Slashdot Mirror
Obama Anti-Trust Chief on Google the Monopoly Threat
CWmike writes "The blogosphere regularly excoriates Microsoft for being a monopoly, but Google may be in the cross-hairs of the nation's next anti-trust chief for monopolistic behavior, writes Preston Gralla. Last June, Christine A. Varney, President Obama's nominee to be the next antitrust chief, warned that Google already had a monopoly in online advertising. 'For me, Microsoft is so last century. They are not the problem,' Varney said at a June 19 panel discussion sponsored by the American Antitrust Institute, according to a Bloomberg report. The US economy will 'continually see a problem — potentially with Google' because it already 'has acquired a monopoly in Internet online advertising.' Varney has yet to be confirmed as antitrust chief, and she said all this before she was nominated. Still, it spells potentially bad news for Google. It may be time for the company to start adding to its legal staff."
First post!
Last I checked, Google isn't forcing vendors into signing Google-only contracts to bundle only Google software with new computers.
Christine seems to think that Google is a monopoly in the world of online advertising -- that much, I find no fault with. However, thinking that they need antitrust actions seems just foolish to me. Sure, they may be a monopoly, but they have yet to actually abuse this monopoly. Since the purpose of antitrust laws is to avert the abuse of monopolies, surely it would be a far better use of the court's time to go after those who continue to abuse their monopolies, such as Microsoft and cable and phone companies?
Azh nazg durbataluk, azh nazg gimbatul, Azh nazg thrakataluk agh burzum ishi krimpatul! This sig blocked by Slashdot.
There almost no barrier to entry to advertising on the internet - the costs are negligible. And I've yet to hear how Google is using its leverage to stifle competition and/or gouge its customers. Maybe it IS, but I've yet to hear anything about it...
Microsoft was anti-trust defense for losers. If the original judge was not such a completely bone-headed moron, MS would have lost, and lost badly. Gates made a complete fool of himself on tape, Boises (sp?) walked all over their lawyers, and the judge seemed to enjoy them twisting in the wind. The only thing that saved them was a change in administrations.
IBM, when accused of anti-trust, they built an in-house team larger than most law firms, and then dragged out the case so long, the judge in charge of the proceedings literally died before the case could be concluded.
SirWired
Oh, wait, the Republicans were the ones who kept their pledge to use only public financing. It was the Democrats who broke their word as soon as they realized that they could buy the election if they refused government funds. Never mind!
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Dude, companies like Experian and Acxiom have been mining your every credit card and club card purchase, among many other things (they can even tell you if a given person's current vehicle lease is about to expire), for *years*. If you're really worried about Google, I hate to break it to you, but you're a little late to the game.
Okay, I can't take someone seriously who uses teen-speak. What is she? 16?
Behold your government.
Every day I add a new ad company to my NoScript untrusted list. doubleclick, casalemedia, adstream, quantserve, just to name a few. While google-served ads are generally present as well, these sites continue to be a huge presence in online advertising. Claiming Google has a monopoly in this area is either misunderstanding the issues, not doing any research whatsoever, or extreme bias against anything "mainstream." Any of these things would probably be something we don't want in a government official, especially one so heavily connected to the technology sector.
Why? Because they've built a better mousetrap, and now people want to use it?
No, people are getting trapped IN it.
Google isn't even close to being a monopoly.
In the US & Canada for search (perhaps Europe too?), yes it is close. Close enough that online businesses, site profitability, etc, etc, live and die in large part based on their google page ranks.
I'm not a slobbering fanboy of Google the way some other people are, but I also fail to see a business boogeyman behind every corner as some people do.
Google is a serious threat to privacy, and has easily reached the critical mass that gives it monopoly power.
Some people's concept of "anti-trust" would be more correctly called "anti-success"
Enough success to the point that they achieve monopoly power is a reason for anti-trust.
this notion that a company that's been very successful must have cheated or done something nefarious to get that way.
Say what now? Nobody is accusing google of necessarily having done something nefarious or of cheating to get where they are, but the point remains that they are in fact where they are. They have reached a level of success, size, and influence now in some markets that normal market forces no longer really apply to them. As such, they now need to be watched closely. That is all.
Google is a big threat now, whether they abuse it or not, they need to be watched. Microsoft is sill big, but they are off their peak, and while they should be watched they are less of a threat these days. Personally I applaud the administrations frank recognition of that.
Google's online ads market share: as 59.2%
Microsoft Window's market share:89.62%
I don't know what the GP's threshold for monopoly status is, but it's apparent he thinks it's more than 59% market share. You are the one with faulty logic to then reason that because he doesn't think 59% is enough that he must not think 89% is enough.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
And I have faulty logic because I got those mixed up. 23.7% is their online ad market share. 59.2% is their search share.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Well, strictly speaking, Google does have a clause which states that you cannot use the advertising services of another provider while you are showing Google Ads (you are allowed to host ads yourself, but not from another 3rd party provider). While this may SEEM predatory, I think this is pretty much the norm - back in the day when I used banner exchanges, they had the same rule. So really, if the government is going to go after Google for that, then it would probably have to be an industry change.
But in Libertarianworld all the competitors would have to do would be to make a better product and suddenly everyone would abandon the multi-billion dollar investment they have in Windows and Office and live happily ever after.
Except some libertarians do not support Intellectual Property and Microsoft is built on IP.
Should there be a Law?
Independent thinker, meaning that her thinking is independent of reality?
Factual record: Microsoft was found under law in the United States and the EU to have abused its monopoly to unfairly exclude competition. It is still doing so. Remedies are still being sought. The ongoing downside for the industry and consumers is huge. This is not personal opinion but adjudicated fact.
Interesting speculation: Some day Google might become a problem.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
If you have a monopoly on advertising, it means that you control a majority of where ads are displayed. Since some kinds of advertising are dependent on impression volume, if Google controls a majority of "eyeballs" for your particular market, you can't avoid using their service unless you want to have a much lower impression volume.
This kind of imbalance isn't as pronounced in other medias. If you want to reach 20-25 year old single males, you could put your ads on Fox, ESPN or some other channel and it wouldn't matter too much if one doesn't want to carry your ad or charges too much, since there's some competition between all the players. On the other hand, if most national TV stations were controlled by a single player with regards to advertising, then that might prove problematic. Sure, you could advertise on local community stations, but would you get an ad campaign that's as effective?
Jean-Francois Im's blog
Here's an idea then.. Don't use fucking google! How hard is that? Or better, use Tor. God you people whine like little baby girls.