Google's Silent Monopoly 425
An anonymous reader writes "Isaac Garcia from Central Desktop Blog writes, 'How much does Google pay *itself* to claim the top ad position for searches relevant to its own products? Google holds the top advertisement (Adword) slot for the following key words: intranet, spreadsheet, documents, calendar, word processor, email, video, instant messenger, blog, photo sharing, online groups, maps, start page, restaurants, dining, and books...
...if you are trying to advertise a product that is competitive to Google, then you'll never be able to receive the Top Ad Position, no matter how much money you bid and spend. How different is it than MSFT placing its products (Internet Explorer) in a premium marketing position (embedded in the OS)?'"
It's fine for Google to do that (Score:2, Insightful)
I got that insight from Vellmont [slashdot.org] et [slashdot.org] al [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft leverages their monopoly to trap you into using MSFT tools, most of which are in some way or shape flawed compared to alternatives. Microsoft also holds a fairly large portion of the market share.
Google doesn't force you to advertise with them, nor do they limit your ability to advertise with others. And they're not the only website on the internet. I don't see that Google has a monopoly on "the Internet."
Tom
Re:It's fine for Google to do that (Score:5, Insightful)
So if Microsoft's tools were technologically superior to the alternatives, the behavior would be okay? I don't think so.
I don't see that Google has a monopoly on "the Internet."
No, but "the Internet" isn't a product. Google has a near-monopoly on web searches, and it is (allegedly) leveraging that monopoly to gain a competitive advantage in other industries that also happen to be web-based. Just because a product is offered on the Internet doesn't mean the product is "the Internet," and it doesn't mean that product isn't distinct from other offerings on the Internet.
Leveraging your position in the market for one product to increase your competitive advantage in the market for another product is nothing new. The problem comes when you are so dominant in Market A that leveraging that dominance in Market B would cause others to be unable to effectively compete in Market B.
The question here is whether Google is sufficiently dominant in Market A, the web search market, to be classified as a monopoly. If they are, then what they are doing could be classified as illegal abuse of that monopoly.
Re:It's fine for Google to do that (Score:5, Insightful)
Monopolies only become a problem when they stop doing what's in the best interests of the customers. If Microsoft produced quality software and listened to the customers, then I suspect most people wouldn't have a problem with them. Oddly enough, a fairly common criticism of MSFT is that they're all closed source. So if they listened to their customers and opened up more of the kernel, file formats, and what not, we wouldn't have this vendor lockin problem and hence no abuse of monopoly.
BTW there are quite a few natural monopolies like gas, water, telco, cable, etc. Which usually don't get broken up until they start really abusing their customers. (I'm waiting for Rogers to get a bitch slap...)
As for Google, I guess I can't comment since I'm not in the market to advertise and I mentally block out Adsense advertisements. But that said, I see [or acknowledge] more ads from slashdot and fark than I do from google.
Tom
Re:It's fine for Google to do that (Score:5, Insightful)
Make no mistake about it, people who use Google's free services are not Google's customers; they are Google's product.
Advertisers are Google's customers. They are the ones who pay. Granted they treat their users well with their offerings, but in no way are you a customer of Google's.
Re:It's fine for Google to do that (Score:4, Interesting)
Marx is a wanker (Score:4, Insightful)
Radical capitalism is based on an assumption of some kind of radical choice, which is basically a fantasy.
There are generally a lot more choices in capitalist societies than in socialist or communist ones. As it is, I can search with Yahoo, Dogpile, or any other number of search engines.
Part of my problem with MS is that they prevent other products from being compatible with theirs, in order to maintain their monopoly.
What is in fact happening is the continued alienation of human beings from each other and our social worlds
This 'alienation of human beings from so and so' line (usually from the product of their labor) is one of the worst Marxist criticism of capitalism I've heard. As if I can't call up my friends and spend time with them if I want to. Or get a job outside a corporation making handmade art... if I wanted to. Corporations pay much better,generally, than smaller businesses. If people thought "alienation" was a problem, they'd work in jobs that didn't "alienate" them. (And how does Google alienate people? By making it easier to find people or businesses, it would seem to do the opposite.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The services and what not are (bad analogy forthwith) just the roads on which to get people to travel to look at the billboard type advertisements.
Re:Monopoly Behavior (Score:4, Insightful)
An argument which is invalid, to start with.
Which is, as stated, false as well, as a monopoly is defined by price-setting power, not marketshare.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How is it invalid? Show me an example of something that invalidates it. NO search engine shows other providers advertisements. Monopoly on search traffic = monopoly on search advertising. A blanket statement of "not true" means jack.
