Microsoft Complains About Google's Monopoly Abuse

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Frustrated at the FTC's blessing of the Google/Doubleclick merger, Microsoft is complaining to the EU. Its latest filings detail how the merger would give Google a stranglehold on the advertising industry. While these complaints aren't new, the diagram [PDF] Microsoft created gives you an interesting look at the sort of competition Microsoft fears from Google."

Comments

Well if anyone knows...

[lisany]

If anyone knows about what a monopoly is it's Microsoft.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[smittyoneeach]

Yeah. Check those "Senator Stevens" pipe charts and substitute "file formats" for "ads".
Sweet, sweet irony.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[Knave75]

If anyone knows about what a monopoly is it's Microsoft.

I know that we all despise our Monopolizing Micro$oft overlords and such, but that does not invalidate their argument. Imagine that the complaint was coming from a small company with a solid innovation that was getting pulverized by Google, would you at least hear out the small company?

That said, I agree, it is funny to hear microsoft whining about monopolies. Just try to remember that their past does not, in itself, make them wrong.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[WindBourne]

If it was a small company, I would listen. But this is a MONSTER company, with a LONG reputation of doing anything illegal to keep their monopoly. Worse, I expect to see a bunch of small companies coming out of the woodworks who will cry about Google abuse. Then the money will be traced back to MS on the vast majority of them. Lost in all that FUD and fakery from MS probably will be a couple of companies that do feel like they can not take on Google. IOW, the multitude of lies and FUD from MS will serve to obscure what is really going on.

I also expect to see a number of congressman start gripping about Google.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[arivanov]

Did the kettle just call the pot black?

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[Jugalator]

Yeah. Check those "Senator Stevens" pipe charts and substitute "file formats" for "ads".
Sweet, sweet irony. I'd like to note that personally, although MS has a bad reputation here, I'm inclined to agree with them. And MS' bad reputation here shouldn't justify Google's actions. It's a bit frightening how big in the online ad market Google is becoming. It's also easy to draw conclusions of how cool Microsoft was early on, and how evil they are now. I'm already starting to see it happen with Google... They've already got the private information networking done, and now they're going after dominance and purchasing market via company mergers.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[Jugalator]

If it was a small company, I would listen. But this is a MONSTER company, with a LONG reputation of doing anything illegal to keep their monopoly. I don't think a company should be ignored depending on their reputation. I personally think Google is on thin ice here and would personally not like to see this deal go through. The only reason I'm starting to belive Google isn't doing evil things in the OEM bundling business is because that monopoly is already occupied. Google has seen their chance in the online ad business and they'll do anything in their power to build a monopoly there. But sure, you just go ahead and point fingers at Microsoft.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[smittyoneeach]

It's also easy to draw conclusions of how cool Microsoft was early on, and how evil they are now.

Do you mean, "Using the C-language escape character as a path separator cool"
or
"Merging disk partitions and formats in a way that keeps people stupid (c:) cool" ?
But your point is well taken.
Can't let the bugbear-as-messenger become a distractor, for all the idea of "shooting the messenger" never seemed more appropriate.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[Onan]

Wait Microsoft used to be cool? When was that?

Was it in 1976, when their only actual product (BASIC) was less well-known for its use than for Bill Gates's whining letter to the community scolding them for piracy?

Or was it in 1980, when they managed to dupe IBM into shipping machines with an OS they licensed in beta form, ported badly, and quietly acquired the rights to just before IBM made it popular?

Those events are my first knowledge of Microsoft, so maybe they had a few seconds of coolness somewhere even earlier than that. But if so, it was in a far more fetal stage than Google's current one.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[MightyMartian]

I agree that in demolishing one monopoly we shouldn't simply allow another to rise in its place, but Microsoft on a commercial and ethical level has no right complaining. Google still has a helluva long way to go before it reaches Microsoft's level of unethical business practices.

Besides, there is a fundamental difference between a web-driven advertising company and a company that has a stranglehold on the actual computers on which the web is normally accessed.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[sm62704]

Then the money will be traced back to MS

SCO Search?

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[joto]

Google still has a helluva long way to go before it reaches Microsoft's level of unethical business practices

Sure, but when google acquired doubleclick, they certainly made sure they'd be able to walk that path. And while they've been careful not to trample over smaller companies the way Microsoft does, it's only because they're wiser, and moving slower, so they can achieve world dominance over Internet advertizing without too many people complaining loudly. Google is positioning themselves to be as important as any of the government-monopoly utilities, such as water, sewage, or electricity. What face they will show then is anyones guess, but they are certainly positioning themselves to become a monopoly.

