market" with "illegally using a monopoly to gain an unfair competitive advantage". A company may very well "break the law to become a monopoly" as you put it. For example, the company might bomb their competitors stores and drive them out of business, achieving a monopoly for themselves. Still, the crime would be "bombing their competitors stores", not "achieving a monopoly for themselves".

Simply having a monopoly in some market IS NOT ILLEGAL.

Wal-Mart has been accused of illegally using their market dominance, but mainly just by workers unions who are upset that they won't hire union workers. There has not been a single court decision against them to my knowledge.

I hadn't read about the Toys R Us stuff. That's interesting. And it illustrates my point very well. Toys R Us did not get in trouble with the FTC for having the dominant market share (monopoly). It got in trouble with the FTC when it used that dominant market share to bully its suppliers into giving it an unfair advantage against certain competitors.

It's much worse than this....

[Lxy]

If you search for ANYTHING on Google. Yes, I mean ANYTHING, you will see the most horrific of all monopolistic behavior. The first link at the top of the Google website is a link to GOOGLE!!! How can this be? They must be STOPPED! Think of the children!

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[nasch]

I have no argument with that, but what does it have to do with how good the product is? If a monopoly produces a great product it's OK, but if it produces a crappy product it's illegal? How good does it have to be to be legal? How bad does it have to be to be illegal? What laws sets these standards?

How different ?????

[steveoc]

How different is it than MSFT placing its products (Internet Explorer) in a premium marketing position (embedded in the OS)?' ... Well, its different because in the google case, its just an advert. If I see an advert, it doesnt ruin my day in any way. I can choose to read it if I want, or I can choose to ignore it if I want.

If I want to run firefox on a machine, Google adverts DO NOT intefere with my choice by constantly trying to setup some other product to take over as the default browser.

If I want to buy a laptop, the existence of Google adverts in the top rank DO NOT force me to waste hard earned money on google products that I have no intention of ever using.

If I am contracted to build a website that interacts with some existing legacy database, the existence of google adverts in the top rank DO NOT make my life hell on earth by locking up the data in deliberatly obfuscated formats and turning a 1 month profitable job into a 6 month exersize in frustration.

The high rank of Google's own adverts does not contribute to the problem of having untrained idiots creating 'database systems' (sometimes aka 'spreadsheets') on a whim to handle mission critical aspects of businesses.

I dont see Google adverts trying to subvert beneficial projects at the 11th hour, such as the OLPC initiative, by increasing the hardware requirements and costs of the machine just so they can step in at the last moment and take the credit for the project.

If I invest a good portion of my life in my chosen calling .. I dont turn around years down the track and find that CEO of google making vacuous claims that they 'own' my IP.

Need I go on ?

Word association

[Serengeti]

Talk about word association... I thought the slug for this story was "Google's Silent Microsoft".

reminds me of the old joke...

[Rastan_B2]

This little boy goes up to his dad and he says "Dad?, What's the difference between Potentially and Realistically?" To which the father replies "Well son, go ask your mother if she would sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars. Then you ask your sister if she would sleep with Brad Pitt for a million dollars. Then you ask your brother if he would sleep with Tom Cruise for a million dollars." So the boy goes up to his mom and asks her if she would sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars and the mother replies "Oh my god, of course I would, he is so good looking!" So the boy moves on and asks his sister if she would sleep with Brad Pitt for a million dollars, and she replies "He is so fucking fine, of course I would!" Then last but no least he goes up to his brother and asks him if he would sleep with Tom Cruise for a million dollars, his brother says "Of course I would, who wouldn't for a million bucks?" So he goes up to his dad and says "I think I learned the difference between potentially and realistically" "Well what's the difference?" says the father. "Well, potentially we're sitting on 3 million dollars, realistically we're living with 2 sluts and a fag!"

Self Interest is not a Monopoly

[Imaria]

The New York Times wouldn't advertise in the Chicago Sun, so why should Yahoo! need to advertise with Google? Google should not need to advertise for its competitors. A monopoly prevents or impedes their competitors from getting business; if anything, someone else willing to advertise against Google could get more business.

It's a matter of ease and exclusivity

[kabloom]

It's a matter of ease and exclusivity. With Google, they still advertise 3 or 4 other services on each results page, in addition to their own (and in addition to whatever the highest ranked result pages naturally are). It's no easier to use Google's offering (1 click to get there) than it is to use a competitor's offering (also 1 click to get there).

With Microsoft's monopoly, they preloaded the web browser into the operating system. Any program that needed a web browser was configured to automatically choose Internet Explorer first, and you were running Internet Explorer anyway because it was integrated into your file manager. Getting any other browser required more effort, and the result was less integrated than Microsoft's own offering.

Strangely enough, Google doesn't advertise their calculator features when you search for "calculator" -- that's something that's integrated right into their search box, so it's a slightly more comparable case to Microsoft (but still not very similar).

incase it wasnt obvious

[deadlock911]

The difference between the Microsoft scenario and this is pretty clear. Microsoft gives you their option and says "Go find the others for your self" Google lists all the options, it just puts itself at the top of the list. As far as i can tell this only affects people with the "I'm feeling lucky" itchy trigger finger

Re:GOOGLE FUNDED BY CIA http://www.prisonplanet.co

[Anonymous Coward]

Dream on.
Only idiots believe that.
Controlled demolition.
Do some research.
http://home.earthlink.net/~root.man/911.html

It doesn't matter

[macosxaddict]

It really doesn't matter how much they "pay themselves" - it's part of their product's design. If people don't like it, they are welcome to switch to another search tool that they find gives them better results. It's not a monopoly at all; they just happen to be very popular.

Whats the harm?