Which is, as stated, false as well, as a monopoly is defined by price-setting power, not marketshare.
And setting your own price for key placement of certain advertisements at zero is not price setting power how?
Also, monopoly is define
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What he means is that Google cannot raise their prices arbitrarily, because they do have legitimate competitors that their customers can utilize.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument is that since Google has close to 73% world market share in search traffic, that they also have that same 73% in search advertising.
Unfortunately the chart you link to cannot possibly be accurate. Search engines are not operating systems or phone companies. Studies indicate that people typically use more than one search engine. So while 70% of people may use Google, it's not that Google has 70% of a "search engine market"; it's that 70% of Internet users have visited Google. 40% may have
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's fine for Google to do that (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Cost to the average user. When you decide you want to or need to use Microsoft software, it'll cost you. Non-OEM copies of Windows are quite expensive (~$300?). When you decide to use Google to look for a website, it's free, other than having a few ads on the right side of the screen. I've never sent Google a dime, even though I've used many of their services (search, maps, etc.) for years.
2) Availability of alternatives. If you have a copy of TurboTax or AutoCAD and want to use it, you need a copy of Windows installed on your computer. You might be able to get it to work with WINE on Linux, but don't count on it; most likely it won't work fully. If you work at a company with an internal website that uses ActiveX crap, you're basically forced to use Windows/IE. However, if you want to search for a website, you can choose from Google, Yahoo, and MSN searches. Nothing's stopping you from using one of Google's competitors. The only reason they command the overwhelming majority of search uses is because they have a reputation for returning the best results. But most searches will probably work fine with any of them. Similarly, you can use Google Maps to find directions someplace, or you can use Mapquest or one of several others. People happen to like Google Maps, but the others all work fine, and will probably find your destination for you as well (and the results may actually be more accurate, though the user interface will suck more in my experience).
Google only has a huge market share because people like them and choose to use their services. This could change at the drop of a hat since several competing services are available which do all the same stuff (just not as well), and there's absolutely no lock-in forcing anyone to stick with Google.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As I, and other posters, have been pointing out. You are not the consumer, nor the customer. You are the product. Th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it Microsoft's fault that software developers are not interested in porting their software to other platforms? Blame the makers of TurboTax and AutoCAD, not Microsoft.
Re:It's fine for Google to do that (Score:4, Insightful)
Google has nothing like a monopoly on web searches. There are countless close substitutes. Even if Google has a large portion of the market share, as long as those substitutes exist (or can exist), Google cannot function as a monopoly. (If Google could function as a monopoly, they could charge for their search services and anyone wanting to search would have no choice but to pay.)
We're talking about their advertising business, though. In that context, whether they have a monopoly on searches is irrelevant because they're competing against the entire internet for eyeballs. In this context we would be even less justified in calling Google a monopoly.
Re:It's fine for Google to do that (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I haven't been made upset or surprised by google's self-advertising, because it's ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE. In a perfect world, they would probably use unseeded, honest algorithms for searches, but...
Like Microsoft's monopoly, in the case of packaging products along with their operating system, you have to forgive them. It's the Department of Justice that needs to be doing its job to make sure competition is not unfairly stifled, as is obviously the case with IE & Windows Media Player. I can't se
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
From Dictionary.com:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the monopoly. Not search itself.
Re:It's fine for Google to do that (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, if Google started telling it's advertisers that they can't advertise with anyone else if they want to be able to advertise with Google, that would be an attempt to illegally (or at least abusively) leverage their position in order to harm their competitors. Sort of like Microsoft telling computer manufacturers that if they want to be able to sell computers with Windows installed, they better not be selling computers with any other OS (or with no OS) - at that point, they are abusing their market position to build artificial barriers to entry in the desktop OS market.
There can only be a monopoly if there is a significant barrier to entry in a market. It is only an abusive monopoly if they either use their position to raise artificial barriers, or if significant "natural" barriers exist, when they start abusing their customers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree that any "monopoly" argument is out of place and that there is nothing *illegal* happening here, I have to
Re:It's fine for Google to do that (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure it is possible to have a monopoly on something on the internet. There is *no* penalty for using other products. They are not harder to find, they are not more expensive to use, and google can't do anything to prevent you from using them. The definition of a monopoly on a product is that it is the only (or "almost" only, se MS Windows) available one of its type.
There are plenty of other search engines, the reason people dont use them is that they suck compared to google. I'm not sure that makes a monopoly. If google went around buying up start-up search engines to close them doen or bullying isps to block acces to other engines besides google, then you might have a monopoly.
