Google: We're Actually Really Small

http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/saga/2009/06/04/google-were-actually-really-small

by azharcs • 17 years ago

17 12 17 years ago

thebigmoney.com

shiny• 17 years ago

This is great. They're trying to penalize a company that actually produces value, and propping up the ones that don't.

iamelgringo• 17 years ago

Isn't that what they said about Microsoft in the 90's?

How is this different? Microsoft was seen as playing dirty vs Netscape when they started giving away Internet Explorer for free. And, Microsoft is still in trouble with the EU because of bundling a free media player with its OS. The argument for Microsoft was that they were "adding value".

I'm not really trying to defend Microsoft's actions. I'm just curious to hear why others think that Google is different than Microsoft in this regard? Google gives almost all of its products away for free: Search, Gmail, Docs, Analytics, Calendar, etc... Some call it "adding value" others call it a monopolistic behavior.

I know MSFT got into trouble because of its deals with hardware companies. But how is that different than Google building Android and bundling their apps on my G1?

Semiapies3• 17 years ago

1) "How is this different?" For one, it's not Microsoft in the 90s.

2) Who's taking legal action against Google for "Search, Gmail, Docs, Analytics, Calendar"? I'll give you three guesses.

3) What do you think is the difference between having agreements with most PC manufacturers to pre-install Windows and offering an linux distro for a few models of phones?

pierrefar2• 17 years ago

Oh, really, Google?

Google may be producing massive value, but for the most part, it's THE online ads network in terms of PPC. They're gunning for the banner ads with their DoubleClick acquisition and they're trialing CPA ads. All these are online, and in February, they exited the radio ads market: http://google-tmads.blogspot.com/2009/02/google-exits-radio-... .

In terms of dollars spent on online ads, Google gets the lion's share. I've seen some reports say 90%, but I'd wager it's closer to 70-80%.

So it looks like a monopoly, walks like a monopoly, and acts like a monopoly. The key question is whether they've abused this monopoly. Being a monopoly in itself is not illegal, but using a dominant market position to stifle competition is very much so. I say let's investigate and make sure there is healthy competition.

kragen2• 17 years ago

You fail to address the article's primary point, which is that they're in competition with offline media for ad buyers, and in this broader market, they have <3%.

I think the stuff you wrote is mostly actually in the article.

pierrefar2• 17 years ago

My point is that they're not in competition with offline media. My point is that such an assertion is absurd. As I pointed out, they're quitting offline ads.

Not to mention the trend that more and more dollars are being spent online, not offline.

tomjen• 17 years ago

Well that figures. We can't have a big corporation that actually makes money with out government help. That would just make Obama look stupid.

Semiapies3• 17 years ago

Que bono?

Sun and other companies banded together to spur the MS anti-trust investigation. I kinda wonder who's behind this. Yahoo? Microsoft?

Google: We're Actually Really Small

Related Stories