Google should be broken up, say European MPs • Hacker News Board

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#151

Post by brc » Fri, Nov 28, 2014, 9:21 AM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #29

brc wrote: post #18

Ugh, not this again. The only real monopolies are those which are protected by government regulation or control. Google is out there on the freewheeling internet competing. It has a broad portfolio of products, but their main revenue stream - ads from search engine - has about the lowest switching costs of any product known to man. Google is far from an angel, and the days of 'don't be evil' are a quaint memory. But…

The only real monopolies are those which are protected by government regulation or control. This is utter, objective nonsense. Look at Microsoft as a case in point, which had a near 100% market share of desktop operating systems. Nobody would claim that wasn't a monopoly. Google is out there on the freewheeling internet competing. It has a broad portfolio of products, but their main revenue stream - ads from search e…

Had a near lock on desktop operating systems. For a brief period of time. Which was quickly eroded by better, cheaper, more agile competition. If that is the definition of a monopoly you'd wonder why it is the bogey man. A monopoly is supposed to be enduring and accrue endless profits and competitors, not just be a successful business.

You ask whether this is what we want the government to intervene in? Quite frankly, no. Whatever ham-fisted attempts they make to try and 'intervene' will end up making things worse, as it usually does.

The market will sort google out sooner or later. They have an operating overhead budget that makes your eyes bleed and an extremely low switching cost product.

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#152

Post by brc » Fri, Nov 28, 2014, 9:27 AM UTC

netheril96 wrote: post #35

brc wrote: post #18

Ugh, not this again. The only real monopolies are those which are protected by government regulation or control. Google is out there on the freewheeling internet competing. It has a broad portfolio of products, but their main revenue stream - ads from search engine - has about the lowest switching costs of any product known to man. Google is far from an angel, and the days of 'don't be evil' are a quaint memory. But…

> The only real monopolies are those which are protected by government regulation or control. Not according to the law. Any one who basically controls the market is a monopoly. Microsoft faced antitrust charges before as well and they were not protected by government regulation or control either. Monopoly itself is not a crime, though. Abusing the power of monopoly is, which is something the European Union has to pro…

Controlling the market would mean excluding competitors and capturing all the profits. Microsoft is a poor example of a monopoly as any long term shareholder will tell you, because they have little power in the market, a scant ten years or so after they peaked in market share. That is an extremely lame monopoly if it is one.

All businesses are subject to market forces and cannot sustain a monopoly, Microsoft and Google included. Neither really meet the definition of a monopoly, which is generally the exclusion of all competition in a market.

A real monopoly is something like control over a city transportation network, something like taxi licensing. Which can only happen through government control.

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#153

Post by netheril96 » Sat, Nov 29, 2014, 1:58 AM UTC

brc wrote: post #152

netheril96 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only real monopolies are those which are protected by government regulation or control. Not according to the law. Any one who basically controls the market is a monopoly. Microsoft faced antitrust charges before as well and they were not protected by government regulation or control either. Monopoly itself is not a crime, though. Abusing the power of monopoly is, which is something the European Union has to pro…

Controlling the market would mean excluding competitors and capturing all the profits. Microsoft is a poor example of a monopoly as any long term shareholder will tell you, because they have little power in the market, a scant ten years or so after they peaked in market share. That is an extremely lame monopoly if it is one. All businesses are subject to market forces and cannot sustain a monopoly, Microsoft and Goog…

> All businesses are subject to market forces and cannot sustain a monopoly

This is a very old view of free market, and perhaps only the proponents of classic economics can agree with you. Market forces have a natural tendency for monopoly, which is why monopoly laws are needed in the first place. For example, oil companies and ISPs are all monopolies naturally formed.

Now, the IT companies may be different. As you say, the technology in this area advances so rapidly that a monopoly at one time soon becomes irrelevant at another time. Still a monopoly Microsoft is in the area of desktop operating system, but the power of such monopoly has faded away.

But I don't think the European regulators would take this into account.