[madbawa]

Whats the harm if a company markets its own products aggressively? Ultimately its up to the user to decide what to choose.
Why curb companies from marketing their products? Why do we instinctively go into socialist mode? Why can't we tolerate that if I am providing a service, I want the business to come to me. Why the hell should I think about giving my competitors 'some space'? If they want this 'space', then they should be good enough for that first.
Of course, if I have am manufacturing product A, and another company is making product A and C; and in order to sell my prod A, I need to use prod C, then prod C should be fair. That much is pretty obvious.

It's not different

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no different. But I also never had a problem with microsoft including IE in its desktop. That's not a monopolistic move. Updating your OS repeatedly just to make another piece of software (netscape) run is. Which microsoft never did, iirc.

Heres the difference:

[The Cisco Kid]

Google is a free service provided via the web.
If I get to watch TV program for free, I expect there to be breaks for commercial advertisements. Possibly even ads for the network airing the program.

MS Windows is a product you purchase.
If I purchase a video, I expect to be able to watch it without being interrupted by commercial ads.

Thats the big difference. Windows is a product that is purchased (wether by choice, or by force with the purchase of a machine), Google costs *nothing*.

How much rent do you pay to live in your own home?

[fxm87]

How much rent do you pay to live in your own home? (Ignoring any mortgages) the answer is probably "none". Unless you're calculating GDP. Or trying to find new sources of tax revenue (e.g. the old Schedule A of the U.K. income tax).

Interesting, but doesnt seem true

[Bashar Abdullah]

This is a very interesting topic, and possible as well. As for the Adwords, I am not sure how it works and theoretically, Google can always place the highest bit on their site and the money will come back to them. But what will they earn? Nothing but an additional hit, when they can make money out of those hot keywords. On the long run, this could cause them loss since most of Google services are for FREE and depend on the sponsored ads. But then again, this is just thinking and Google theoretically may have another word on that. Having tried all the suggested keywords in this article myself, only blog showed Blogger Ad on the top, and all the rest did not show any Google related ads! Maybe sometimes Google come at the top, but not always and you can still bit over them.

Re:so slashdot can decide which stories they choos

[Anonymous Coward]

The story is still there. It's just not on the front page. Doesn't everyone with a clue use a custom front page? I guess not.

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[tehcyder]

Simply having a monopoly in some market IS NOT ILLEGAL.

Unless you're Microsoft, of course, in which case there's some special law somewhere that applies just to them. Probably.

This story has been refuted

[GoogleGuy]

Matt Cutts has debunked this story, and Google's AdWords team has also posted to their blog to debunk this. I think it's funny that people beat up on Google for buying ads, when Yahoo just takes the screen real estate for free. Try a search for [online advertising] on Yahoo. They hard-code a shortcut to their own products.

They don;t have a monopoly.

[jotaeleemeese]

That may be your perception, buy you better show some proof of that.

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[mrsbrisby]

I have no argument with that, but what does it have to do with how good the product is? If a monopoly produces a great product it's OK, but if it produces a crappy product it's illegal?

That's pretty much it.

When a monopoly exists, consumers no longer have the choice, and a better product simply cannot come along unless the monopoly holder in its own good graces decides to produce it. So long as consumers aren't hurt by its "crappiness", the monopoly is legal.

Sometimes it takes a government to regulate the monopoly, and other times it takes transparency. So far it looks like having "don't be evil" be your mission statement can also do the trick.

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[mrsbrisby]

Simply having a monopoly in some market IS NOT ILLEGAL.

Where did I say it was?

Are you reading more into this:

Microsoft isn't the only company to break these laws:

Than I intended?

Wal-Mart has been accused of illegally using their market dominance, but mainly just by workers unions who are upset that they won't hire union workers. There has not been a single court decision against them to my knowledge.

Why would your knowledge be authoritative, and why do people keep saying "to my knowledge" like that's supposed to be the line drawn in the sand?

If you're a monopoly holder and you're not producing the best possible product, you are hurting the consumer.

Seriously, this is about "if both google and microsoft have a monopoly, why is microsoft bad" and the simple answer is that they (microsoft) hurt the consumer. Wal*Mart hurts the consumer. Toys R' US hurts the consumer. They all do so in different ways, but they are all indeed hurting consumers.

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[mrsbrisby]

Simply having a monopoly in some market IS NOT ILLEGAL.

Unless you're Microsoft, of course, in which case there's some special law somewhere that applies just to them. Probably.

Not just probably, exactly.

Microsoft hurt the market and the consumer. Badly. As a result, they simply are not allowed to play "free market" anymore.

That's all there is to it.

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[nasch]

How about the rest of my questions? How bad does it have to be to be illegal, how good to be legal, and what law sets the standards? That is, what's the name of the law? Sherman?

Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly?

[mrsbrisby]

How about the rest of my questions? How bad does it have to be to be illegal, how good to be legal, and what law sets the standards?

I strongly suspect you're looking for a nutshell, and unfortunately there isn't one. The general spirit of antitrust law is that consumers can be hurt by unlimited free-trade, and that it is more important to protect consumers where they are being hurt by unlimited free-trade. In practice, it seems to be invoked when the state-of-the-art is ahead of the monopoly and yet is still not being progressivly introduced into the market. BeOS could be demonstrated (in on of the MS complaints) to be state-of-the-art where the comparable MS offering was not, and as it turns out, MS was using its monopoly to prevent BeOS from gaining entry into the market at all. Consumers simply could not choose something better, and as a result, the market was closed to Be. Antitrust in general is about creating open markets (as opposed to free markets) where anyone with a product can enter the market. It might not always work this way, but that's the general hope.

That is, what's the name of the law? Sherman?

You're thinking of the Shrman Antitrust Act. It doesn't talk about illegal monopolies in terms of products however, but in terms of restraint and consumers.