|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 01:32 PM EDT |
Not quite. Microsoft was a monopoly in OSes while Apple, Linux (in its
infancy), and BSD all existed. A monopoly doesn't require no alternatives, it
just requires enough market dominance that the normal market pricing mechanisms
cannot effectively restrain the monopolist's behavior.
Now: If Google started charging one dollar per search, what would happen? I
prefer Google to Bing, but not that much. I'm not alone. Google would lose 90%
of its market share. So does Google have monopoly power in the search market?
No.
MSS2[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 02:15 PM EDT |
In the US, at least, having a sufficiently dominant position
in a market (which does NOT need to be 100%) can be considered
"illegal per se," even if the company in question used no
illegal tactics to become dominant.
See US v Alcoa.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
And advertising is customer driven... very hard to have a monopoly under those
circumstances.
This is a major flaw in the "google search monopoly" claims.
Advertising only sells when the customer profits. Google does this well,
customers use google. If google didn't do it well, or at least better than the
competition, the customers would go elsewhere.
The bottomline is Bing, Yahoo, etc simply do not do it as well, and the customer
find google more cost effective. Ask any newpaper why their paper ads have
fallen off... the web is more cost effective. This is advertising 1A, and
always has been.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