Besides, there is a fundamental difference between a web-driven advertising company and a company that has a stranglehold on the actual computers on which the web is normally accessed

Uhm, no. Yesterday it was the computers themselves that was important. Today it's what's on the web that's important. Microsoft controls the operating system and browser. Google controls everything else. This is analogous to the situation between Intel and Microsoft a decade ago, only one level higher in the abstraction hierarchy. Google is todays equivalent of Microsoft 10 years ago.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[MightyMartian]

Except that Google isn't isolating themselves simply to the dominant browser. It works well with Firefox, Safari and others. Google is not doing what Microsoft did with the x86 platform.

Besides, the web is a wide open platform. If you can do better than Google, you have a much cheaper distribution path than Microsoft ever had. It's not the same kind of business at all.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[WindBourne]

I don't think a company should be ignored depending on their reputation.

This would be similar to having China pointing their finger at GWB and saying that he is a totalitarian. His admin shows elements of that, but they certainly are not. Likewise, in the courts, if you have been shown to be a liar, you are rarely used as a witness (and certainly none that you want to have credibility). MS is the WRONG company to be speaking out about this. What does Yahoo have to say about this? And a really great example is that back in 97 (actually, even before then), we were griping on the net that AltaVista had a monopoly on search. Everybody was using it. Where are they today?

Look, Google does not have a monopoly. While they certainly appear to be rocketing towards it, they are not likely to obtain it. Why? Because South Korea, china, and Russia are all backing their own search engines. Even EU is trying to build one. So, will Google obtain it? Not likely. But lets assume that they do. Is it illegal? Nope. Not one iota. What is illegal, is the abuse of that position. MS started from the git-go, abusing everything. In fact, so did IBM and ATT once they got their monopoly. But so far, Google shows NO signs of abuse. In fact, far from it. They seem to want to work with just about everybody, and expand the market rather than control it. About the ONLY company who is likely to oppose this IS MS. This combined with Linux appears to be slowly killing MS's monopoly. That is WHY MS is screaming to EU.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[yukk]

I'd listen to them if, on page 3 of their document, competing pipes didn't suddenly become demphasised by taking on spindly shapes and MSN/Yahoo pipes didn't grey out and hide behind big red boxes.
If all those competing pipes were shown properly, everyone would see that competition still holds over 1/3 of the market in both areas mapped out instead of it appearing that a monster has taken over the advertising world.
You don't get to be a real monopoly like Microsoft without twisting the "truth", spinning FUD and using deceptive practices like these warped diagrams.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[trianglman]

Except that Google isn't isolating themselves simply to the dominant browser. It works well with Firefox, Safari and others. Google is not doing what Microsoft did with the x86 platform.

What does this have to do with Google's take over of online advertising? Google isolating itself would hurt more than anything. MS isolating itself to x86 was a business move that helped it grow because the other competitors to x86 were weakening, not growing stronger as Firefox and Safari are doing now against IE in the web sphere.

Besides, the web is a wide open platform. If you can do better than Google, you have a much cheaper distribution path than Microsoft ever had. It's not the same kind of business at all.

You may have a cheaper distribution path, but you have the same difficulty breaking into the market. Do you think that website X would rather go with a large, well established advertiser such as Google or DoubleClick, or with Advertiser Joe Shmo to serve ads on their page? You are likely to get a very small niche along the lines of Linux at best, but you have very little chance of getting more than a couple percent of the internet's ad revenue, even if your product is light years ahead of Google's tools.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[fermion]

There was also a very brief interval in 1985 between the time that Excel was released, and proved that it could develop and deploy an arguably innovative product, and the time when MS Windows was released and conclusively proved that it could not. But the poster is correct. For the most part every time ones tries to take it seriously as a firm that innovates to helps it user, for instance MS Office 95, MS shows that such occurrences are flukes, for example MS Office 97 onward. The true purpose is to extract residuals, just like any other parasite.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[HermMunster]

Frankly, I do not think you are being real. No insult intended, but let's be real here. Microsoft is no golden child intent on helping the industry do anything any longer (unless it gets a cut of the pie). Microsoft is a pit, dark and deep. Its intent is to keep others from gaining dominance, anywhere. Microsoft is simply a competitor in a field where they are rather unsuccessful. Microsoft has found a company they can't compete with and now they are trying to get other governing bodies to step in and take their side to help them against a better competitor.

