What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
153 Comments
- MikeCerm, on 10/10/2007, -15/+62Google definitely presents a problem. They've certainly got a near monopoly on search, which is helping them establish a near monopoly advertising. They're big enough now that they can leverage their way into dominance in pretty much any market they want. The real problem is that users don't seem to mind a Google monopoly, because their products are good, and they trust Google. Right now, people are clamoring for Google to buy up the 700 MHz spectrum, because they'd rather have a Google monopoly than an AT&T monopoly. Of course Google is less evil than AT&T, but if Google is allowed to control everything from search, to advertising, the network, all of your application (Gmail, Docs and Spreadsheets), someday the desktop (Goobuntu?), and they do become evil, then what?
I'm a happy user of many of Google's services, but if Google goes unchecked, we may long for the days when Microsoft's monopoly only covered the OS and Office. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -8/+53This is intentional hypocrisy and propaganda: Google empowers the common man to be heard.
Breakup controlled media not Google. Ruppert Murdoch's 175 media holdings vociferously push their viewpoints on us. It isn't just what they say, it is what they purposely withhold. Controlled media represents slavery. Controlled media is a tool of fascism. That is the monopoly America must break up. - xerus, on 10/10/2007, -9/+37Google is not the next Microsoft. Everyone likes Google.
- sickswaystop, on 10/10/2007, -9/+31i wouldn't exactly say monopoly, i mean theres hundred of search engines you can use, or online applications or whatever. Google is merely an alternative to whatever else you usually used. google is just popular because it works so well -and free! whats wrong with that? I don't think this company deserves any bad press.. yet. But your right time may tell.
- FireStrife, on 10/10/2007, -3/+22I think most people like Google is because they dont charge for their products.
- mulling, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18http://www.altavista.com/
http://excite.com/
http://www.dogpile.com/
It's a monopoly when you don't have any other options. Google isn't a monopoly, it's just a *very popular* search engine. Are you complaining because they're the best at what they do, and people know it? Why not write them a letter? "Dear Google, please tone it down and stop being such a good search engine." - Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -7/+22The big difference between MS and google (for me at least) is vendor lock-in. MS locks you into proprietary formats, and standards, while google has embraced open standards. I don't mind monopolies as much when I am not locked into them.
- dawhim, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Google philosophy is "do no evil."
"Evil," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "is what Sergey says is evil." - maxlew, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16To leave microsoft you have to switch to linux or mac
To leave google you type yahoo.com in your web browser
they arnt really the same - sephiroth965, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11It's actually "Don't be evil"
- latova, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Everyone except for you, Mr. Gates.
- redrock34, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15http://search.yahoo.com/
http://www.live.com/
http://www.ask.com/ - meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11You also couldn't uninstall it as it was linked to windows explorer in some horribly annoying way
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13No, they had practices where the OS ***** with Netscape's program. They intentionally inhibited the program. You misunderstand the issue.
- Kavok, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Doesn't Yahoo get more traffic than Google?
- jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10precisely how is Google hurting consumers with its "monopoly"? It can't be enforced. Anyone can switch to another search engine. They just provide the best and most reliable service. The company that will bring down Google most likely hasn't even been invented yet but we'll see it in 10 years or so.
- latova, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10However if we all avoid google they might die and that might be the end of a company that can break up the already evil monopolies of AT&T and Microsoft. It's a tough choice.
Personally, I'll take my chances on the google boat. Honestly the future looks a lot brighter there, and at the very least more competition is better for consumers. - bensussman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9We always need and always *must* have checks and balances to prevent unruly monopolistic corporations from getting out of hand. At this juncture, it doesn't seem like Google is unruly or "monopolistic" dispute their clear monopoly on Search. Simply put: people like Google and since no-one is *forced* to use Google search, there is no contract or agreement (like Microsoft Windows coming pre-installed everywhere, or an AT&T 2 year contract) it appears that the reason they are on top (of search at least) is because they are the best! This is the nature of capitalism, so unless something changes, I say let em!
