Google Claims They "Just Aren't That Big" 283
The New York Times is reporting that Google is making the case that they just aren't that big, especially from an anti-trust point of view. While they certainly corner the market in search, advertising, and online video, Dana Wagner, Google's "senior competition counsel," is working hard to convince the public that "competition is a click away." "None of the investigations take aim at Google's core advertising business. And unlike other technology giants in years past, Google has not been accused of anticompetitive tactics. But the investigations and carping from competitors and critics have Google fighting to dispel the notion that it has a lock on its market, even as it increases its share of search and online advertising. Eyes are rolling, especially in reaction to the idea that Google is a relatively small player in a giant market. 'They describe where they are in a market under a kind of a fairy-tale spun gloss that doesn't reflect their dominance of key sectors,' said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. 'Google search is an absolute must-have for every marketer in the world.'"
The alternative is much worse (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not big. (Score:5, Insightful)
They only dominate the market because of one thing.
They made a search engine that works and doesn't piss everyone off with flashing blinking ads everywhere!
Did google do anything to make all the other search engines suck ass? No.
Did google buy out the competition so they were #1? No.
Google just made a good service people CHOOSE to use.
That's Weird, Because Fiscally ... (Score:3, Insightful)
You may well employ far fewer than either of those two giants, but you aren't "running with the big dogs" now
Must have? (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep telling yourselves that (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree with the statement that Google has not been anticompetitive AND with the statement that competition is "only a click away"*, Google does one thing that still makes them a large company on the order of Microsoft:
Google buys out the competition
Mergers and acquisitions are a matter of course for the technology industry. But when you build your portfolio by simply buying off the leader in a new market space, then you become a holding corporation. That's been the mark of Microsoft for two decades now and it's become the mark of Google as well. Google Groups (DejaNews), Google Docs (Writely), Youtube, Google Analytics (Urchin), Android, etc. all testify to this.
While I'll grant that Google adds their own spin to the products and often integrates them better than acquisitions made by many of their competitors, it still does not change the fact that Google purchases their markets. And that... that is a damning argument against their "we're not that big" statement.
* Ignoring the competitive advantage of Google's massive infrastructure for a moment.
Somewhat (Score:5, Insightful)
They are THAT big (that's what she said) but it's true that competition is just a click away. Apart from the obvious of just using another search engine, any documents you have on google docs can be converted properly to a lot of open source formats and you can leave. Social networking? Plenty of those. News aggregators? Plenty of those. Rss feeds? Plenty. Geolocation? Just throw on a tracker and use your own maps.
Really, there's nothing google does that can't be done by anyone else. They just do it damn well.
Fuck you microsoft and other motherfucking disable-fucking-copy-paste-if-licence-expires Office counterparts, THAT is anti-competitive, not google.
But Competition is Indeed a Click Away (Score:1, Insightful)
Remember when Google was just the engine behind Yahoo? And then people just started going to Google.
And guess what? I can set my homepage to anything I want.
Re:they're not that big by most measures (Score:5, Insightful)
How about market cap?
$134 billion for Google.com
$139 billion for IBM
$211 billionfor Microsoft
Re:Keep telling yourselves that (Score:3, Insightful)
The only one of those companies that Google was actually competing against was YouTube (with Google Video). Google didn't have entries in those other markets until they acquired those companies.
Re:The alternative is much worse (Score:5, Insightful)
What you mean because I installed Windows as my OS, I'm forced to use IE now? You mean I can't just surf to mozilla.com or opera.com and download an alternate browser because of some sort of blocking mechanism? Wow, I just never noticed that before. Guess I'll have to look closer.
Re:What's their motto? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well then you're in idiot.
Re:they're not that big by most measures (Score:2, Insightful)
Eh... Trepidity was trying to stay with objective measures, not fictional measures inflated by idiots looking for free money.
Using market cap as a measure of anything beyond how well a company's PR engine is working on wall street is rather foolish.
If you have to tell us... (Score:1, Insightful)
If you have to tell us that there is competition, then really there isn't any.
Re:Must have? (Score:2, Insightful)
Google, what about not pushing it? (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, lets say Google is not that big, not evil but some people will be afraid from any company who has that kind of market share in information market.
