Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google's Silent Monopoly

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the something-to-think-about dept.

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)?'"

5 of 425 comments (clear)

  1. "Do No Harm" by Reverend99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  2. Google *does* pay itself. by pdabbadabba · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  3. You mean like TV channels? by ShadyG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  4. Umm... by hanssprudel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  5. Re:It's fine for Google to do that by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.