Hardly a monopoly (Score:4, Informative)
Google has a near-monopoly on web searches
44 percent [searchenginewatch.com] is hardly a monopoly. Or a near-monopoly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's fine for Google to do that (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple. Microsoft is a convicted monopoly, google is not. Next there will be complaining that Linux distro's bundle media player software. You play by a different set of rules when you are a convicted monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft has been convicted of abusing its monopoly. Having a monopoly is not something one can be convicted of.
I wouldn't say that this constitutes an abuse of a monopoly. This is akin to Apple placing iPod adverts in the iTunes installer, a newspaper placing job adverts in its own jobs page, or Microsoft placing an MSN advert on the desktop on a fresh Windows install.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about Google isn't an Illegal Monopoly? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, Microsoft did (probably illegally) leverage its dominance in the OS market to undercut Netscape by offering its br
Re: (Score:2)
Cheers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not then. IE4 was what turned things around. Netscape 4 was barely better than 3 with more bloat while IE4 was monumentally better than IE3. You're referring to the time when Netscape had the monopoly of convenience because that's what everyone used, what everyone got free (if they were lucky) with their dial-up software, etc.
-N
so slashdot can decide which stories they choose? (Score:5, Funny)
GOOGLE FUNDED BY CIA http://www.prisonplanet.com/a (Score:2, Funny)
Ex-Agent: CIA Seed Money Helped Launch Google
Steele goes further than before in detailing ties, names Google's CIA liaison
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
An ex-CIA agent has gone further than ever before in detailing Google's relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency, claiming sources told him that CIA seed money helped get the company off the ground and naming for the first time Google's CIA point man.
Ro
Re:GOOGLE FUNDED BY CIA http://www.prisonplanet.co (Score:2)
Re:so slashdot can decide which stories they choos (Score:3)
Apple Quicktime virus on MySpace [imagevenue.com]
It was on the front page, but as soon as I clicked on it I got the "Move along, nothing to see here" message, and it was gone from the front page. If you look at the poster Spiked_Three [slashdot.org]'s page you can see that the story is listed as accepted.
Did this get suddenly yanked off the front page while IE MySpace worms and MS Word 0-day exploits get through just because Slashdot has a lot of sensiti
"Do No Harm" (Score:5, Insightful)
what is the secret of google search? (Score:4, Funny)
Overlooking the obvious... (Score:5, Funny)
Did I miss something? (Score:4, Insightful)
Last I checked, Google was *one* place where you could buy ads. If you don't like it, advertise elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google *does* pay itself. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google *does* pay itself. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Google *does* pay itself. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Google *does* pay itself. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My point was just that you have to be careful when tabulating an "opportunity cost".
Re:Google *does* pay itself. (Score:4, Funny)
Was it really necesary to give us an ascii representation of the female anatomy after you describe it as a slot?
~Wx
Re:Google *does* pay itself. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This being slashdot, this is all theoretical anyhow, and fictional women rejected to sleep with an equally fictional wife cost you nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Oversimplification (Re:Google *does* pay itself.) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not buying this. Slots are not sold individually with a price tag on each. They are being auctioned in batch. Whoever pays most gets 1st, next guy gets 2nd, etc. When Google takes 1st slot for themselves they don't really lose much since they just shift everyone
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Slots are not sold individually with a price tag on each. They are being auctioned in batch. Whoever pays most gets 1st, next guy gets 2nd, etc. When Google takes 1st slot for themselves they don't really lose much since they just shift everyone else 1 slot down and still take all their money.
The top slot almost always has the best clickthrough rate. By pushing everyone else down a slot, not only do they push the bottom slot to the next page of results but the others get a slightly lesser clickthrough rate. Because companies pay per click, Google gets less revenue.
Google isn't a monopoly (Score:2, Insightful)
End of story, really. MSN Search, Yahoo Search, Ask.com, etc etc, make up a significant part of the search market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can do something to relieve your hate right now, and it's trivial to do so. Just change your bookmark to yahoo, or msn, or any of the dozzens of other equivalent offerings.
Of course that pretty much blows your "monopoly" argument out of the water doesn't it.
Monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
Secondly, the power and use of on-line purchase is growing. Google, and other search engines for that matter, have more power to influence the selection, availability and immediacy of purchases in the way it sets the so-called algorithms for prioritising and selection of websites, bringing distinct commercial advantage to some and disadvantage to others. Much of that will invariably be determined by the commercial power of advertising revenues. This could trigger investigation by Competition Authorities.
You mean like TV channels? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How often do you see NBC airing an ad for a CBS show?