So, people are a bit paranoid right? Human nature...
Why would that company ship a "updater" application/framework and code it in a way to run every 2 hours with (super user) Administrator powers on both Windows and OS X? Also, why wouldn`t it go away when all google apps removed? It is clear that you made the guy paranoid and guy got rid of all your software. You still push it by keeping the updater application (and its socket) open for 24 hours.
I hate to give Adobe as example but, even Adobe CS4 suite which people buy with their credit card, giving their phone and address to Adobe and pay more than thousand dollars runs updater application, in current user power only when the host applications (photoshop, reader etc) running.
I am speaking about paranoia here and it doesn`t really have to have a technical reason. People, especially Windows users are afraid of such behavior, ask any Windows developer out there. OS X users are not that paranoid yet but they are allergic to software needlessly using Admin powers. When OS X users ask, Google says "but our updater will also update kernel modules etc. in future", what a GREAT way to make guy totally nuts eh?
You really have a example in hand. Real Networks. Why repeat history? Also Real Networks isn`t running a huge search engine which easily finds personal data on web.
Re:Keep telling yourselves that (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know how strong my point will be here, since I haven't bothered to look up the data, but I wonder....
How many of the companies Google has bought out were publicly-traded companies? From first look, it doesn't seem like that many at all. And if that's the case, then the companies that sold out to Google, did so of their own volition and not because they were beholden to their public investors to make a decision that would make more money for the investors.
Re:They're not big. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. The difference between Google's market share and Microsoft's share is that I can take my email elsewhere, I can search another site, and I can go to any of 50 video sites. I never have to look at another Google app the rest of my life and I'm not going to have to suffer to pay rent. With Microsoft, you can't just pack up your Games, Office applications/Exchange app, and development suites and move to Linux. You can't work in the business world without having to support Microsoft in one way or another... or find a job that has nothing to do with computers.
It's a matter of being able to leave if you don't like the service. Anyone can leave Google in an hour if they wanted. Even though I use Linux daily, I still have to use Windows at work and at home if I want to play the latest game.
Re:That's Weird, Because Fiscally ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Market Cap is a mixture of future expectations, growth, hype, and irrational exhuberance.
I hate to break it to you but one of the most important life lessons I learned was "something's only worth what someone will pay for it." And market cap reflects that because it does a good job of telling you what people value the company at. Yes, some of it's the result of a PR engine but there's no way to avoid that. If you don't think the value of everything around you depends on Wall Street and idiots looking to make a buck, you're deluded.
... well, the market cap will reflect this. And since something's only worth what someone will pay for it, all of this is a good measure of how valuable these companies are.
GMGMQ probably doesn't have a future and the public knows this. But they've got asset sheets. Those assets are probably worth half a billion. I don't know, I'm just guessing. VA Sourceforge or whatever it is that owns Slashdot indeed has a brighter future. But be realistic, man! That future plus their assets are worth 1/10th of GMGMQ's assets right now. I don't understand your comparison. All it does is point out that the public views GM as more valuable than Sourceforge and when it drops to zero after everything is sold off
Re:Hi... (Score:5, Insightful)
To be honest, I think this is exactly the way he would want to be remembered. He had a larger than life personality/persona - he would not want people moping around 'boo hoo, Billy Mays is dead.'
Billy was not above poking fun at himself either, and it was an image he cultivated. The fact that he, and his pitch style was so recognizable speaks volumes. So no, I don't think it's too soon, I see the above as a celebration of Billy, not a satire of him.
Re:That's Weird, Because Fiscally ... (Score:3, Insightful)
People like to use whatever numbers make their arguments seem logical.
Re:they're not that big by most measures (Score:3, Insightful)
They're dominant but not because of ANTICOMPETITIVE measures, they dominate the market because (imho, ofc) their shit is just that good that I want to use it instead of anything else.
If bing maps turns out to be better than google maps I'll use it in a heartbeat.
Re:The alternative is much worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's almost like you have this "operating system," and it's designed to open files and stuff. And it's almost like the company that makes that operating system is, you know, a software company. And it's almost like they've realized that a browser-type app is the right front-end metaphor for most of the information that typical users of their operating system will want to see. So Eeeeeevil of them to provide a basic information tool as a built-in and well-integrated part of the operating system that is being used to, you know, work with information.
