It's about the consumer, stupid.
The proponents of an antitrust investigation of Google suggest Google is inhibiting competition by setting up barriers harming consumers. But a close examination of Google's entry into multiple consumer markets illustrates the opposite -- that where Google competes, consumers benefit. In fact, what many supporters of an antitrust investigation of Google do is to intentionally conflate the interests of consumers with the interests of competitors of Google. They are indeed distinct and separate; mistakenly intertwining the two to justify an investigation of Google is a fundamental twisting of facts and a misuse of longstanding antitrust law.
Google has never tended to destroy competition. In fact, in most of the markets it has entered, it has stimulated competition, reenergized markets and created more consumer choice, not less.
Witness: search. When Google entered it, Yahoo! was sitting on a big lead as the incumbent. Google had built a better mousetrap, and within a year, built its leadership in the marketplace through providing a better product. It is important to remember how Google did this -- through a search interface that was easier to use and more accurate. Google critics conveniently jump directly to the present time, saying the company uses the massive scale of searches it processes to protect its lead, while ignoring how Google achieved popularity in the first place.
Additionally, consumers have the ability to walk away from Google at any time. Google's own browser and mobile operating system allow consumers to change the default search engine to either Yahoo! or Bing at any time. This is hardly the kind of "lock in" that would bar consumer choice that antitrust law is designed to deal with. The competition is just a click away.
Look at online maps. MapQuest dominated this market when Google jumped in with its Google Maps product. Anyone would be hard pressed to find a commentator who doesn't prefer the features and flexibility of the Google product to the former market leader.
Google hardly owns every market it enters. But even when they are a runner up, they often improve the consumer experience, even with competitor products. Microsoft and Yahoo! ruled the online email market as late as 2007. Today, by providing a better user experience, Gmail has nearly achieved a tie with Windows Live Mail, according to Experian Hitwise. Many of its features have been introduced by competitors, and as a result, it has stimulated a healthy market for consumers across the board.
Products like Buzz, which were a flop on introduction, also have the benefit of keeping the dominant player in the social networking world, Facebook, on its toes and continuing to innovate. A world without Google would allow Facebook to remain dominant and unchallenged by any significant competitor in the social space.
Google has also introduced products that have challenged some of the big players in the offline world, as well. Google Voice will never supplant cell phone service providers. But by providing free voice service and text messaging to cell phone users, Google spurred competition in the mobile market and keeps a check on price increases by the incumbents. Much of what motivates supporters of an investigation of Google at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is not a genuine desire to protect consumers, but a desire to protect competitors from Google's intense competitive nature. However, it is critical to remember why antitrust laws were written in the first place.
They weren't designed to ensure companies like Foundem, a search comparison site, is guaranteed a high placement in Google search results. They weren't written to guarantee that Microsoft's Bing can achieve a higher market share among search engines, either.
According to the Supreme Court, antitrust laws exist not for the benefit of corporations, but for the aid of consumers. In one case, Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, the court stated this point clearly and powerfully:
"The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself."
The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction to investigate anti-competitive conduct in broad sectors of the economy, including the technology sector. But an antitrust investigation of Google, prompted by complaints that have more to do with the needs of competitors than with the best interests of consumers, is out of touch with the commission's purpose of protecting consumers.
Google Confirms FTC Antitrust Investigation
Google Said to Be Possible Target of Antitrust Probe by FTC ...
Microsoft Accusing Google of Antitrust Violations - NYTimes.com
Google's deal for Admeld faces antitrust review | Digital Media ...
It's an investigation, if Google really didn't do anything wrong, then this is nothing more than an investigation.
And you also have to respect that while the law is imperfect, and may be imperfectly applied, we're a damn sight better off going by law than some sort of astroturf direct polling of whether any given business wears a white or black hat. The last thing we need in this country is legit businesses having to hire lobbyists and revolving-door congresscritters and their staffs, so they can go about ordinary business, while others get shaken down for not advertising how they play ball in DC.
So what's wrong with the FTC investigating whether Google is breaking the law, or needs to be reminded of it? You think your judgements are better than courts' or the DoJ's? … that the regulations that Congress asks agencies to write are worse than what YOU would do?
Whipping up public support for your client is just part of the gig.
choices of search) and are known for their acting as gatekkeepers, censors, of
information for whatever reason... are now applauding that investigation for dubious
reasons. And for consumers lots of advertising is not popular, another sore point
for those against Google. http://tinyurl.com/6hf8277
I don't see a contradiction here. Bad companies never grow to the point trust busting becomes an issue. It is precisely because Google is such a great company that it needs to be kept in check.
Either something like the fairness doctrine needs to be put in place protecting users, or Google needs to be handicapped.
This is the inherent problem with all consumer 'protection' regulations.
(And no, I don't mean there shouldn't be regulations).
Counter examples from the 1800 include railroads that provided great services at low prices until they were the only transport in an area. Then they drove up prices and forced dependent businesses (like farmers) into bankruptcy.
Does that mean the railroads were evil? No. They were businesses doing their best. But what was good for them was bad for everyone else.
It was decided that is better as a society if we set the goalposts of success differently. A lot of effort went into setting laws so when businesses succeed they brought the people along with them. Anti-trust laws were a big part of our economic history for this reason.
I see nothing in Google's case that makes it a special exemption. Yes it's a great company. If it weren't we wouldn't need to use anti-trust laws against it.
A big part of why America is failing on main street is because we allowed large companies, particularly banks, to dominate our economy. We need more aggressive monopoly breaking, not less.
Your reading of antitrust law is way off. For example monpolies are not illegal, however, achieving a monopoly or using a monopoly in an anti-competitive fashion (dubbed "monopolization") is illegal. A company having large market share is never illegal.
Keeping commerce and trade flowing was one of the reasons the Articles of Confederation were rejected in favor of the Constitution. There are decades of U.S. precedent and centuries of common law precedent on this issue.
What kind of world are you proposing? To argue that company has a right to control what I see, read, and think is irrational, even if they are so pervasive that other voices are silenced.
Google sells advertising and as I described in my HuffPost piece - You're Not Google's Customer -- You're the Product: Antitrust in a Web 2.0 World (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-newman/youre-not-googles-custome_b_841599.html), Google has massive monopoly dominance in search advertising. It controls 76% of search advertising and an overwhelming 97% of mobile search advertising. And they control a pretty massive portion of general display advertising on the Internet as well.
This gives advertising customers on the web almost no option not to use Google-- a pretty basic definition of any monopoly. But the consumer harm is not just to the advertising customers. Because of that massive control of information of both consumer behavior and advertiser behavior, it gives Google such an information edge that is now leveraging those positions into other markets, especially e-commerce. The company recently used it's control of the Android operating system to demand operators stop using a rival geolocation service, Skyhook-- a classic antitrust tying violation -- one that denied handset customers access to what was arguably a better service. (See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-newman/a-window-into-googles-mon_b_859582.html)
So there's more to the case than whether people like Google Search or Maps (which I do too btw)