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)?'"
Doesn't anyone watch movies? Any company that claims to "Do No Harm" is obviously the most evil vile company of them all.
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.
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.
caritj.org
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?
Nerd Rock In Progress
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?
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.
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.
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
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.
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.
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.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0