Slashdot Mirror
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)?'"
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.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
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:
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.
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
We're talking about ad listings, not organic listings. Google is number one in the ads.
Zune: http://seo.zunch.com/search_engine_usage_statistic s.htm a y.asp 3 34881
Pew Internet: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/167/report_displ
WebSideStory: http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3
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
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't
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.
That's just Google.com, not all of the other sites they own. Google has more like 73% world share.
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
I've nothing to say here...
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.
My blog
Google has a near-monopoly on web searches
44 percent is hardly a monopoly. Or a near-monopoly.
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?
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.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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...
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.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
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)