As often as CBS wants to pay for it. If CBS sees a show on NBC that attracts a demographic they think their programming can tap, CBS will pay the standard rates for advertising that airs within that show. It works for both networks, really - CBS gets eyeballs and NBC gets ad revenue from a competitor. In a way, it's an acknowledgment that NBC has something that CBS wants and is willing to pay for, ie that NBC is doing something right.
The catch is,
Re: (Score:2)
Just to clear up your org chart: ABC doesn't own ESPN. Disney owns both ABC and ESPN. S'scarier that way.
--Triv
So... (Score:2)
Umm... (Score:5, Insightful)
The cost to google is loss in revenue from not being able to sell those top positions, presumably...
How hard was that?
Fine by me.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Its the difference between seeing Mobile ads at a Shell gas station. Of course your going to see ads from Shell rather than Mobile, but if you don't want to see that, just go to a different service station.
I think that is called "Smart" (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't you go to a cab company and ask to advertise another cab service on their cars. Good luck!
it's so different (Score:5, Informative)
It's a lot different, so different it's not a point of discussion, yet. There are so many alternative options for search engines out there.
I've tried many other search engines. I like that there are so many to choose from and try. And try again. But so far Google for most uses is the best first choice (for me). Google isn't forcing me to use them.
When I do use Google, I have no qualms they would ratchet up any ad placement or search results in their favor, it's their widget, and as long as it is giving me results that help me get through my research requirements,... hmmmm, not really the issue. Oh yes, abuse of monopoly.
Google isn't a monopoly. Google is dominant because they are good. They haven't stifled competition, they've created red hot innovation competition. Heck, Google has even gotten Microsoft to look like they're at least now trying to innovate.
Google's behavior is nothing like Microsoft's.... at least not yet, but additionally Google's beginnings look nothing like Microsoft's. Google emerged from a couple of people putting together cool ways of getting to information and grew that into some pretty amazing technology (do a Google and find and check out how their Google File System works -- it's amazing in its elegance, simplicity, and power). Google caught on in a world technology dominated by others and by dint of excellence have taken top spot.
As for the author's claim Google holds the top spot for the words:
I tried a bunch of these -- while I do see google as a top spot ad, it's hardly a dominant position. And there are many other sponsored links. This is nothing like the old Microsoft "don't dare put any icons or links of any competitor on any machine you sell or we won't give you license to sell Windows" fiat.
I don't care if they hold on to the top spot... I just care that the playing field remains level. I'm sure Google plays tough, but in the big picture I still hold faith Google plays fair.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:it's so different (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe Microsoft felt that Excel had already reached the maximum mindshare and that advertising wouldn't do anything for them anymore. After all, if everyone thinks spreadsheet: Excel, then paying google to tell people spreadsheet: Excel doesn't help.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fishy maybe. I don't know. Again, I don't have any problem with Google snubbing Microsoft. Google isn't stifling any competition by doing so. It would be different if Microsoft couldn't move their product because of Google's "anti-Microsoft" behavior, but that scenario isn't even on the radar.
And for those interested in information about Excel, I would guess there isn't anybody anywhere that doesn't have an idea about how to get information on Excel.
As for not seeing Excel in the first few links, appr
Re: (Score:2)
"Google Spreadsheets"
Now, which one of these more closely matches the keyword "spreadsheet"?
That explains why google comes up first in the normal search results. That they come up first in the sponsored ads is more of an issue (With which I don't see a problem), but this doesn't prove that they're seeding the actual results.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's entirely possible that they aren't even affecting these searches AT ALL. That natural tendencies put them at the top.
BTW, restaurants and dining didn't produce any Google stuff at all, from what I could see.
not true (Score:3, Funny)
.Net Office Intranet www.intranetdashboard.com
Intranet www.google.com/a Create a custom start page for all users on your domain. Learn more.
google's ad comes in at #2 on this one Google Checkout
Re: (Score:2)
Does this really derserve an answer? (Score:4, Interesting)
Grey area (Score:2)
While I don't have a problem with Google placing it's own services at the top on it's own site I am concerned with the fact that they make it appear as if their adverts are like any other. This may lead people to believe they can in fact compete whereas the reality seems to be that they can't. This could easily lead to people paying far more for ads than is necessary. It would be more acceptable if Google were to indicate that your ad will always feature below their ad so that you can make a more informed d
AdSense feature (Score:3, Informative)
More on this feature: Competitive Ad Filter [google.com]
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Analogy Time (Score:2)
Oh, wait a second.....
Re: (Score:2)
MICROSOFT: No. I am your father.