Google is not a monopoly and has never been one. You become a monopoly when you are ruled one by the court. Microsoft was ruled a monopoly. Apple nor Google are monopolies. Not only that, monopolies are not illegal. It simply means that they must comply with additional laws meant to govern their behavior. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they were convicted of criminal use of their monopoly. They had their day in court.

We will see the EU essentially just chastise Microsoft for their obviously blatant attempt to get a government to intercede in a market they are not able to compete in successfully. There's really no justification for this and there's no reason anyone should be giving Microsoft any credit. What they are doing is for their own benefit, not the benefit of others. They are doing it to make money for them, not for others. Microsoft, given the chance to be in the same position as Google is with advertising, would be doing the same thing--pushing for even greater market share.

What does Microsoft think we are? Do they think we are willing to listen to every complaint they have? It's like a criminal robbing a store and then complaining that they just can't make any money any other way. Microsoft has been robbing us blind for years and locking us their software with various technologies thus denying us choice. Only through the efforts of the Open Source community have we been able to even remotely consider something else. For the average Joe there's no choice still, because they don't know its there. Do advertisers have a choice? Can they hit the customer with their ads? Of course they can. They can chose to use Microsoft. They can choose to use Yahoo.

You're going to tell me that they are complaining to the EU because Google gives them a better choice to reach a larger crowd than Microsoft can provide to them?

That's just silly and it is in a way another abuse of its dominance in computing to influence by obfuscation. They obfuscate the issue, making it seem more complex than it is, and then push some of the uneducated -- because the computing industry workings are complex due to software being complex, software patents and copyrights.

Without obfuscation it clearly becomes an issue where Microsoft is being a child here who is saying that "we're loosing, so please change the rules to favor us".

When we can prove that Google is doing something illegal then we can petition the courts and the EU (and/or others) to correct the wrong. But right now they are not doing anything that has been proven to be wrong, so it is simply one company complaining that they can't compete. Period.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[MightyMartian]

I simply do not agree. Microsoft's business model relied upon its stranglehold of the x86 PC marketplace and its ability to beat OEMs into supplying only its operating system on their machines. During that key period between the late 1980s and early 1990s when all the other competitor platforms were dropping off, they were able to beat the market into submission by unethical and illegal practices.

Thus far I know of no one saying that Google is doing anything illegal. Yes, when they go in purchase something like Doubleclick we should be wary, but there is no meaningful analogy between the growth of the two companies. Microsoft was willing to bully and extort its way into dominance, and because the wheels of the market watchdogs are so slow, by the time they first went after Microsoft for those nasty OEM deals, it was too late.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[cheater512]

Uhhh...you may want to take a look around.
Google is a multi-billion dollar company and guess where every cent of their money comes from?
Yep. Adwords.

They arent growing, they have already grown.
They give free email, free search, free maps, donate millions to open source projects and more all from those little text ads.

I dont think DoubleClick is a big deal for Google. They would like it but if they dont get it then the world isnt over.
DoubleClick deals with a completely different segment of the market to Adwords and they want to get in to that side as well.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[cheater512]

Uhh Google is already *the* ad industry. Nearly every single cent they make comes from ads.

Plus millions of those ad dollars are going to open source projects and other good causes.

So far Google hasnt shown any reason to make us doubt their good intentions.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[MightyMartian]

As I said, I don't think that we should allow a growing behemoth like Google to just wantonly buy companies and technologies without considering the risks to a free marketplace. That is the mistake that was made with Microsoft. Everyone was so happy to see it killing IBM's powerful market position in the mid and late 1980s that they didn't stop to think that they might have to start shooting Microsoft down in its turn. And we shouldn't make the same mistake with Google, that just because it's doing what, up until recently, governments haven't been able to do and start taking some of the wind out of Redmond's sails, that we should just simply wave a happy thank you to Google until the day that we discover that it isn't all that nice a company.

But, by the same token, the platform that Google's technologies work on is significantly different than the one that Microsoft gained dominance on. The x86-based PC was a bottleneck that Microsoft could use to great effect. Only a limited number of player produce it, only a limited number of players distribute it, and, because the DoJ was several years too late, those restrictive OEM agreements basically gave Microsoft vast control of what went on to the overwhelming majority of personal computers sold throughout the world.

