|
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
In other words, let's redefine monopoly away from "has a large market
share" to "has the ability to indulge in price-fixing".
Which, as I keep saying, is why the UK Monopolies and Mergers Commission take a
keen interest in anyone with a market share over 20% ...
And which is why Google does NOT have a monopoly in that sense - as has much
been pointed out, the competition is a mouse-click away. Advertisers pay Google
because ads work. If Google upset the searchers, then the ads quickly become
worthless. And Google are treading a fine line here - if they kow-tow to the
advertisers they will *rapidly* drive the searchers away - after all that's how
they attracted the searchers in the first place - they treated the *adverts* as
second-class citizens. The adverts need to know their place!
And actually, I *very* *rarely* search for something I want to buy on Google -
when I do I find the results are normally so badly poisoned by advert
aggregators as to be pretty useless! So I go direct to Amazon, or Play, or other
sites I know that are *real* *shops*. And when I do have to hunt for a product
on Google, I find it a real hassle. Come on - "Buy Evelyn Glenny on
Ebay"! -are Ebay into slavery?!?! Yet that's what I sometimes see in the
Google search results!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|