I suppose you'd also prefer that their OS didn't ship with a file system, or at least preferred that the file system was very poorly coupled to the operating system and the user experience? Excellent idea! In fact, the operating system maker has no business deciding what tools their customers might find useful. Other companies and governments should be in charge of designing the software made by that company. We can't have companies deciding what features to add to their own products, or what sort coupling with a web browser their own operating system should have. No way. That's too much freedom for a software company. We can't have freedom. We have to have software designed by goverment committees and courts! Unless, of course, it's a Mac, and that's OK. Or a Linux distro.
Re:Keep telling yourselves that (Score:3, Insightful)
Hostile takeovers are extremely rare in this day in age. Mostly because public companies now structure their shares to prevent such takeovers.
If someone waves enough money under your nose, OF COURSE you're going to sell out. If someone offered to make me a multimillionaire AND allow me to continue working on my project, I'd be like "hell yeah!" Especially when we're talking about a generally friendly company like Google.
That being said, your argument is neither here nor there. Google is BIG with a capital B. Not horrible, not bad, not soul-sucking, not EVIL, just "Big". Trying to convince the market otherwise is a lost cause.
Re:The alternative is much worse (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The alternative is much worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They're not big. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to agree with the coward, this time. There are more than a dozen search engines out there, all of them trying to install themselves with each browser I download and install. At least a dozen try to give me a freaking toolbar - I think that Yahoo and Ask are the two worst offenders. I always just unclick the radio button, and tell them to go away. Even when I run IE, I set my default to Google. Who needs any of the rest of them? If/when I actually need one, I can enter the freaking address myself, or I can Google for the address.
All the rest of them can just bite my bling bing bling. If they want market share, they need to offer something as good as, or better than, what Google offers. Til then, bling bing bling all of them, and the donkeys they rode up on as well!
They kind of have a point. (Score:3, Insightful)
From my perspective, I use Google for search, free email and maps. Now if I ever got unhappy with Google, changing my bookmarks and creating another free email account somewhere and forwarding my gmail address there is really trivial. It doesn't inconvenience my life much at all.
Whereas, if I am running a given operating system, switching it is a colossal headache, even for someone moderately technically inclined. My own quest to move to Ubuntu has been a lengthy process.
I can't speak for those using their ad services, but I don't see that they are particularly deep into people's lives. Unless I'm mistaken.
Heck- Facebook is more of a concern to me- most of my friends have utterly abandoned email and chat and use FB exclusively.
Re:The alternative is much worse (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the Notepad Text Editor segment? How about the TCP/IP stack segment? How about the disk defragging segment? Should all of those be ripped out of the operating system? I consider a web browser to be an essential part of the operating system. I don't ever want to install an operating system that doesn't natively know how to grab an IP address from DHCP, resolve hostnames, connecto to web sites, and show me information. But you think that I should not be able to do that without interacting with third parties and their own software.
Why arent you simply saying that Microsoft should not be allowed to make operating systems? That's the logical step for your point of view. Even though there are other operating systems to choose from, you find that MS should not be allowed to have a definition of what a web browser is, as it relates to their own OS. Why? What about Firefox and Opera and Chrome and Safari is it that MS is suppressing? Or are you really just complaining because most people are lazy, and don't want to have to assemble their own operating system out of essential modules (like a web browser), and would rather just have something that works? They can buy that from Apple, or they can buy it from Microsoft. But you think one of them shouldn't be allowed to compete in the providing of an operating system that has vital things (like web browsing capability) already installed - even though they can run out and download any other tool they want, any time they want.
Are you even listening to yourself?
Re:Keep telling yourselves that (Score:4, Insightful)
You're confusing purchases that open new markets with purchases that remove competition in an existing market.
Purchasing Writely enabled Google to compete in a new market. It did not remove competition in any way- in some ways it expanded it, by giving Writely as a product more backing against its competitors. Similarly with DejaNews, Blogger, etc.
The only instance in which a purchase *removed* competition was the purchase of YouTube, where it resulted in the death of Google Video- competition was reduced because a player left the field.
The two activities are very different and can't meaningfully be compared.
