A whole new game

How Google is redefining monopoly

What, precisely, are “monopolistic practices” in a world that is moving online? Can the same institutions drive our thinking about monopoly, online and off? Perhaps not. was the first business to leverage internet search to drive advertising. Its insight has translated into continuing dominance, through relentless innovation and a willingness to explore and embrace the new. However, monopolistic dominance can also be used to elbow out competition and the internet search giant is the subject of accusations and antitrust investigations. In 2012, registered over $50 billion in revenues with net profits of over $10 billion. Over 65 per cent of American searches and over 90 per cent of European searches used Google’s engine. Barring China and Russia, where local engines Baidu and Yandex dominate, drives well over half of all net searches in every key region. Yet the Antitrust Commission says it believes does not indulge in abusive practices, while recommending that change some of the ways in which it does business. The (EC) is in the middle of a similar antitrust investigation.

Internet search is tied to advertising and other monetisable services. has its fingers in many pies via Gmail, YouTube, Blogger, +, maps and sundry niches like credit-card evaluation, flight-hotel searches, local shopping listings, etc. Android, which holds over 70 per cent of smartphone market share, is integrated to services and also offers cloud-hosting and other services for websites. Each area has multiple competitors and it has been alleged that showcases its own services more prominently in its search and thus, drives traffic to its own offerings. For example, a search on a geographical name will throw up only maps; a search for free email lists Gmail (the third-largest provider) first; social media mentions favour Google+ (market leader Facebook has an exclusive search arrangement with Bing, and Twitter ceased to be a partner in June 2012). Searches for credit card providers and flight listings again display Google’s niche products first. According to the (FTC), some of agreements with advertisers also restrict the advertisers’ right to pair with other search engines.

claims that this cherry-picking occurs organically due to search algorithms geared to offer better customer experiences. Its competitors are unlikely to buy that seemingly circular logic: thinks its services offer the best customer experience, and hence develops algorithms to drive traffic to its services. But a shopping mall is entitled to display affiliated brands more prominently and is arguably applying the same principle. There are similarities between the Android-integration and Microsoft’s integration of the Internet Explorer browser with the Windows operating system in the 1990s. But there are also differences. Android is free, Windows paid. The user needs a primary Gmail account to fully exploit Android; Windows' performance is unaffected by the use of a different default browser.

Monopolistic abuse is unhealthy and it is incumbent upon regulators to prevent it occurring in cyber-domains as much as offline. But in new virtual markets, it is difficult to draw analogies from prior case-law and regulators can be left groping to decode the business dynamics. One can hardly compare AT&T’s telecom network, or Standard Oil’s operations to Google’s page-rank algorithms. Nor can be “broken up” in the same way that a physical business such as AT&T was. Regulators must start from first principles to define fair business practices and it will be fascinating watching the evolution of norms for regulating the search market. The EC and FTC decisions will affect everybody’s surfing experience and have far-reaching repercussions downstream.

image
Business Standard
177 22
Business Standard

A whole new game

How Google is redefining monopoly

Business Standard  |  New Delhi 

What, precisely, are “monopolistic practices” in a world that is moving online? Can the same institutions drive our thinking about monopoly, online and off? Perhaps not. was the first business to leverage internet search to drive advertising. Its insight has translated into continuing dominance, through relentless innovation and a willingness to explore and embrace the new. However, monopolistic dominance can also be used to elbow out competition and the internet search giant is the subject of accusations and antitrust investigations. In 2012, registered over $50 billion in revenues with net profits of over $10 billion. Over 65 per cent of American searches and over 90 per cent of European searches used Google’s engine. Barring China and Russia, where local engines Baidu and Yandex dominate, drives well over half of all net searches in every key region. Yet the Antitrust Commission says it believes does not indulge in abusive practices, while recommending that change some of the ways in which it does business. The (EC) is in the middle of a similar antitrust investigation.

Internet search is tied to advertising and other monetisable services. has its fingers in many pies via Gmail, YouTube, Blogger, +, maps and sundry niches like credit-card evaluation, flight-hotel searches, local shopping listings, etc. Android, which holds over 70 per cent of smartphone market share, is integrated to services and also offers cloud-hosting and other services for websites. Each area has multiple competitors and it has been alleged that showcases its own services more prominently in its search and thus, drives traffic to its own offerings. For example, a search on a geographical name will throw up only maps; a search for free email lists Gmail (the third-largest provider) first; social media mentions favour Google+ (market leader Facebook has an exclusive search arrangement with Bing, and Twitter ceased to be a partner in June 2012). Searches for credit card providers and flight listings again display Google’s niche products first. According to the (FTC), some of agreements with advertisers also restrict the advertisers’ right to pair with other search engines.

claims that this cherry-picking occurs organically due to search algorithms geared to offer better customer experiences. Its competitors are unlikely to buy that seemingly circular logic: thinks its services offer the best customer experience, and hence develops algorithms to drive traffic to its services. But a shopping mall is entitled to display affiliated brands more prominently and is arguably applying the same principle. There are similarities between the Android-integration and Microsoft’s integration of the Internet Explorer browser with the Windows operating system in the 1990s. But there are also differences. Android is free, Windows paid. The user needs a primary Gmail account to fully exploit Android; Windows' performance is unaffected by the use of a different default browser.

