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."
Google's ability to combine search data from maps, Google Earth, Web Search, Google News Alerts, etc, and mine it is a much bigger problem.
Only if it is abused, no?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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...
For me, Microsoft is so last century. They are not the problem.
I don't know about you, but my father uses Windows. My mother uses Windows, except for an old machine I've set up for her music library on Linux. My brother uses Windows. His friends all use Windows. Most of my friends use Windows, except the few who have Macs -- and those run Windows in a VM.
Even I use Windows -- VM or dual boot.
I've finally reached a point in my life where I don't have to touch Windows more than once a week, unless I want to play a game. And yet, I still can't design web apps the way I want -- I still have to either force everyone to download Firefox, or spend around 10% extra development time supporting Internet Explorer. (And I can't develop IE-only, or I don't have Firebug.)
If you don't see Microsoft as a problem, you aren't looking. If you see them as "so last century", it's because you let them get away with it last century!
I'm not going to defend Google, but that statement is dangerous thinking. Just because everyone forgot about the problem doesn't mean it's gone.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Google's ability to combine search data from maps, Google Earth, Web Search, Google News Alerts, etc, and mine it is a much bigger problem.
Why? Because they've built a better mousetrap, and now people want to use it?
Google isn't even close to being a monopoly. 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. Some people's concept of "anti-trust" would be more correctly called "anti-success"... this notion that a company that's been very successful must have cheated or done something nefarious to get that way.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
... abusing your monopoly is. I read the article hoping to see some indication of how Google is keeping other competitors down or acting against the public good; didn't find it. My conclusion: not yet an issue.
...it's when companies start abusing their monopoly that watchdogs should (potentially) step in.
Microsoft has had a few clear cases where it abused its monopoly. Google? I am not so sure, though of course any monopoly bears keeping a close eye on.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Its hard to not sound like a fan boy of google, but I'm currently not understanding why google would be considered as a monopoly, but if I was to play devil's advocate here I might argue the following:
I don't agree with these, but some could argue (if you really didn't like google anyway).
Pete/Petri "damn, my chainsaw is clogged with 1's and 0's again." --clyde
Agreed. Sure Google is dominating the online advertising market, but maybe it's largely because their ads are not overtly obtrusive and are often relevant. I consciously refuse to click on ads I find annoying, but I've actually used Google ads to find obscure products that I am looking to buy.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
I associate a monopoly with crappy service/no communication with customers, overpriced products and a lack of innovation or change. So I'm finding Google's version of a monopoly quite refreshing.
Having a monopoly (in legal terms) is not, as many have pointed out, illegal, but it does constrain your behavior somewhat, and it does mean that the Justice Dept is probably going to want to keep an eye on you. I don't see anything in TFA suggesting that Google is going to be prosecuted--merely that they're going to be scrutinized, and frankly I think that's a good thing. I'm more worried about the suggestion that Microsoft is no longer a problem.
Intel and Cisco have both also been judged to have monopolies in their respective fields, but unlike Microsoft, they've (mostly) played by the rules, and haven't ended up in serious trouble. Doesn't mean the Justice Dept won't continue to keep an eye on them, though. I have no problem with Google being lumped in with Intel and Cisco. On the other hand, I don't want them lumped in with Microsoft until someone finds evidence of similar anti-competitive behavior. On the gripping hand, if evidence of anti-competitive behavior is found, I want them prosecuted, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that day.
Who forces people to click on Google.com when they want to do a search? Last I checked, Internet Explorer which comes on every Windows computer defaults to MSN search until you specifically set it otherwise.
And who is losing money because of Google's size? Certainly not the consumer, who has benefited tremendously from Google's innovations, which are free.
Once upon a time, Yahoo Email charged an annual fee for POP3 and anything larger than a few megabytes of storage. Then Google came along and offered a free email with POP3 and huge storage and changed the whole game. Yahoo (and Hotmail) was forced to counter with added storage and reduced/eliminated fees. That's not monopolism, it's innovation!
I'm not scared by some dumb bureaucrat like Christina Varney. What's frightening is the apparent lack of appreciation by the Obama Administration for capitalism as a force for economic growth.
With a presidency that is socialist-leaning and big-government-oriented, it seems we are backsliding into a kind of pre-Reagan era where business is viewed as a necessary evil, the best and brightest should work for the Feds or community organizations, and we shouldn't even try to compete with our ultra-capitalistic competitors in East Asia and elsewhere.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
It was a little tough to glean from TFA (let alone TFS), but what she actually seems to be saying is that Google is positioning itself to acquire the same type of monopoly on cloud computing that MS has in the OS space. Seems like a valid concern, and as long as all she's arguing for is increased scrutiny as enterprises move more and more to cloud computing, I can't really see an issue with it. It also explains the comment about MS being "so last century" - as companies move to cloud computing (assuming they really do), the OS should become less important.