Re:They're not big. (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft dominates because businesses don't mind too much, and the basic equation of domination hasn't changed enough, yet. The business defines the tools you must work with. If I went to work for Ubisoft as a 3D designer, should I be pissed that they force me to use 3DS Max, and that I can't use Blender? Even though Blender has 3DS and FBX export? Is Autodesk a monopoly if 90% of game shops use it?
In both cases, I say no: the enemy of change is being good enough. The world just isn't yet convinced MS isn't good enough (though it came close with Vista).
And taking your email elsewhere isn't really a good example because it really isn't that easy. If I want to get my gmail through Yahoo, I'll be left wanting.
Google is not a monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Keep telling yourselves that (Score:3, Insightful)
Following your logic above, how is what Google does any different than what Microsoft is accused of doing? It seems to me like Google (and Microsoft) are "leveraging their monopoly in one market to influence other markets." Is the difference that Microsoft made the mistake of waiting for Netscape to get big before they crushed them, where as Google simply buys up the companies before they even really get off the ground? If Microsoft had just bought Netscape instead of developing IE, would it have been such a big deal? Seems like it sucks being a successful company. If you buy out your competition, you're in trouble. If you come up with a competing product and then leverage your competitive advantage, you're in trouble. No wonder there are so many lawyers in America. Natural human instinct is pretty much illegal at this point.
If Microsoft tries to buy out another software company, people are up in arms. But it's okay for Google? It's okay for Apple? Completely off topic here, but one of the things I really liked about the Apple laptop I bought for my girlfriend is that I could put a DVD in the drive and the OS started the movie. On my Windows box, I have to BUY a third party DVD player to get the same functionality. It would be great if Microsoft included native support for DVD movies in Media Player. They probably don't because they can't, lest they be accused of crushing another segment of the software market. Yet Apple can include native DVD playing functionality because they only account for a small percentage of the market?
The tech world is pretty schitzophrenic. On one hand, techies champion standards and interoperability. On the other, as soon as a company gets large enough to set a standard, people go into a frenzy and start crying about monopolies. It seems like we either have two choices. One, we allow companies to get big enough that they can influence the entire market, and with that influence bring about standards. Or two, we completely Balkanize the industry and give up on the desire to have standardized ways of doing things. Or maybe here in Amerika we come up with a third option? As soon as a company gets big enough, the government buys it out and open sources the technology??
Re:The alternative is much worse (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure I follow your point. What you are describing is the result of a decade of anti-trust litigation against Microsoft. Had they been allowed, they certainly might have attempted to prevent you from installing Firefox or Opera.
Re:Keep telling yourselves that (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh I'm sorry, you chose only to mention products without prior competing (and publicly known!) projects from Google.
At any rate, Google's model depends on information-gathering. Any online service used by people is competition to Google, as it limits their ability to collect data which they can use to target advertising. You do realize that all of Google's "products" are really just info-gathering services, right? And that their real product is targeted advertising?
ANY web service is a competitor to Google. Period.
Re:They're not big. (Score:2, Insightful)
The key word here is "competition". Google has bought plenty of companies, but they don't buy out their competition in the search market, where they are dominant. Youtube is not a search engine. Keyhole is not a search engine. Grandcentral is not a search engine.
Google buys things to add entirely new services, not to discourage competition where they already dominate. Google does not use anti-competitive tactics, which is why people tend to trust them.
Google is *not* that big. (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, honestly, any one of us, given the willpower and time could develop an ad platform to compete with google's. The fact that no one has does not mean that it can't be done. Likewise, if someone is able to create a better search algorithm, it could overtake google search. There are a ton of video sites that compete with youtube as well. The fact is, no one holds a gun to anyone's head and says "USE THIS GOOGLE PRODUCT!" Now if google were to start making deals with all OEM's that their default search engine was google search, google docs was the default productivity package, chrome was the default browser, then maybe you would have a case. Ultimately, they are a big player, but they are not a monopoly.
In my mind, a business becomes a monopoly when they completely bar entry into a market. Google does not do this. There aren't going to be henchmen showing up at your door if you start making mysweetvideohostingsite.com. Now make something that competes directly with Microsoft? Or apple? Yeah, you might have to watch your back.