[Shocked, Google looks at Microsoft in utter disbelief.]
GOOGLE: No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!
How can it be a monopoly? (Score:2)
*This is probably only true because Microsoft attempts to set the default homepage to MSN with every update to IE.
Two ex-CNET boo-hooing over Google? (Score:2)
This is Horribly Wrong..... (Score:2)
Nosense (Score:2)
If they wanted to bias people to use their products wouldn't they clutter instead their front page (the most visited frontpage on the internet) with advertising of their products?
Haven't you still realized that if google keeps their front page clean is because they want people to use their products based in how users like their products, not in how much google encourages people to use them?
The rules for a monopoly are different (Score:2)
What really bothers me is the slashdot editors continue to allow this shit to get posted. They are geeks, they damn well know better. Oh but they have to get ad hits
1) Monopolies have an overwhelming power on the market. They can set prices, muscle suppliers and customers, they can have a "do it
Change Ad Content (Score:2)
Just a reminder of what Googles product is.. (Score:2, Insightful)
It is web searchers
And the people who buy advertizing space are the customer, not you.
It's about vendor-lock, not market share (Score:2)
If so, then maybe the article has a point.
Fer Pete's sakes, people (Score:3, Insightful)
There's absolutely no comparison between that and Google giving itself top billing for specific product searches. In the rare event that your Google search puts a Google service into the #1 slot, all the remaining paid ads appear on the same page. Google isn't shutting off competition by hiding other vendors ads, it's getting right in the thick of competition by showing users exactly what other vendors offer services that compete with its own stuff.
All we have here is some little bitch whining because there's a theoretical limit to his ability to buy the #1 slot in any category he wants. Boo hoo. If someone can give me a nice, solid financial breakdown of the difference in value between the #1 slot and the #2 slot, I probably still won't give a damn.
Y'know what else Google moonopolizes? The logo on its search page. Everyone who does a search sees that logo, and our whiny little bitch can't buy that, either, no matter how much he wants to.
The author does not show Google is a monopoly. (Score:3, Insightful)
Having failed in proving that Google is a monopoly, the basis for the rest of the article is vacuous.
Just wrong and sour grapes to boot (Score:3, Informative)
But that never stopped a Slashdotter before, so...
Half a dozen of those search terms do *not*, in fact, have Google AdWords, and at least 2 of them have Google AdWords, but Google isn't in the top spot.
What again, is the complaint?
not the top ad always (Score:4, Informative)
intranet
blog
photo sharing
restaurants
dining
books (amazon's ad comes before google)
It is like asking how much Safeway charges itself (Score:3, Interesting)
As for Google being a monopoly in search engine, do a search for "internet search engines". When I did it MSN came up number one after the paid results.
Simple, not really a concern in a free market environment. Now whether that exists or not is fodder for another discussion.
Re:If you are going to use stock symbols to refer (Score:4, Insightful)
People do this verbally as well, as some who visit Target stores refer to them as [pronounced] Tarjhay, a pseudo-French pronounciation used to imply their view of that retailer as a purveyer of goods that are in high-style compared to other discounters. When K-mart stores took a dive, some referred to them as K-fart. Wal-Mart is often called "Wally-world" in veneration of the company's founder.
Certainly there are times when such personal meanings should be set aside (e.g., business memos), but in a public forum such personal expression is entirely appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on a search [google.com] for OS, I conclude that Oregon Steel Mills has the OS monopoly.
Or, looking for results that pertain to operating systems, would you like to guess which major desktop OS is left off of the first page? A hint: both OS X and Linux are represented. When searching for "operating system" instead, Windows makes the first page, though still below those two.
Just an interesting observation, is all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for regular searching, when I tried the list of keywords in TFA, only "spreadsheet," "word processor," "video," "photo sharing," "maps," "start page," and "books" came up with Google in the first four results. It comes up for "instant messenger" in 6th place.
In conclusion, I doubted this was reall
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybe not diffrent. (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft actually has a monopoly and has abused it, whereas Google has no monopoly and doesn't appear to be willing to abuse it, judging by their past behavior. Even if all they care about is shoving as many ads down our throats as possible, they at least present the ads in a tasteful manner, where I can choose to click or not. They don't display flashing ad banners that distract from the material on the page, which I do consider an abusive practice. When Google has 90% of the search market, and everyone is advertising with them, then they have to start allowing competitive ads to appear in whatever slot the advertiser pays for. They also have to be careful to not abuse their customers by losing mail in gmail inboxes, filtering mail from competing companies, etc.. As it stands, it's impossible for Google to exploit a monopoly Google doesn't have.