Monopolistic abuse is unhealthy and it is incumbent upon regulators to prevent it occurring in cyber-domains as much as offline. But in new virtual markets, it is difficult to draw analogies from prior case-law and regulators can be left groping to decode the business dynamics. One can hardly compare AT&T’s telecom network, or Standard Oil’s operations to Google’s page-rank algorithms. Nor can be “broken up” in the same way that a physical business such as AT&T was. Regulators must start from first principles to define fair business practices and it will be fascinating watching the evolution of norms for regulating the search market. The EC and FTC decisions will affect everybody’s surfing experience and have far-reaching repercussions downstream.

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

A whole new game

How Google is redefining monopoly

What, precisely, are “monopolistic practices” in a world that is moving online? Can the same institutions drive our thinking about monopoly, online and off? Perhaps not. Google was the first business to leverage internet search to drive advertising. Its insight has translated into continuing dominance, through relentless innovation and a willingness to explore and embrace the new.

What, precisely, are “monopolistic practices” in a world that is moving online? Can the same institutions drive our thinking about monopoly, online and off? Perhaps not. was the first business to leverage internet search to drive advertising. Its insight has translated into continuing dominance, through relentless innovation and a willingness to explore and embrace the new. However, monopolistic dominance can also be used to elbow out competition and the internet search giant is the subject of accusations and antitrust investigations. In 2012, registered over $50 billion in revenues with net profits of over $10 billion. Over 65 per cent of American searches and over 90 per cent of European searches used Google’s engine. Barring China and Russia, where local engines Baidu and Yandex dominate, drives well over half of all net searches in every key region. Yet the Antitrust Commission says it believes does not indulge in abusive practices, while recommending that change some of the ways in which it does business. The (EC) is in the middle of a similar antitrust investigation.

Internet search is tied to advertising and other monetisable services. has its fingers in many pies via Gmail, YouTube, Blogger, +, maps and sundry niches like credit-card evaluation, flight-hotel searches, local shopping listings, etc. Android, which holds over 70 per cent of smartphone market share, is integrated to services and also offers cloud-hosting and other services for websites. Each area has multiple competitors and it has been alleged that showcases its own services more prominently in its search and thus, drives traffic to its own offerings. For example, a search on a geographical name will throw up only maps; a search for free email lists Gmail (the third-largest provider) first; social media mentions favour Google+ (market leader Facebook has an exclusive search arrangement with Bing, and Twitter ceased to be a partner in June 2012). Searches for credit card providers and flight listings again display Google’s niche products first. According to the (FTC), some of agreements with advertisers also restrict the advertisers’ right to pair with other search engines.

claims that this cherry-picking occurs organically due to search algorithms geared to offer better customer experiences. Its competitors are unlikely to buy that seemingly circular logic: thinks its services offer the best customer experience, and hence develops algorithms to drive traffic to its services. But a shopping mall is entitled to display affiliated brands more prominently and is arguably applying the same principle. There are similarities between the Android-integration and Microsoft’s integration of the Internet Explorer browser with the Windows operating system in the 1990s. But there are also differences. Android is free, Windows paid. The user needs a primary Gmail account to fully exploit Android; Windows' performance is unaffected by the use of a different default browser.

Monopolistic abuse is unhealthy and it is incumbent upon regulators to prevent it occurring in cyber-domains as much as offline. But in new virtual markets, it is difficult to draw analogies from prior case-law and regulators can be left groping to decode the business dynamics. One can hardly compare AT&T’s telecom network, or Standard Oil’s operations to Google’s page-rank algorithms. Nor can be “broken up” in the same way that a physical business such as AT&T was. Regulators must start from first principles to define fair business practices and it will be fascinating watching the evolution of norms for regulating the search market. The EC and FTC decisions will affect everybody’s surfing experience and have far-reaching repercussions downstream.

image
Business Standard
177 22

Upgrade To Premium Services

Welcome User

Business Standard is happy to inform you of the launch of "Business Standard Premium Services"

As a premium subscriber you get an across device unfettered access to a range of services which include:

  • Access Exclusive content - articles, features & opinion pieces
  • Weekly Industry/Genre specific newsletters - Choose multiple industries/genres
  • Access to 17 plus years of content archives
  • Set Stock price alerts for your portfolio and watch list and get them delivered to your e-mail box
  • End of day news alerts on 5 companies (via email)
  • NEW: Get seamless access to WSJ.com at a great price. No additional sign-up required.
 

Premium Services

In Partnership with

 

Dear Guest,

 

Welcome to the premium services of Business Standard brought to you courtesy FIS.
Kindly visit the Manage my subscription page to discover the benefits of this programme.

Enjoy Reading!
Team Business Standard