Infographic: is Google a Monopoly? A Historical Perspective

Information designer Jess Bachman tackles the history of Google, and the ever-frequently asked question: is Google a monopoly?

Google has a dominate market share of a very important gateway; internet search. Can they stay impartial when they have their own products to pitch? Whether or not they are a monopoly is up to the government and the best way to predict the future is to look to the past. Examining these four historical monopolies, and their outcomes, should give us a better sense of Google's fate.

A small snippet is posted above, but you really need to go view the whole thing.

Boing Boing editor/partner and tech culture journalist Xeni Jardin hosts and produces Boing Boing's in-flight TV channel on Virgin America airlines (#10 on the dial), and writes about living with breast cancer. Diagnosed in 2011. @xeni on Twitter. email: xeni@boingboing.net.

MORE: Business • google • Technology

More at Boing Boing

Ants and Stars: Bruce Sterling and Jasmina Tesanovic visit the Sardinia Radio Telescope in Italy

The Snowden Principle

Anonymous

Whether or not they are a monopoly is up to the government

Epistemology fail.
Bryan C

No, Google is not a monopoly.
Cowicide

I do believe Google is evil. But unlike many other corporatists, I have to give them credit for truly earning their place in search engine domination as opposed to using anti-competitive practices (here’s looking at YOU, Microsoft).

They were one of the first (if not the first?) search engines to get rid of all the ad clutter and quickly deliver search results. This gave them a huge edge back when broadband adoption was in its infancy. Hell, that’s why I switched to Google from other search engines at the time.

That said, now that they’ve created a monster, it’s probably time for the public to tame it.
traalfaz

AT&T, THAT was a monopoly. IBM just didn’t have any significant competition for a while. AT&T had an absolute monopoly over every aspect of telephone communications for decades.
Julien Couvreur

Only government creates monopolies.
Google, Microsoft and other dominant players in their industries are simply that, temporary dominant players.

http://dumky.posterous.com/monopolies

To elaborate a bit more:
1) define “monopoly” and justify why that definition is relevant
2) define the area of scope for the supposed monopoly
3) think critically about whether anti-trust regulations really have anything to do with monopolistic practices or consumer protection
- Cowicide
  
  Only government creates monopolies.
  
  Sigh…
  
  Logic… you lack it.
rastronomicals

Trysterosemp and others–Google or any other company has no legal obligation to act in any way at all UNTIL they become monopolistic, at which point their rights and responsibilities change.

In other words, what may be true for your or my company may not be true for Google or others with that kind of market share.

Google is of course the least of our worries, but surprised to see all the laissez faire, here anyway.

And yeah, the spelling and grammar was horrible. I hate to see that. Obviously an educated guy, but you wonder if he is aware of how his writing comes across when he makes junior high-level mistakes.
Anonymous

The thing about monopolies is they are only a really a concern to regulators if through their size they effectively restrict competition either through their actions or success.
The thing is google is slightly different.

With a monopoly you have x number of shops in the area, effectively shutting down chances of a competitor opening a shop, for example.
Or you hold a monopoly in distribution of resources etc.

I’m not sure about the US but in the UK a 25% market share in is enough in some cases to get a monopoly definition.
Although smaller local monopolies can also exist. The nightmare of rail privitisation, which was always a big mistake, was made much worse because it essentially created regional monopolies that have no one to compete against on their lines.

The point I’m getting at is that the internet is essentially an unrestricted platform (well at the moment). You cannot stop someone from competing against you; you may utterly dominate the field in the way google or facebook does but it can never stop a competitor from operating.

Google might be a monopoly in some senses, but not in the way that argument is suggesting.
- Cowicide
  
  You cannot stop someone from competing against you
  
  Hahaha… such a cute concept! You kids are adorable.
  
  [cow pets child on head after pulling his fingers away from live power outlet]
Anonymous

Google does not have access to either yahoo maps or mapquest data internally, It can not index their map data. So it can not show them on search results even if it wants to do.
Todd Knarr

Remember that just having a monopoly isn’t in itself illegal. What’s illegal is using that monopoly position to a) block competitors from entering the market or b) give yourself an advantage over competitors in other markets. I don’t see Google doing either of those things. Not even with the search rankings of e-mail services. Remember, Google is ranking by relevance, not size. Yes, Yahoo Mail may be the biggest in terms of existing subscribers, but how many people are *talking* about Yahoo Mail? Not many. So I can easily see how Google Mail ends up being mentioned and linked to more often on the Web than Yahoo Mail is, and if that’s the case then *shouldn’t* Google Mail reasonably show higher in search results for Web-based e-mail services?
hostile17

Clearly talented, wants to talk about BIG issues, yet doesn’t know the difference between it’s and its.
Anonymous

The email thing is interesting. Is GMail really only the third largest provider? Sure, Yahoo has been around a lot longer, but in actual usage, I see ten GMail addresses for every Yahoo one I see (or anything else, for that matter)…
Anonymous

If I were running a commercial search engine I would always favor data & APIs which incurred my own costing model, aka ‘free’.

