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.'"
Hi... (Score:5, Funny)
Hi! Billy Mays here for GIANTCo.
Do you suffer from a lack of competition in your market place? Are your closest competitors light-years away from being a viable alternative to the solutions you offer? Well have I got just the thing for you! Introducing the amazing, the lovely, the Department of Justice! That's right folks, in just 10 easy years you can get a slap on the wrist and be deemed a monolopy.
But wait, there's more! What if I told you that if you called right now, we'd throw in a second DOJ fine ABSOLUTELY FREE?!?!
Call now, operators are standing by.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Too soon?
Re:Hi... (Score:4, Funny)
Hi! Billy Mays here...
Like hell you are. Imposter!
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Hi... (Score:5, Funny)
IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY. THAT'S WHY I'M GOING TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS - A TRIBUTE TO ONE OF THE GREATEST ADVERTISING PERSONALITIES OF OUR GENERATION.
.
.
.
.
.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Parent
The alternative is much worse (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:The alternative is much worse (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that Explorer is just an extension of IE (XP still opens IE when you type a url into the adress bar of Explorer) speaks for itself.
IE is everywhere in XP, less in Vista, but thanks to some EU regulations, no more in Windows 7. So until that day, yes, you are forced to use IE.
Parent
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.
Parent
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?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The alternative is much worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Re:They're not big. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:They're not big. (Score:5, Informative)
Er.. curious how you got to 'no'
Google did google video, it wasnt doing well, they bought Youtube and are now #1.
Google did maps, it was okay but not #1, they bought Keyhole(now google earth) and advanced their tech to become #1
They've also bought sketchup, grandcentral(google voice), and a few other smaller projects with varying success.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait so it's Microsoft's fault that 3rd parties are developing on their OS only?
Well that makes sense.
Re: (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'
Re: (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 mysel
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
HA!
Do you know where Google Earth came from?
Youtube?
What about Google Voice?
Google NEVER buys anyone out!
Re:They're not big. (Score:4, Interesting)
I know there were better engines out there. I personally had to admin Hotbot at the end of its life. And it was way better than Google. Especially the query features.
It was just, that to use Google, you additionally did not need half a brain to search for something.
I actually hate the search interface of Google. One line? Can't search for non-alphanumeric stuff? Even quotes are nothing more than a rule that this word has to loosely follow that one? Ambiguity and missing boolean functions/operators? It's even worse than the PHP interpreter.
I can understand that someone who has no idea what he's doing, will like Google's interface, because Google will figure it out for him. But if you know how to input complex queries, then this thing is a nightmare.
Additionally, nowadays, even a better search engine had no chance. Not because of anticompetitive behavior. But because of inertia, aka. "being used to it". Changing what you are used to, always is painful. So as long as the thing you are doing does not create more pain that the change, you will stay with it, no matter what.
This also is, what keeps Windows on the desktop.
Parent
they're not that big by most measures (Score:5, Informative)
They might still be subject to antitrust issues if they're dominant in a particular market, but the statement that they "aren't that big" does seem objectively true, by most measures other than public fame.
Some major tech companies by number of employees:
And by revenue:
And by net income:
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
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Market cap doesn't mention any actual business activity, though; it's closer to what I was excluding ("public fame"), since it's solely a measure of how much value the investing public perceives a business to have, which is often wildly off the mark.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Worse still is that you couldn't liquidate the shares of any of those companies for anywhere near that amount of money.
Re: (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.
I got an email that'll fix that! (Score:3, Funny)
Heck, I've got lots of 'em.
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
Re:That's Weird, Because Fiscally ... (Score:5, Informative)
Market Cap is a mixture of future expectations, growth, hype, and irrational exhuberance.
GMGMQ, -- General Motors in a pink sheet -- has a market cap of 677 Million (10 times more than /. corporate parent sourceforge). Yet GM has earnings per share of -$60. Their true value is -$100 billion or so. In a few weeks, they'll finish their bankruptcy and that 677 million in market cap is guaranteed to drop to 0.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People like to use whatever numbers make their arguments seem logical.
Google Monopoly today... (Score:5, Interesting)
Competition is a Click Away." (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, just type the word competition in the search field and click on the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.
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.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
You're looking at it wrong. Google can't purchase Microsoft for Word, so they purchase Writely instead. Bam. Instant competition. Google can't purchase Apple, so they purchase Android instead. Bam. Instant competition. That's how they "compete". By either buying the market outright (e.g. Blogger) or by buying the upcoming competitor to a competitor they can't buy.
Microsoft, Oracle, and even IBM do the same thing.
I've also left out several direct competitors like DoubleClick, Outride, Kaltix, Sprinks, Genius
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (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
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.
Parent
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.
We'le Vely Smarr (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
Google has a relatively small head-count. (Score:4, Informative)
The part of Google that actually makes money is surprisingly small. The search engine staff was under 100 people until a few years ago, and about fifteen of them did all the hard parts. AdWords has more people, plus a sizable sales staff. But it's not huge, and it's smaller since Google closed some of their branch sales offices. At peak, Google had around 20,000 employees. Two years ago, they had about 12,000, and they could profitably shrink back to that level. They've been dumping excess contract employees for the last year.
The labor-intensive parts are mostly in the money drains - YouTube, GMail, etc.
Re:What's their motto? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well then you're in idiot.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well then you're in idiot.
'a' and 'i' aren't exactly near each other.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They are big but not that big.
So you aren't that big when you are probably bigger than more than 99.99% of all businesses in the world? I'm sorry, but that's bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This makes me wonder, 1. Isn't "An absolute must-have" kind of the point of creating, promoting, and maintaining anything in a modern economy, and 2. SO WHAT?!?! Google, while a gargantuan entity in the Search and On-Line AD world, doesn't employ tactics that scream anti-trust to me just see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=yahoo&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10 [google.com], I mean they link to their competitor's very prominently in their own search terms. Do you picture Mircosoft linking to Apple? Probably not.
Could have fooled me.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=apple&go=&form=QBLH [bing.com]
I agree about the innovation stifling though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)