- drunkjack, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11No.
- dattaway, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Google gives us choice. Google does not clear the landscape of competitors. Google is not predatory.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10I dislike Google for several reasons.
1) they voluntarily censor for the Chinese government. That contradicts their "You can make money without doing evil" mission statement.
2) they have definite CIA, FBI, and NSA connections. If you Google certain 'terrorist' information topics you WILL get agency attention
3) Google in hiring prefers 20 to 30-somes; it prefers to hire smart young people, but disdains smarter older people. This ageism attitude bothers me, because sometimes there are problems that can't be solved without having seen where things can go wrong, learned through experience. Their HR department in my experience had attitude problems. Including and especially middle management below VP Laszlo, the department head. He may be a good guy, but there are some jerks under him.
4) they have screwed people over AdSense, as posted by others on Digg
5) Internally, Google has very tight physical security and it is a bit creepy. I'm used to Silicon Valley companies with good security, but Google creeps me out.
There are a few more reasons I can't talk about in detail but you'll see in the next few years as Google moves into other business areas. Project 01 and similar projects. Also the communications projects which scare AT&T. Google has the power to influence public communications in good and in bad ways. Anything they decide to censor, you can do nothing about. This can be abused. It has been abused. - unsolicited, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9What makes Google different is its Objectivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28journalism%29
- ASFx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Monpoly: "a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller" http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=monopoly
WHY is it that when a company starts becoming large and successful, everyone starts claiming "monopoly!! OMG!" It takes a very specific situation to have a monopoly, and google is far from it. For anyone to claim google has a monopoly on search is just plain ridiculous. There are many other search engines that exist (yahoo and MSN come to mind). Just because the majority of people prefer to use google's search engine does not automatically make google the bad guy. Personal preference does not create monopolies.. lack of competition create's monopolies. More companies need to get out there and innovate. - Smuikas, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7"I don't mind monopolies as much when I am not locked into them."
A monopoly you aren't locked into isn't a monopoly. - sinatosk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Some years ago Yahoo and other search engines complained about Google not putting adverts in their search results page... so yeah what you say doesn't surprise me if thats what they're complaining about
- goodoldharris, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I think you're getting ahead of reality. Google is dominant in search with just over 50% in the US. But just over 50% is hardly a monopoly. The number is still not even close to the near 90% OS market share held by Microsoft at the time of the antitrust suit. Same goes for online advertising. As for the spectrum, Google won't replace ATT as the monopolist just by getting hold of some spectrum. ATT will still be there and will be bigger than Google.
Finally, antitrust is not just about having a certain market share but using a dominant market position and anti-competitive practices. Microsoft clearly did that in the browser wars. Wake me up when you have an example of Google doing that. At the moment, anyone can switch to another search engine in less than a second, and switch to another online ad service in less than a day. - cmackchase, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Yes, cause companies like att and ms can't compete with free.
- naio, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6A monopoly is a monopoly is a monopoly. It can be applied both to software and/or services. Don't get blind for the "cause" of open source, FOSS slut!
- deadowl, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6On terms of search, I wouldn't worry. There simply the company that generates the most informative results.
On terms of online advertising--- this is where they're the threat. - kevincannon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Good thing google don't have anything close to absolute power. The person above said that Google have a near monopoly in search. That is not true. Their share ranges from approximately 30%-80% of searches in various countries. That's not a monopoly in any definition I've heard.
Secondly, monopolies aren't actually illegal. Only certain types of monopolies are illegal. You don't get punished just for having a successful business.
Finally, there's nothing tying anyone into Google. For the most part their services are free, and it would be relatively trivial to move to a different service. For that reason along, there's no real problem.
If you give out about Google, those 3 points really need to be taken into consideration, they rarely are. I expect people who criticise google, generally do so without due consideration, and then happily use Google 5 minutes later. - naio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Not me either. And I love Microsoft, you generalist tard.