I would rather not pay a market competitor for their version of the same Map data.
Product recommendations would be those products I know best and have the most relevant data for, my own. When used for commercial purposes most mapping services are not free APIs.

The rest, browser and OS, are tools to enable the other products. “Free” is the ultimate response to a monopolistic market space.

Market share can be created by making your own luck.

Jim
Anonymous

Google uses its monopoly in search/ad to enter unrelated lines of business and destroy the value proposition of any competitors by giving away its products in exchange for, yes more advertising.

It is bad for the public, bad for innovation and bad for the consumer who as a result of aformentioned absurd advertising becomes an ever less intelligent decision maker with every passing day.

Google doesn’t innovate anymore they haven’t in a long time. They acquire, and pump and dump in order to churn more ads.

You think Google execs said to themselves you know, the smartphone operating system ecosystem is in desperate need of some innovation? No, they acquired Android from Rubin (who knew full well he was stealing from Sun because he tried to do it at Danger and ended up getting j2me certification) in order to give it away for free to completely destroy all other mobile os vendors so that your eyeballs will be viewing more of its ads. They never put much effort into actually competing for a profit (see tiny sales and marketing effort Nexus One).

Google, Too Big To Fail shouldn’t apply to us, “We’re Not Evil” so trust us already.

Or whatever.

Not saying I have all the answers but Google is definitely subject to the same market forces the rest of us of try to compete in.
bardfinn

Google’s not a monopoly. They’re just the ones doing it right.
- Cowicide
  
  Doing what right? Anti-competitive practices? Absolutely. They’ve honed it down to a finely-tuned science over the years. Congrats.
doingsitups

For search, just try Yahoo, I switched to Yahoo about a month ago, just because I was sick of the word “Google” lol. Yahoo finds what I want, when it doesn’t I always think maybe Google can find it, nope. At least for the things I search for, they seem the same, the differences in the results aren’t even worth mentioning because they are always useless links.
Blaine

How the hell can a service that people voluntarily use be a monopoly because they don’t promote their competitors?

Is McDonald’s a monopoly if they don’t tell you the prices of a Whopper?
Anonymous

How to tell if Google is a monopoly from the informaiton in the simple graphic above. Are any of the circles completely blue? If at least one of them is then Google is a monopoly. If none of them are then Google is not a monopoly.
Anonymous

When I search for “email”, the first result is Hotmail.
When I search for “news”, Google News is the 6th.
When I search for “browser”, Chrome is 4th.
When I search for “blog”, Blogger is 3rd.

Google’s own engineers started Data Liberation (http://www.dataliberation.org/) to help you export your personal data from Google services.

GMail lets you access through IMAP or POPS, Google Docs exports to ODT, RTF and PDF, Reader exports to OPML, Youtube lets you download the videos you’ve uploaded, etc.

Android, Chrome, WebM, all true OSS products you can modify and use even for profit without asking for permission.

I don’t see how Google is abusing their monopoly. They seem one of the most open companies out there.
Yes, they’re big, and I dislike how they’re everywhere on the web, “following” you everywhere.
But abusing a monopoly? How?
Anonymous

Remember, monopolies aren’t illegal. Antitrust law is about weighing the effect of monopolies. Are they detrimental to the public? How they treat competitors is sometimes a symptom of abuse, but not proof of abuse.

It’s gong to be damn hard to prove the public is harmed when companies are fighting over who is providing free services. They will be left trying to prove Google is extracting monopoly rents from its actual customers (advertisers), which in turn are a burden on the public. Any proof of that? I’m genuinely curious.
- Cowicide
  
  prove Google is extracting monopoly rents from its actual customers (advertisers), which in turn are a burden on the public. Any proof of that? I’m genuinely curious.
  
  Then why don’t you genuinely research that and get back with us?
Trysterosemp

My logic here may be off, but it seems to me that a search engine shouldn’t have any legal obligation to be “the best and unbiased.” If I want to start a search engine that highlights my own products or someone else’s then why shouldn’t I be able to? Even if it’s the largest in the country? People can simply choose to use a different search engine if they don’t like my engine’s bias.

Earlier this year (or was it last year?) Google changed their policy on music searches such that it always privileges myspace and wikipedia. Though in that case Google was transparent about it, so maybe it’s cool for search engines to highlight their own products or whatever the hell else they want as long as they publicize it and don’t do it hidden behind secret algorithms…
Church

No.

