A poll last week on Internet Evolution registered results that are seemingly out of step with one Internet giant's proclamation to "do no evil."
Over 540 readers answered the question, "Which of the following Internet companies is the most dominant monopoly of the current Internet age," producing the following numbers:
Google is making it increasingly hard for us to digest its frilly mantra and its so-called "openness." By making headlines for its controversial DoubleClick acquisition and for trying to stand in the way of a MicroHoo for its own, selfish purposes, it has made a public shift from its alleged status as denouncer of all things evil to a money-making, ad-purveying, bunny-slaughtering (possibly...) machine -- and has successfully replaced Microsoft as the monopoly of the technology age.
I think you have it all wrong. Google is not a monopoly. Google just happens to have the best product by a wide margin. A monopoly implies that there is no reasonable choice, and that certainly isn't the case. The fact that technologically inferior companies like Microsoft and Yahoo can't do anything competitve takes nothing away from Google. Google doesn't continue to dominate the market because they have a monopolistic position; they dominate because their product is far and wide the best available choice for consumers.
You call Microsoft's OS a monopoly (even though its not), because its not the best OS. You simply can't say that about Google.
Ah.. so you think this is just a Google experience?
Non-compete agreements are standard in many industries; they are simply one more document you sign when you join a company.
In no way do they protect jobs. It's naive on the part of the Doubleclick staff to have thought so; indeed, as one lives in corporate cultures long enough, it becomes clear that a merger of companies inevitably results in "duplicative" staff being laid off. If you know your company is being bought out, look at your own job description and then compare it to the number of people who have roughly the same job description at the company that is buying yours. If they have a similar sized staff in your field ... time to look for a new job. And if you know your industry has non-compete agreements, leave your current job before you have to sign the document at the new company.
Gosh ... sharing ad revenue. Not exactly the behavior of an evil organization.
In reality .. this is yet another legal maneuver to put pressure on Microsoft or to do an end run around them. But it nonetheless is cooperation between the two companies. They are smart, they are breaking new ground and they are serving both of their organizations well.
I don't know what your definition of the term "Monopoly" is, hence we might be referring to 2 different things.
To me, "Monopoly" is an exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service. Now that you have a clear understanding of where I'm coming from, lets try to answer the question you've posited.
Is Google the dominant search engine among other search engines? Yes. Dose that make them a monopoly? No, They are dominant because of their superior execution and understanding of search technology. Is there room for some one else to event a superior search technology algorithm to overtake them? Yes. Then they are not operating a monopoly, cause there is room for others.
Is their any viable alternative beside them? The answer to that is a resounding "Yes" Yahoo is there, Microsoft Live, Alltheweb, Lycos, altavista and many other contenders. So, why is Google still dominant with all this contenders at their heels... Because their search technology, algorithm and presentation is superior.
Now do they want to see other viable search alternatives on the market? That is a subjective question, that would only lead to a subjective answer and presumption. Is it always true that the most successful company are the most monopolistic? No. Some of them are.
You are missing the fundamental point of the discourse. Nobody is trying to demonize Google but at the same time we have to call a spade a spade!! I don't know your own definition of 'monopoly' but the standard economic definition perfectlydescribes Google. Are they not the dominat search engine? Are they not dictating what happens to search? Is there any viable alternative besides them? Do they want to see other viable search alternatives on the market? If you can genuinely answer these questions, then may be you may have a differnet opinion.
Nobody is fretting over their success but as you know very well the most successful companies are the most monopolistic ones!!!
I completely agree with you... ("There is a profound difference between a company that takes over a
market segment and dominates it by force (like ATT did with
phones years ago, and cable companies are doing now by being the only
choice in a given market) and a company that produces a service or
goods that consumers prefer. and therefore grows larger because of that
success.") A very objective view of this.
A company that provides superior and qualitative service, and become successful because of that, should not be demonized for being successful. On the contrary they should be admired. Google a monopoly, no! Rather a disruptive and innovative company technology-wise
Yahoo Search Engine was developed by Google, and the latter does not wish the Big Sister, who helped them to do more research and come up with their own competitive site. Yahoo did not objct to this move by the Google developers who were simply a bunch of teenagers, who had given 'Y' the Primary Chance of being the 1st or one of the Mail delivery services in addition to News, Entertainment, Sports, etc.
So Google present strategy of being a monopoly does seem very true.
In Marketing we usually welcome competion, since it affords the opportunity of coming up with the best product. Not just a "me-too." one.
So Google shoud not worry about the acquisition of Yahoo byMicro-hoo, only hat they will also acquire the Yahoo / Google engine.
Lynngi has replied about your comment on the ad space.
Regarding the acquistition bid by Microsoft for Google, I dont think Google really wanted to acquire Yahoo. I have not seen any official statement by Google in this direction. (Pardon my ignorance)
On Internet evolution, we have read about many new search engine companies that have got a very favorable response from the audience. Google has not tried to prevent any such new business/ company from working .