The web simply isn't like it. There's no way to set up a roadblock in the distribution of a web site. Microsoft tried that with the serious incompatibilities it intentionally put into Internet Explorer, and in the end, guys like Google put up with the development and support pain and worked around various browser idiosyncrasies. Rather than trying to beat Microsoft head on, these guys have played the game by the rules Microsoft created once it had wiped out Netscape as a competitor.

We're within five years by my guestimate of a serious competitor to the Windows-Office monopoly which is the core of Microsoft's business. Everything else; Zune, XBox etc. are meaningless in what keeps Microsoft ticking. They are scared, and watch for them to start trying to open channels to various governments to try to attack Google legalistically. We're going to see patent bombs being thrown within the next year or two against open source projects that look like they're going to eat into Microsoft. They already have a disaster with Vista, and their business model is dangerously close to compromise.

It's gonna get ugly.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[mr_mischief]

Actually, where MS went with the path separator was largely predetermined by an earlier decision. When they needed an option character for their commands, they chose '/' instead of '-' in versions of MS-DOS that didn't yet support directories.

Letters as drive labels made lots of sense when that was the only way to distinguish a device's files from another device's files.

Once directory support was added, MS's developers really wanted to use '/' so it would look like Unix. However, they were already using it as an option character. Making the command interpreter distinguish between an option and a path when both started with the same character would have been a mess. Getting people to change from '/' to '-' for options and then using '/' for directories would have been a support nightmare. So MS bit the bullet and preserved backwards compatibility with earlier mistakes.

They chose a character that was little used by everyone other than programmers, and it resembled the Unix path separator as a mirror image (I'm sure there's some font set where they look a little less alike, but...). So MS, while basically screwing the pooch on a path separator, did so by lack of foresight and not through an arbitrary decision to be different.

DOS didn't even use file handles, pipes, or command redirection until 2.0 so the path separator was far from the only thing that was strange about it to Unix programmers and Unix users.

So yes, MS operating systems have pretty much always sucked from a Unix user's perspective. However, for its day on home micros, MS-DOS was pretty cool compared to most of the alternatives until OS/2 came out. Once the 386 was mainstream, though, the free Unixes (and the original SCO) started targeting it. So OS/2, BSD, QNX, and Linux might be better than DOS, but they weren't there in the beginning.

From here down is a small treatise on what MS has done wrong, what they've done right, the state of MS vs. some alternatives, and some possible reasons. It follows from the above, but meanders well away from the topic at hand. I thought I'd give fair warning, so if you don't want to get too distracted you can just skip to another part of the thread.

MS also did a decent job, in my estimation, of making the Windows 9x compatible with enough DOS applications to make it worthwhile. They also made sure XP would run enough Win 9x apps to make it worthwhile. I haven't yet done any extensive testing of Vista because I can't get past the initial bad taste it leaves with me. From what I've read and heard from others, it seems the new OS breaks far more apps than the previous milestone OSes from Microsoft. That's largely the application vendors' fault, since it has to do with improper use of the weaknesses of XP. MS will still get most of the blame.

Other problems of Vista, like the large number of memory-bloated background tasks, probably were design trade-offs on Microsoft's part. Very likely, with a commercial OS being about five years behind schedule, there are things the developers at MS would have like to do better. They probably would have liked to simplify parts of the OS. They surely would have liked to optimize it more. However, doing more work for the sake of elegance and pushing back the delivery date even more was probably not a bankable decision.

The strength of Open Source software that's most often mentioned is probably the many eyes that can help find bugs. Another common one is that those many eyes can speed development. Yet another is that you're not trapped by one vendor, and that even if you're not a programmer you can at least still pay a third party to modify the source. On that Microsoft is probably really up against, though, is one that I don't see mentioned very often. In a command-and-control situation with a commercial goal like at Microsoft, what those limited eyes work on is dictated by the goals of the people at the top. With Open Source, the eyes look where the individual finds something interesting. If that means replacing a function th

I just don't see the connection

[FredFredrickson]

How is teaming with an online marketing company giving Google quite the stronghold that MS actually has? I mean- it's not like this means Google owns the billboards and television commercials.

Confidential

[orclevegam]

Anyone else notice the little confidential text in the corner of all the slides in the linked PDF?

Re:Confidential

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else notice it was created on Mac OS x; "Mac OS X 10.4.11 Quartz PDFContext"

Re:Confidential

[Jugalator]

Yeah, when I noticed that, I promptly closed the PDF after reading the first three pages. ;-)

Re:Pot & Kettle?