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
How about they try this exercise: Give Microsoft the advertising business and give Google the operating system business.
Everybody would win. Ballmer would finally have his petty revenge and stick his fingers in Google's pie, and we'll get an operating system with better interoperability and less(if any) DRM. I'd rather Google use their resources and their 20% time allowance to pet-projects to make a better operating system -- not to slap ads on my screen.
Advertising is generally evil and, in my opinion, Microsoft are much better than Google at being evil.
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.
And exactly how did they get that hold? Cuban derided anyone who might want to buy Youtube.com. Google made it work. Google has taken billions of pictures of the planet and shared them with everyone. Google 'mashups' are plentiful and some incredibly useful. Despite Google's very large footprint on the Internet and how it is used, what harm has come from their activities? What good?
Until someone can show that Google has harmed competition with their advantages, there is nothing to argue about. They got that hold by being useful and free (mostly) and helpful. Google has quite literally begun setting the standards for others to follow. That they did not follow quickly enough is not Google's fault.
We, the consumers, share some of the guilt. We should have demanded of our service and content providers that they do what Google has. Wait a minute, scratch that. Our service and content providers should have listened... never mind.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Okay, I can't take someone seriously who uses teen-speak. What is she? 16?
Behold your government.
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!
Or that maybe, just maybe, she's an independent thinker who believes (perhaps wrongly) Microsoft isn't a problem.
GP already said "Either that, or she is one of the most clueless people the Obama administration has to offer."
Cluelessness and wrongly believing things are kinda the same thing here...
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
If they are looking for a company that hods a monopoly in advertising, they should look somewhere else
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!
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.
With a presidency that is socialist-leaning and big-government-oriented, it seems we are backsliding into a kind of pre-Reagan era where business is viewed as a necessary evil, the best and brightest should work for the Feds or community organizations, and we shouldn't even try to compete with our ultra-capitalistic competitors in East Asia and elsewhere.
Let me guess where you heard that -- Rush Limbaugh? John McCain? Get a grip on yourself, man; if Obama was "socialist-leaning," how the hell did he get support from Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Google, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and other capitalist corporations? How did he get endorsements from such well-known millionaire capitalists as Warren Buffett, Hilary Rosen, Craig Newmark, David Geffen, etc.? How about Ben Bernanke? Or Brink Lindsey of CATO?? Do you really believe any of these people would endorse a "socialist"??
I've never liked Microsoft, but I've never liked the antitrust claims against them either. Google's actions are awesome, and Microsoft's are evil, and I'm not sure why. I certainly hope there's more to it than the popularity contest.
One company leveraged their dominant product directly to push a secondary product that might otherwise have been supplanted in favor of a rival. The other created a product so superior to everything on an already saturated market that they outstipped the competition on sheer technical prowess alone. One company put something free into a product that everyone had to pay for to coexist technologically. The other put their money-making product into a free offering that was among a huge field of other free offerings. Microsoft can subsidize products with their massive revenues, but for them to gain the traction that they do requires that they be incorporated into the one product that many people have to have: their operating system. Google can subsidize their products with their massive advertising revenue, but can't actually tie their products to the purchase of ad space. They still have to rely on technical superiority for adoption. If nobody has a reason to use it (i.e. Chrome), they don't have a customer base that they can foist it off on by unnecessarily tying it to a product many people need. That their advertising revenues benefit from ad placement in their free products attests to the popularity of the product rather than to the tying between it and the advertising. Gmail is a delivery channel for advertising, but had to be compelling in some way to encourage users to voluntarily sign up for the advertising channel over Yahoo! Mail or MS Live (among others in the field).
On first blush, Google and Microsoft can be compared readily. They are dominant in their fields. When you get past that, however, the ways they achieved (and used) their dominance are nearly polar opposites.
I'm not a huge fan of either of them. One is useful but otherwise unremarkable aside from sheer popularity, one is barely tolerated out of necessity. For many people it probably is a knee-jerk popularity contest, but that's to be expected since the vast majority of people have no reason to consider the issue any deeper than what they garner from passing comments and opinions of others.
Wow. I see you have arrived on our planet full of piss and vinegar and ready to support your political heroes full bore. That's great, I'm happy for your new found success.
Oh wait, this is about Obama's new Anti-trust chief going ape on a search engine that happens to have sponsored links clearly separate from the results, and a successful advertising model that doesn't annoy the user. Not the opinions of a 20-something who not only didn't live through the Hoover era, but who also didn't live through the Reagan era, but knows all sorts of incorrect things about them. In fact, said 20-something received all of his/her opinions in something resembling a benediction from high school teachers and *maybe* university professors.
He now reflects those spoon-fed half-baked ideas back onto the world like the ignoramus he is, having never run a real business, having never had to raise a family, or do any real-life task. Fitting that he should support a politician who thinks no one should be doing any of those things.
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.