Google has been exploring many new frontiers. It has been acquiring
many new companies but it has been supporting many other initiatives as
well.Examples include Google Summer of Code to support open source development and support for Mozilla Firefox.Every company would try to protect its business and I think every company has right to do so.
Google vs Baidu story is enough to tell google is not trying to become to No 1 Internet Monopoly. Google is not the number one search engine in China only because it did not accede to the requirements of Chinese government. Any monopolistic company would not have missed such an option.
If Google were a start-up who was successful in getting ad revenue because they offered a new method of search that users preferred, would you still object to their ad share?
That is, in fact, what happened. Yahoo was the then-dominant search engine when Google was developed. Google overtook them because their product was preferred by Internet users. Not surprisingly, ad revenue shifted from Yahoo to Google.
The fact that they currently are getting the largest share of ad revenue is a reflection of their success at delivering a good service. Are you sure you want to punish successful companies just because they grow?
There is a profound difference between a company that takes over a market segment and dominates it by force (like ATT did with phones years ago, and cable companies are doing now by being the only choice in a given market) and a company that produces a service or goods that consumers prefer. and therefore grows larger because of that success.
If you don't want Google to continue to be successful, then by all means, start using Yahoo, Dogpile, Alta Vista or MSN as your search engine, and encourage everyone you know to do that as well. If any of them succeeds in making end-users more satisfied, then the ad revenue will follow them and Google will no longer be dominant.
Any company of any size should object to a merger of companies that appears to create an anti-competitive market. If Google were a small start up and still objecting to Microsoft's proposed buyout of Yahoo, chances are pretty good no one would object. Google is successful and OF COURSE is protecting its market share. It would be fiduciary failure on their part to NOT object.
As for the proposal to take over Yahoo themselves.. this is a standard maneuver in a merger battle. It's best not to confuse a strategic move with a tactical move. Google does not want Yahoo; if they did, they would have made that offer a long time ago. What they want is to prevent Microsoft from acquiring Yahoo. That's a very different motivation.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Ahh, the holiday season is upon us: People have begun bargain hunting, department stores are donning premature decorations, turkeys are being shot to death, and email inboxes everywhere are being graced with season-appropriate promotional materials so absurd, one might think they were actually written by the clinically insane.
Considering President Obama went and took the Nobel Peace Prize this year (attention hog, much?), Internet Evolution had to settle for a nomination for the second best prize in the world: a MIN Editorial & Design award. And we're happy to say that we won. Big time.
NEW YORK -- Web 2.0 Expo -- Here at the Javits Center in New York City, several industry innovators have come out to take the stage at the Web 2.0 Expo. But some are having a hard time keeping the audience's attention. The culprit? What else? Twitter.
The debate over whether Google is fairly aggregating newspaper content online has been going on for a while, with Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. leading the discourse. Typically it's followed a consistent pattern: Murdoch complains about Google stealing its content to no real benefit to his company, someone suggests hiding the content from Google, and things get quiet on the News Corp. side of the room.
While Google introduces its new Chrome OS (which I'm hearing will be widely available in one year? Did I mishear that?), IBM announced 10 new products today to help companies using IBM System z mainframe technology.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Search companies and social networks are collecting incredibly detailed information about their users, says Steve Saunders, who predicts that these 'profiles' could one day become commodities to be bought and sold by companies on 'profile markets' or 'identity exchanges’ – the digital DNA equivalents of the financial and commodities exchanges on which stocks, oil, and gold are traded.
One of the most important Internet issues of all time is being ignored by the media. In this three-part video series Steve Saunders explains how search companies are turning the tables on their users by creating user profiles for financial gain, and how soon this trend will explode into full scale profiling.
The Google backlash continues. After seeing their Project 10^100 submissions disappear into the bowels of a Google server farm, a group of irate developers has started their own site to re-collect and vote on the ideas.
Industry initiatives and government stimulus funds are giving enterprise software vendors a great opportunity to help build out and manage smart grid technologies.
The problem with telepresence is that it's not universally accepted, because video calling isn't. While we can all do video calling, we also apparently worry too much about how we look. If we want HD telepresence in our future, we have to dress down, mess up our hair, and dive into our online life.
The US loses about $20 billion a year on pirated software, movies, and music. But public policy can help stem the tide of digital theft. For example, France has recently passed a 'three strikes and you’re out' law, whereby if after two warning letters an individual continues to download pirated software then his Internet access will be cut off. US policy makers should consider adopting similar policies.
Financial management planning does not need to include Voodoo economics, but it does help to tap into the knowledge base of your team through some sort of real-time system. We explore your options.
When Reiter gets incensed over incompetent Verizon FiOS order-taking and support, he broadcasts it via Twitter. Did it do any good? How should your company offer Twitter support? Watch this for all the answers.
The successor to the BlackBerry Bold 9000 – the Bold 9700 – will be available soon in the US. Is it worth upgrading? Reiter's got one, and offers advice.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