[snoyberg]

Everyone please ignore this post, it's another stupid myminicity thing...

Re:Pot & Kettle?

[Anonymous Coward]

you should visit the guy in fohootville. he will give you a lesson in slashdot trolling

As an old prof once told me....

[tacokill]

Those who can, do. Those who can't....litigate.

It's one of the oldest strategies out there. If your competitor is beating you with their offerings, then you find a nice friend (the govt) to help make it more difficult for them. Hopefully, the govt will not take up this cause as M$ is already a convicted monopolist, themselves.

From Ayn Rand's Reardon character to the latest round in the ongoing SCO saga, the courts have ALWAYS been used by lesser competitors to slow down/stop/hassel the competition.

Re:Microsoft knows

[Anomolous Cowturd]

Microsoft could defeat Google in this arena by bundling Firefox+Adblock with their operating system :)

Re:Missing?

[zippthorne]

Obviously, the chart details Microsoft's original plan. When it didn't work out, they pasted "Google" over where "Microsoft" was. Politicians are pretty good at the "Claim the other party is doing what you did, or tried to do" trick, too.

In other news...

[calebt3]

...Microsoft recently acquired the copyright on monopolies and is demanding royalty payments.

Enforcing monopoly laws

[mlwmohawk]

Microsoft should be a little more careful in asking the FTC to enforce monopoly laws. I mean, come on now! If *anyone* should be broken apart it is Microsoft. Microsoft currently enjoys a U.S. "justice" department that is so pro-business that it refuses to enforce the laws that stand and has dropped action in progress.

If we should get a "Justice" department in the U.S. again, one which will investigate wrong doings by corporations and government, including the executive branch, Microsoft is toast.

Is Microsoft so stupid as to not know that poking a sleeping dragon is not in one's own best interest? Or are they so sure that Google is going to cut off their air supply they are willing to risk it?

The P.C. is a dinosaur, think of this post. I'm running Firefox on Linux. If *most* software becomes web based it makes no difference who's using what. Furthermore, someone like Google could take something like the OLPC device give it away with a subscription to Google's web applications.

Between OLPC, web ads, web 2.0 rich applications, the E.U. investigation prompted by Opera, Microsoft must see its Office and OS monopoly in deep trouble. Their "back-office" strategy is competitive but not monopolistic enough to support the corporation once the OS and office products no longer have ~90% of the users.

Misleading title

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft Complains About Google's Monopoly Abuse

Of course, the monopoly being abused here is Microsoft.

Microsoft is big and powerful

[gilesjuk]

So instead of complaining why don't they sort out their own tarnished image and produce a good alternative?

Re:MS is just seeking parity

[Eggplant62]

Who says consumers don't want FOSS? So far as I can tell, they've not had any real choice in the matter until only in the last 5 years. I also don't see how this relates to MS and its claims of an advertising monopoly by Google. Really, it's just the monopolist striving to remain a monopolist while accusing everyone else of being a monopolist.

Re:MS is just seeking parity

[DaleGlass]

You've damned us all because you wanted the government to force customers to choose FOSS

Got any references for that?

MS has been forced to provide documentation. That is good for everybody, OSS and closed source companies.
Same goes with things like ODF. Nobody says OpenOffice must be used. MS can implement ODF if they want to compete.

Re:Any less true?

[Repossessed]

Google is a monopo;y true (in that they have a majority of the online ads market). I fail to see what Google has done to damage competition though, aside from having name recognition/good products.

The Other Fear

[some old guy]

My problem with the merger is that since Doubleclick is one of the most obnoxious ad-pushers and a notoriously unscrupulous and insecure data miner, I'm afraid I'll have to look elsewhere for my search needs and delete all google cookies at once.

Re:Any less true?

[Repossessed]

(that is, 78% of all ads served to the Web pages of publishers who do not have proprietary ad-serving toolstoday, only MSN and Yahoo! have such tools
The claim the MSN and Yahoo are the only 2 companies with their own advertising tech is laughable. To start with, *anybody* can create a system of barter over email and Paypal. And I visit websites whose owners actively make a living that way. As far as private Doubleclick style software goes, the Keencorp pages seem to be littered with ads served off of something called 'gavsad', which seems a good example of 'publishers with proprietary ad-serving tools' to me.