Now IBM, THAT was a monopoly.

For a bit, anyway.
danwarning

The bit about “search for email” leaves me wondering why they’ve skipped naming who’s first, if Google is 3rd, Yahoo Mail is 2nd and Microsoft is [sic] “forth.”
hassenpfeffer

MAN does Bachman need some basic grammar and spelling lessons.
- byJess
  
  That is something I will not dispute!
Prufrock451

I love this, but GOD, the grammar/punctuation/spelling mistakes are making my head throb.
Anonymous

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t anti-trust decisions concerned with products? That is, the govt is concerned about price-fixing and/or preventing other companies’ products from getting to the market to compete on the merits of the product?

Googles’ product isnt search, its advertising – what is their marketshare of online ad sales? I think that is the relevent question, not what percentage of the user-community choose to use Google for search.
Trent Hawkins

Wait a minute, the issue with IE was that it was a product packaged with an operating system that negated the need for other products in the same market, essentially they charged you for a browser when you bought the OS and were unlikely to buy another one.

It’s not like Google forces you to buy a G-Mail account the moment you log on to the internet.
Zadaz

“Search for Email and Gmail is ranked first despite being the third largest service.”

Ranked by who? There is a derth of citations for the graphic.

And besides, maybe Google knows that I don’t want the email that has the most users, but the one with the features that match my browsing pattern. Or that if I search using Google I’m most likely to mean Gmail. Or I’m like my sister who things email and Gmail are the same thing. In which case it returned the result in the correct order.
- ikegently
  
  Ranked by Google. As in returned at the top of the search results.
  
  And since we are correcting grammar on this thread: Ranked by whom.
zio_donnie

Monopoly? Hardly in the legal term, though most definitely in everyday speak. You don’t search stuff you “Google” it.

That said Google is a for profit corporation and only simpletons buy the “do no evil” rubbish. It is only natural that they will promote their in house products over others. And that they will do everything to maximize profits including selling your info.

I use Google search because i find that is more accurate for quick searches, tho’ for serious research i use the others too. I use Yahoo mail as my primary address because i find the Gmail interface horrible. I use Gmail to register in sites because i rarely bother to check it. I hate hotmail but i use an account for MSN messenger only. Google maps is simply superior and there is no other viable option.

Every service has pros and cons, and luckily all of those mentioned are free. And you cannot argue with free. If i paid for an objective search machine and the results were manipulated that would be another case.
Anonymous

so that graphic is representing Googles market share with consumers who use most of Google’s services for free. useful info, but I’d like to see that put against what their market share is in query based advertising, both buyers and sellers. and advertising that’s integrated into videos. I’d really like to know more about how much of the money in their respective markets do Google’s products command. this is unlike At&t or the steel industry.

holla@me,
john
Anonymous

And similar “infographs” could be compiled for Apple, Facebook and Microsoft. All of whom have or will have their hands in the same spheres: Search, Maps, Video, Mobile, EMail, Browser.
ldillon

I just think Google is simple successful because they really do make better products. When I search with Google, I expect Google-centric results. If I wanted Microsoft-centric results, I’d use Bing. Can search engine results ever be completely neutral? Look at all the link spammers influence.

What differentiates Google from the monopolistic practices of Microsoft (for instance) is the the way Microsoft used their control of the Operating System (DOS, later Windows) to favor their products on a technical level. It’s very difficult to switch OS’s, it’s trivial to switch search engines. Microsoft also used assorted dirty tricks and proprietary formats. Google tends toward open formats. They’re releasing the source code for Android and Chrome OS. Huge difference.

Do we need to keep an eye on Google (or any large company) to make sure they keep playing friendly? Sure, but they are hardly a monopoly in the sense the Microsoft still is.
- zio_donnie
  
  “Do we need to keep an eye on Google (or any large company) to make sure they keep playing friendly? Sure, but they are hardly a monopoly in the sense the Microsoft still is.”
  
  Is Microsoft a malign monopoly? Not really. Unless Apple is the underdog that thinks differently and Linux is ready for the desktop just to mention the other 2 standard stereotypes. Laughable.
Rayonic

I’d say a business is only a monopoly if it can (but not necessarily does) quash competition purely based on its size (as opposed to the quality of its product and other factors.)

Even with the popularity of Google’s products, I somewhat doubt they could collude with ISPs to get the competition blocked.

Well, except for maybe Google’s advertisement business. They could *maybe* threaten to drop/overcharge advertisers that deign to advertise using other services. I don’t know that percentage of that market they own, though.
GraemeM

Try the same in Yahoo or Bing and see what happens. Google in its own way is as successful as Microsoft, only on the face of it with less “criminal” anti-competitor practice. Just the legal ones everybody else is doing, called industry practice.