Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

promarket.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 260 posts

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#41

Post by rgbrenner »

nickik wrote: post #38
rgbrenner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so if you do something good, you should be permitted some amount of illegal behavior? If you're a priest, perhaps you would be permitted 1 murder, in exchange for your good behavior over the years? Is that what you're saying?

Being a monopolist is not illigal. Also in the US Anti-Trust cases need to probe harm to consumer. This is not the progressive area where you can just use Anti-Trust law against any company you don't like.

3rd sentence from the parent I was replying to: "Let's assume the worst of Google and conclude they abused their search monopoly."

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#42

Post by nickik »

jessaustin wrote: post #14

Ma Bell's monopoly has never been "natural". It has been enforced by FCC, ever since FCC was formed for that specific purpose in 1934. Even before that, ICC through the Kingsbury Commitment had adopted an ill-considered and unjustified hands-off policy with respect to Ma Bell's anticompetitive actions.

I don't quite understand what you are saying. It seem like your saying there is no natural monopoly but rather a government enforced one.

Then you seem to say that the ICC did not stop 'anti-competitive' behavoir. I'm not sure what that means, all companies are against their competition.

If there is not a natural monopoly why would any government agency have to do anything?

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#43

Post by ggggtez »

jessaustin wrote: post #14

Ma Bell's monopoly has never been "natural". It has been enforced by FCC, ever since FCC was formed for that specific purpose in 1934. Even before that, ICC through the Kingsbury Commitment had adopted an ill-considered and unjustified hands-off policy with respect to Ma Bell's anticompetitive actions.

I was a bit surprised myself. It's not illegal to write a chrome extension that blocks ads (yet), but if you try to cut off money from phone companies, you can be sure you'll get jail time...

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#44

Post by panabee »

rgbrenner wrote: post #23
panabee wrote: post #15

It would be great to see more balanced discourse on monopolies, especially in a software-dominated world. Most analyses and articles fixate on the costs of monopolies. Let's assume the worst of Google and conclude they abused their search monopoly. Innovation in search was stifled. Competitors were damaged and achieved only a fraction of their potential. For instance, Yelp might be worth $15B instead of $3B in a worl…

so if you do something good, you should be permitted some amount of illegal behavior? If you're a priest, perhaps you would be permitted 1 murder, in exchange for your good behavior over the years? Is that what you're saying?

excellent straw man. :)

killing a person and killing a competitor are very different. if they were identical, jeff bezos would be serving 1000 life terms. :)

the desire to dissolve monopolies is based on frameworks defined decades ago. the question is whether these frameworks are as applicable today -- and in particular to software companies like google that do not charge consumers (with money).

perhaps these old frameworks remain applicable, but it's difficult to consider their conclusions valid if they are biased to only see harm. that would be like saying cars and airplanes are terrible because they ruined the railroad industry.

to reiterate, maybe society is worse off with monopolies. but one cannot credibly make this assertion without considering both the costs and benefits.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#45

Post by JustSomeNobody »

dkarapetyan wrote: post #39
panabee wrote: post #15

It would be great to see more balanced discourse on monopolies, especially in a software-dominated world. Most analyses and articles fixate on the costs of monopolies. Let's assume the worst of Google and conclude they abused their search monopoly. Innovation in search was stifled. Competitors were damaged and achieved only a fraction of their potential. For instance, Yelp might be worth $15B instead of $3B in a worl…

You should use quotes around free.

Exactly. My data is a currency and I have to spend some of it to get those services.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#46

Post by ellyagg »

warcher wrote: post #29
jessaustin wrote: post #14

Ma Bell's monopoly has never been "natural". It has been enforced by FCC, ever since FCC was formed for that specific purpose in 1934. Even before that, ICC through the Kingsbury Commitment had adopted an ill-considered and unjustified hands-off policy with respect to Ma Bell's anticompetitive actions.

Jesus, yes, how did I have to scroll down this far before I read "ATT was a government monopoly"? Google doesn't have a monopoly on anything. They have the best search engine, but I can switch in seconds. Likewise the rest of their products all have very well established and really quite functional competitors. That I don't use, cause I like the big G, but I could if they annoyed me too much.

But new and small businesses can't switch where they go to raise awareness, which always seems to be an underappreciated consequence of Google's monopoly. You either have to buy Google ads or do SEO, and if you SEO, Google can pull the rug out from under you at any moment and you have no recourse.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#48

Post by Retric »

ng12 wrote: post #33
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But Google's search monopoly and concomitant cash flows also gave society free worldwide communication, self-driving cars, cheaper smartphones, free digital maps, and countless other benefits. To be clear you can't be sure those things wouldn't be around if google hadn't had a search monopoly. Maybe we would have even better digital maps for example had there been way more firms competing. Monopolies can't just be m…

How does Google's search monopoly lead them to self-driving cars? This is why I question the Google vs Bell comparison. It seems to me Google wins because they are really, really good at producing technology, not because they have a systematic first-comer advantage.

Monopolies tend to be lest cost conscious. So, Google may be over investing in their self driving team which could cause a less efficient solution to win.

Picture the MBA where one team Q spends 100m/year per player to get the best players and more importantly keep them from other teams, but Q has a poor coaching staff. The fact Q keeps wining reduces the drive to replace that poor coaching staff, and other teams may fail to compete so they may give up on the playoffs instead focusing on cheaper players.

Not fast forward 20 years and the sport is overall in a worse position with Q lowering standards because nobody else is really competing. For a more relevant example consider the IE 6 stagnation before Firefox.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#49

Post by Shivetya »

amelius wrote: post #31
warcher wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus, yes, how did I have to scroll down this far before I read "ATT was a government monopoly"? Google doesn't have a monopoly on anything. They have the best search engine, but I can switch in seconds. Likewise the rest of their products all have very well established and really quite functional competitors. That I don't use, cause I like the big G, but I could if they annoyed me too much.

The whole issue of Google being a monopoly is silly. Fact of the matter is that they have a huge influence on the entire economy, and this influence is orders of magnitude greater than any other company.

follow the money. they are a monopoly if it can generate penalties and further the careers of politicians with regulatory powers.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#50

Post by [deleted] »

karajima wrote: post #28
rgbrenner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so if you do something good, you should be permitted some amount of illegal behavior? If you're a priest, perhaps you would be permitted 1 murder, in exchange for your good behavior over the years? Is that what you're saying?

Well, if that 'murder' was an execution of a convicted criminal. Why not?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN