Google executive Eric Schmidt had some interesting things to say during his U.S. Senate appearance.
It seems like every other month, Google is announcing a new product in a market that it hasn't previously attempted to enter and the company's definitely not in the habit of doing things by half-measures. The words 'Google' and 'monopoly' have appeared alongside each other a number of times, whether it's over book deals or the company's massive slice of the search market, and and it seems Google bigwig Eric Schmidt is under no illusions as to how powerful his company is.
According to Business Insider, the executive chairman of Google came close to admitting that Google was a monopoly while testifying before U.S. senate antitrust committee earlier this week.
"But you do recognize that in the words that are used and antitrust kind of oversight, your market share constitutes monopoly, dominant -- special power dominant for a monopoly firm. You recognize you're in that area?" Schmidt was asked by Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl.
Speaking to the committee, Schmidt's opening speech made reference to a company whose name was 'synonymous with innovation' and whose software was on nearly every computer. Schmidt said that 20 years ago, this company setting the world on fire "but [it] lost sight of what mattered" and then Washington stepped in.
"I was an executive at Sun and later Novell at the time," he said. "And in the years since, many of us in Silicon Valley have absorbed the lessons of that era. So I’m here today carrying a long history in the technology business and a very short message about our company: We get it. By that I mean that we get the lessons of our corporate predecessors."
Google has faced several antitrust accusations over the years in a range of different markets. In 2010, the European Union launched an official probe following accusations that Google was affording its own services preferential treatment in search results. In 2009, the Department of Justice launched a probe into Google's settlement with the Author's Guild of America. That same year, the European Union opened up its own investigation into the Author's Guild deal. Ahile Schmidt's comments won't do anything to dissuade those that already think Google is too powerful, BI Matt Rosoff points out being a monopoly isn't illegal -- you're just subjected to certain antitrust laws that others are not.
For more on Schmidt's U.S. Senate appearance, hit up Business Insider.
Monopoly? So what, if no one can do better in this area so far? Does that mean Google is to be sued or something?
Their power is scary, of course. And they have to be watched closely... but so far, Google helped everyone a lot.
Monopoly? So what, if no one can do better in this area so far? Does that mean Google is to be sued or something?
Their power is scary, of course. And they have to be watched closely... but so far, Google helped everyone a lot.
how many of us benefit from the online search as students, map searches, part numbers, business advertisement and connection, medical help, all with a simple vanilla interface unlike yahoo,bing, and others?
google on!
The government has no business bothering them for being successful. I thought the government was suppose to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship to create jobs in this crap economy, not hinder it. Doing crap like this just discourages entrepreneurs because they'll think, "Well, if I spend my life savings to invest in this business and become successful, the government will just step in and split my company/hard work. What's the point?"
Let's ask Apple...
Except the advertising revenue
All companies have an advertising budget
That budget is subsumed into a products retail price
...
Google exists entirely on advertising revenue
Consumers pay for it entirely
Dear Jane McEntegart,
How do you explain the discrepancy between:
'Schmidt admits google is in monopoly area' (title of article)
and
'Schmidt, according to some journalists, came close to admitting google is a monopoly'. (What the article actually claims)
?
Or perhaps in your book, 'admits', and 'someone said he came close to admitting' can be used interchangably?
To me, this kind of blatantly dishonest 'journalism' is shocking. At least others in the sensasionalism business do it in a less obvious way.
"Schmidt replied that yes, he agreed Google was 'in that [monopoly] area.'"
So he basically admitted, but not in the way you think he did. Either way, the author has every right to title the article they way they did because it is true, by agreeing he admits that google is in a monopoly area.
I think congress should go after Intel and Microsoft HARD before even thinking about going after Google, but the first 2 have lobbied/bribed away any real chance of facing consequences for their actions, which is why they're still allowed to monopolize..
Except that that's nonsense because the consumer can still choose NOT to click the advert or not to buy the product once they've clicked. In the former case there are no charges to companies, and in the both cases the consumer pays nothing full stop, whilst still benefiting from all of the Google services. And that option, is the original posters point.
Companies go out of business
High advertising cost still increases the price of products you buy.
At Google headquarters a man says in a meeting "Ok, now we have all the information of all the people in the world. Let's go evil. What do we do?". A woman exclaims "Let's make billions!". "WE ALREADY DO THAT. Man, we suck at this."
http://venturebeat.com/2011/09/21/yelp-joins-antitrust-lawsuit-against-google/
The steal other sites content and uses it in their own products.
Since they control search, they artificially rank their own products higher while lowering their competitors rank in search results.
This is no different than the bullshit microsoft pulled. Its anti-competitive 100%
Only if you buy them. Which is optional. Which is the point.
Do u pay more if you are referred to a site by google? No.
Prices simply include advertising cost.