- Spr0k3t, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I hope they are the next monopoly. I've enjoyed Google from the start. It's the best stock I've ever purchased even.
- LavaHot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The question isn't "CAN we do something about it?", it's "Do we want to do something about it?"
- jsusanka, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4google is not even in the same class as microsoft -
google is a great company and you actually have a choice and that you don't have to use them. microsoft shoves their face in yours everyday with shady licensing deals with companies that enforce the use of their crap software even though you can't stand looking at it or using their software.
Also have you ever ran into a web page of google that did not display correctly in your browser? that is why I use them they are cross platform and actually give me a choice of what OS to use because I know their products will work on it. they develop superior products compared to microsoft that I don't have to use if I don't want to.
the microsoft's and others are just jealous because they can't wrap their head around this concept. - naio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"There is no such thing as free lunch". They WILL make you pay for it one way or the other, it's just a matter of time (when the monopoly is established).
- Gizza, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually, google is more of a advertising company that just happened to revolutionize search along the way.
Every cent the company makes comes from ads. How do you think they can offer everything for free. The more free things they offer, the more places they can plaster ads. - ts128900, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It seems the arguments defending Google, are the same arguments people use to say Microsoft is monopoly. With OSX and other Linux variants, don't you have a choice for OS and office applications?
As far the comment, they give software out for free. That's how crack dealers work - they give you a taste until you’re hooked and then they start charging. Just because they haven't charged for service, doesn't me they will not in the future. Nothing is ever free. - mousky, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5No, cause companies like AT&T and Microsoft REFUSE to compete with free. They would rather use their lobbyists to change the rules in their favour. Don't forget that new regulations and laws typically favour incumbents not new entrants into a market.
- stonedgeek, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6If every big monopolistic corporation was like google, the world would probably be a much better place. They've managed to make providing free services to anyone and everyone in the (internet) world a profitable business. They also provide a great service (advertising) to my company which we gladly pay for.
I can't think of a single bad thing to say about them. - Smuikas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"all i can say as a current employee of google is watch out"
If this is true, I really hope your manager doesn't find this post! - forgetfulca, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That is not true.
Monopoly describes market position. It isn't illegal to be a monopoly. What you describe is ABUSE of monopoly, which IS illegal. - stockjones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2But remember as many believe, Only Microsoft is evil. Everyone else is a good guy so its all good. That of course is the opinion of the ignorant.
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Google has no where near a monopoly position. There's nothing they provide that I can't switch to someone else will little to no effort.
- sickswaystop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2google has always said it was a search company, and it definitely still is. they just happened to revolutionize online ads along the way.
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The key to establishing anti-trust is not just the possession of a monopoly, but leveraging that position to compete in other markets. If Google were found to be giving their products special place in its search results for example, that would be a minor case of such a grounds for government intervention. However, mind you, Microsoft has a strong monopoly on Operating System software and no such minor violations ever caused them issues. It was clearly blatant leveraging of their monopolies to crush competition in unethical ways, which they seem to have stopped doing. Even the telco monopoly didn't face much government opposition until it became more and more obvious that it was an overpriced, unperforming service, which it actually wasn't at first. Actually, I would think google could be the next Bell more easily than the next Microsoft, eg, a company that starts out innovative and good, and then much later turns stagnant and evil.
- dysonlu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Since when was Microsoft Windows the only OS that could be installed on your PC?
- vdxc, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2"so much of our information" ... which they deleted after 18 months.
- bryano, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Technically, having a market share greater than 25% categorizes a firm as being a working monopoly
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I've gotta block you. I'm afraid your comments will somehow infect me with your stupidity.
- winmywii, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"Google were found to be giving their products special place in its search results for example"
Don't they already do this? If you type in Webmaster Tools for example, they will put a google ad up in the first spot for their webmaster tools. I think it goes the same for other tools they offer. -
Show 51 - 100 of 154 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is