The complaints also seem to ignore the rich plethora of small, hardly heard of ad networks/tools that various websites use. (Indieclick and Project Wonderful both come to mind). These ad companies seem to manage to exist without any real threat from monopolies.

Internet advertising seems to be a bad place to hope to squeeze the life out of all the competition simply by being bigger. It's not like traditional businesses. Overhead costs are largely linear, there are no suppliers to fight with simply because the small guy is beneath their notice. And refusing to use one product will never prevent you from using a different one.

Google also fails to engage in ani anti competitive tactics. Nobody is ever asked to sign contracts that prevent them from using a Google competitor as well (Something Microsoft continues in to this day). Nobody is refused search results or advertisement because they're competitors. (Given the dominance of Windows Live junk ads out there, Microsoft knows this damned well). And frankly, simply because Google *might* commit a crime at some point in the future, is no reason for them to be punished now.

even more ironic

[dasgeht]

The pdf was produced on a Mac:

~$ pdfinfo bitsonlinead.prf.pdf
Title: doc 3.ppt
Author: Leah Hitchings
Creator: PowerPoint
Producer: Mac OS X 10.4.11 Quartz PDFContext
...

probably because MS sent the document in their proprietary format and the NY Times had to convert it - using a Mac - to a more readable form.

A monopoly for a market that doesn't exist yet!

[AtariDatacenter]

60% of you will underestimate this.
20% of you will misunderstand this.
10% of you might believe it.
10% of you will totally get this.

The next step in 'Internet advertising' doesn't exist yet, and doesn't directly center around the web browser and web pages. There is a real integration of three technologies that is coming around the corner, and Google is far ahead of the game than any other player. In fact, most of the other players don't even know the game exists.

What is this magic combo?
Cellular Data [real time, anyplace, data transport to a computing device] +
Internet [not web pages, but providers of location based services (Google)] +
GPS [one of the new key data fields that everything will hinge upon]

"But we already have those things today!" "This is nothing new!" "My phone currently does all three!"

Yes. Those are three discrete services that your phone may have. But are they INTEGRATED?

New world example:

You're hungry. You want a place to eat. You go to your [smart device]. It could be a cell phone. It could be a Nokia N800 like device. Yes, it could be built into your car like your existing GPS mapping device. It already knows where you are (and shows your position on the default screen). You query (not through a web browser, but an integrated interface) for a nearby fast food restaurant. With me so far? You didn't go to a web page Yahoo! Local or Google Maps. Your map application was built into the device.

Quite a number of nearby locations pop up on your map. But there are a few bolded map selections. Arby's has free desert with any meal purchase. Bill & Ruth's sub shop has a discount of $1 towards any sandwich. And some small pizza place you never heard of has a 2-for-1 special. And then there are quite a number of other choices.

How did those bolded deals get there? Some large company built up the infrastructure required to run a service where any advertiser (major corporation or little mom-and-pop shops) could put in advertisements at a local level. They've got the transaction engine necessary to take and bill for advertisements. (That would be an existing online advertising company.) They've got the scale to do this on a nationwide (or even worldwide) basis. They've got a yellow pages database. They've got a way to deliver this to consumers.

Who has something like this today? The only things close that I've found are Yahoo! Local, and our friend Google.

Google doesn't have all the pieces yet. But they're assembling them. Adsense is going to start allowing location based advertising. (I wish I kept my reference for that.) They're working on an integrated delivery platform to get that to you (Gphone). They practically have all the pieces in place, and they're working towards the goal of making this happen.

Now, DoubleClick is a major online advertising company. They could be competition to Google in this future world. But, if Google absorbs DoubleClick before the market even exists, then they can avoid the whole monopoly issue. So Google isn't just playing for the here and now, but they're playing for the future in advertising. Nobody else (such as local telephone companies which maintain their own yellow pages) will be in a position to compete (because they lack everything needed to gather the ads nationwide, and they lack everything needed to present the ads, except for some ownership of the mobile devices). Which... of course... Google managed to take away their walled garden when it comes to the mobile devices allowed on the next generation wireless networks.

And Google totally has this figured out. Hello? Google Maps? Want to know what the business looks like that you're heading for? Google street view. Google is totally lining all of its ducks in a row to corner this new market.

DoubleClick

Re:Whining.

[Marcion]

The definition of a monopoly is not having 100% of the market. It is having enough (e.g. 25%) to distort the market and unfairly control your supplies or customers, e.g. to make prices rather than to take them, to dictate your own proprietary standards rather than open standards and so on.