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)?'"
thats an evil monopoly!
Doesn't anyone watch movies? Any company that claims to "Do No Harm" is obviously the most evil vile company of them all.
Maybe you need to find a product or service that doesn't compete with Google Enterprises?
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
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!!
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
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
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.
Why don't you go to a cab company and ask to advertise another cab service on their cars. Good luck!
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
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.
I just tested "intranet"
.Net CMS - Over 35 apps included. Free 30 Day Trial - Download Now !
.Net Office Intranet www.intranetdashboard.com
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
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
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.
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
Walmart refuses Target's request to advertise in Walmart stores.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
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.
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).
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.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
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
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.
We're talking about ad listings, not organic listings. Google is number one in the ads.
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
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.
brandelf: invalid ELF type 'KEEBLER'
It is not web searches
It is web searchers
And the people who buy advertizing space are the customer, not you.
FRA: STFU GTFO
google search is people!
From Dictionary.com:
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.
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
At what point has MacOS, OSX, and/or Linux made up any significant desktop market share compared to Windows?
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.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
Obviously the answer would be to force Microsoft to advocate for its competitors. Nothing else makes sense.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Having failed in proving that Google is a monopoly, the basis for the rest of the article is vacuous.
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
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.
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.
SRSLY.
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?
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.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
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..
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
& 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.
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.
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
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.
Which is, as stated, false as well, as a monopoly is defined by price-setting power, not marketshare.
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.
What he means is that Google cannot raise their prices arbitrarily, because they do have legitimate competitors that their customers can utilize.
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.
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.
search.msn.com is giving me 806 results on a search for google and over 65 million on a search for google -asdfghjkl.
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.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
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)
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.
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.)
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.