Google Negotiating With Justice Department 83
mikesd81 writes "Cnet reports that to avoid being sued by the US Justice Department, Google is negotiating with them. The Justice Department and a multistate task force are still reviewing the proposal to decide whether to oppose the partnership. Under the non-exclusive partnership Google would supply Yahoo with some search ads, a move that could increase Yahoo search revenue, but that also gives Google even more power in the market. Yahoo expects the 10-year deal to raise revenue by $800 million in its first year and to provide an extra $250 million to $450 million in incremental operating cash flow. Google's share of the US search market reached 71 percent in August, compared with Yahoo's 18.26, according to Hitwise's most recent numbers."
I fail to see the problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, Google has 71% of the search engine market... Which itself makes up what, less than 5% of the total world of advertising?
Oh, boo-hoo, Google can actually tell you how much you have to pay to share their sandbox. Sorry advertisers, but we don't want your "product" in the first place. Go bitch to someone who carres.
And, advertisers-of-the-world (and other search engines), do you know why Google has 71% of the search engine market? Because Google doesn't piss us off with banners and flash ads and hiding sponsored links as results. Get the hint?
Google's competitors (Score:5, Insightful)
If conventional wisdom about such big mergers - that they will 'corner' the market and increase prices - is correct, then shouldn't the competitors be happy that their competitor will raise prices and hence drive customers to them?
The obvious conclusion, supported by lots of data for those inclined to look, is that big mergers always increase efficiency and hence reduce prices for the consumer. It is precisely that outcome that terrifies competitors and forces them to rush to government and feign a concern for the well-being of the consumer.
But why should the new megacorp reduce prices if they have no competitors, you ask? This is only possible if you think that the only competitor to, for example an airline, is another airline. That is false. The airlines compete with cars, trains, USPS, the telephone and lately, in my case, with web-conferencing.
So it is with *all* other industries.
#1 share in online advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that really something that needs to be regulated?
Re:I fail to see the problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
And, advertisers-of-the-world (and other search engines), do you know why Google has 71% of the search engine market? Because Google doesn't piss us off with banners and flash ads and hiding sponsored links as results. Get the hint?
They also provide us with ads that are relevant to the content of the page, rather then something arbitrary.
Re:creators: planet/population rescue non-negotiab (Score:2, Insightful)
It makes me sad for you every time I see this posted. You must have a terribly lonely life.
So they let MS have a monopoly.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I fail to see the problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't about advertisers being unhappy, it's about the government being unhappy about monopoly power: Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]
Re:Google's competitors (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing stopping anyone on this site, or anywhere else in the world from directly challenging Google tomorrow. You just can't suck at it *cough*Cuil*cough* - because Google doesn't. This is one case where there seems to be a conclusively better product and, surprise, most people use it!
Summaries should include the important bits! (Score:4, Insightful)
Cnet reports that to avoid being sued by the U.S. Justice Department, Google is negotiating with them. The Justice Department and a multistate task force are still reviewing the proposal to decide whether to oppose the partnership.
"The" proposal? "The" partnership? Don't make me RTFA to work out what you're talking about!
from the government and here to help (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead, how about trying "lead, follow, or", (best of all), "get out of the way".
Re:Google's competitors (Score:1, Insightful)
The obvious conclusion, supported by lots of data for those inclined to look, is that big mergers always increase efficiency and hence reduce prices for the consumer.
As someone who has worked in server provision for telcos and spent a lot of time around the baby Bells and DECHPaq, all I can say is hahahahahahahahahahahah (because otherwise I would cry).
Hint: the pissant business class you did at uni gives you performance metrics that have no real bearing on consumer satisfaction.
Re:So they let MS have a monopoly.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahh yes, +5 insightful for a logical fallacy. The article is about investigating Google for its business practices. Microsoft has nothing to do with this story, and dragging it in is just muddying the waters. Either Google's partnership will cause a suit, or it won't. But what happened with Microsoft has nothing to do with this.
Re:I fail to see the problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
The government is intervening on behalf of microsoft for "the good of the people", no doubt about it.
Re:So they let MS have a monopoly.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft hasn't been a software company for years, they're a law firm.
Re:-1 naive (Score:3, Insightful)
*Chuckle* Thanks for repeating the same logical fallacy. I am not defending Microsoft. Simply put, this article is about Google. If you think what they are doing is fine, then defend on that front. Don't play politician and muddy up the waters with Microsoft. There are plenty of other stories on them... just wait a bit and you will get your chance to rant on topic.
Re:I fail to see the problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry advertisers, but we don't want your "product" in the first place. Go bitch to someone who carres.
Not to troll, but I know plenty of people who have found something they wanted because of advertisements. The issue isn't with advertising its with marketing.
Re:I fail to see the problem... (Score:1, Insightful)
This isn't about advertisers being unhappy, it's about the government being unhappy about monopoly power: Wikipedia article
But they ignore Vista being bundled. Something in this stinks of politics that has nothing to do with consumer benefit..