Steven Pearlstein - Time to loosen Google's grip?.
Some of this has to do with the fact that in high-tech industries, most of the costs are upfront, fixed expenses, such as developing the software program or writing the original algorithms. Once those are paid for, the "incremental" or "variable" cost of producing another copy of the software or doing an extra Web search is almost nothing.
These are also markets where customers tend to prefer the company that has the most other customers - what economist call a "network effect." ...
Antitrust regulators are well aware of these new economic realities. ... But so far, neither the Justice Department nor the Federal Trade Commission has been willing to use them to mount a broad challenge to Google and its strategy of using acquisitions to expand and protect its existing monopoly.
Regulators are painfully aware of the legal as well as the political risks of mounting such a challenge. But it is worth remembering that aggressive enforcement of the antitrust laws has been a crucial part of the history of technological innovation in this country, enforcement that allowed AT&T to be supplanted by IBM, IBM by Microsoft and Microsoft by Google.
It's easy to see why Google would want to use well-chosen acquisitions to try to delay or prevent that next round of creative destruction. What's harder to understand is why we would let them do it.
perche' tanto c'e' l'Europa e ci pensa l'europa a bloccare le espansioni in mercati adiacenti per aumentare la concorrenza, come e' successo a microsoft con media player.
succederà anche a Google, imho.
...The question now is how much bigger and more dominant we want this innovative and ambitious company to become. Google has already achieved a near-monopoly in Web search and search advertising, and has cleverly used that monopoly and the profits it generates to achieve dominant positions in adjacent or complementary markets. ...
There is nothing improper or illegal about Google's monopoly - like Microsoft and IBM before it, it earned that dominance fair and square. And given the dynamic nature of the technology sector, it would probably be counterproductive to prevent Google from using its money and talent to expand into new areas.
Where I have a problem, however, is in allowing Google to buy its way into new markets and new technologies, particularly when the firms being bought already have a dominant position in their respective market niches.
That was certainly the case with the company's recent acquisitions of You Tube, DoubleClick and AdMob. It is the case with Google's proposed $700 million acquisition of ITA Software, the leading provider of software used in online searches for airline flights, which is currently under review by the Justice Department. And it surely would have been the case with Groupon, the local Web advertising company, had the hot startup decided last month to accept Google's reported eye-popping $6 billion offer.
In theory, antitrust laws were meant to restrict such acquisitions by a monopolist. In practice, however, it hasn't worked out that way....
The ease with which Google has been able to extend its dominance reflects, in large part, the inability to adapt century-old antitrust laws to the quite-different economics of a high-tech economy that is susceptible to winner-take-all competition.
Nel mio seminario sugli ingredienti digitli, che forse qualcuno di voi ricorda, ho una slide con una foto degli ABBA.. (the winner takes it all)There is nothing improper or illegal about Google's monopoly - like Microsoft and IBM before it, it earned that dominance fair and square. And given the dynamic nature of the technology sector, it would probably be counterproductive to prevent Google from using its money and talent to expand into new areas.
Where I have a problem, however, is in allowing Google to buy its way into new markets and new technologies, particularly when the firms being bought already have a dominant position in their respective market niches.
That was certainly the case with the company's recent acquisitions of You Tube, DoubleClick and AdMob. It is the case with Google's proposed $700 million acquisition of ITA Software, the leading provider of software used in online searches for airline flights, which is currently under review by the Justice Department. And it surely would have been the case with Groupon, the local Web advertising company, had the hot startup decided last month to accept Google's reported eye-popping $6 billion offer.
In theory, antitrust laws were meant to restrict such acquisitions by a monopolist. In practice, however, it hasn't worked out that way....
The ease with which Google has been able to extend its dominance reflects, in large part, the inability to adapt century-old antitrust laws to the quite-different economics of a high-tech economy that is susceptible to winner-take-all competition.
Some of this has to do with the fact that in high-tech industries, most of the costs are upfront, fixed expenses, such as developing the software program or writing the original algorithms. Once those are paid for, the "incremental" or "variable" cost of producing another copy of the software or doing an extra Web search is almost nothing.
These are also markets where customers tend to prefer the company that has the most other customers - what economist call a "network effect." ...
Antitrust regulators are well aware of these new economic realities. ... But so far, neither the Justice Department nor the Federal Trade Commission has been willing to use them to mount a broad challenge to Google and its strategy of using acquisitions to expand and protect its existing monopoly.
Regulators are painfully aware of the legal as well as the political risks of mounting such a challenge. But it is worth remembering that aggressive enforcement of the antitrust laws has been a crucial part of the history of technological innovation in this country, enforcement that allowed AT&T to be supplanted by IBM, IBM by Microsoft and Microsoft by Google.
It's easy to see why Google would want to use well-chosen acquisitions to try to delay or prevent that next round of creative destruction. What's harder to understand is why we would let them do it.
succederà anche a Google, imho.
Se non l'hai letto, leggi il commento a quell'articolo che ha fatto Ingram di Gigaom http://gigaom.com/2010/12/15/how-big-should-we-let-google-get-wrong-question/
Le leggi antitrust servono a prevenire l'abuso di posizioni dominanti, che possono creare danni ai consumatori, ad esempio limitando la scelta o portando ad un aumento di costi.
Nel caso di Google questo effetto non s'è visto, semmai al contrario l'entrata di google su alcuni settori ha reso gratis servizi che prima si pagavano.
Anche la scelta di esempi è discutibile: quando Google ha comprato Youtube non solo la partita non era chiusa, non esisteva nemmeno un mercato. Per non parlare di tutte le acquisizioni di Google che si rivelano buchi nell'acqua (Orkut su tutti).
Non sono un fan di Google, ma se vogliamo criticarli parliamo di privacy, di profilazione ecc. Spezzare Google perché troppo grande non avrebbe socia giustificazione di mercato.
Scritto da: Andrea Campi | 16/12/2010 a 14:19
Si, ho letto il commento di GigaOM in cui l'autore dimostra di saperne veramente ben poco di antitrust.
E forse anche di tecnologia, perche' se si fosse ricordato del tying di media player in windows 3.1 o del breakup di AT&T si sarebbe dovuto porre una domanda sul perche' questi principi sono stati applicati a qualcuno che (primo caso) regalava software agli utenti e (secondo caso) forniva telefonia a prezzi ridotti agli utenti (il caso in realtà riguardava la Western Electric che abusava di posizine dominante, a fully owned subsidiary di AT&T).
Il bene primario che l'antitrust deve difendere e' la concorrenza, non un interesse locale dei consumatori.
Non mi pare che nessuno abbia detto che bisogna spezzare Google, cadomai che non devono autorizzarli l'acquisto di qualche società.
Il breakup di AT&T fu volontario, proprio per evitare una sentenza antitrust. Microsoftfu multata e semplicemente gli hanno detto di non dare le cose assieme.
Tetrapak fu multata perche' nonostante il divieto, fece una acquisizione.
Di questo si tratta. mica di altro.
e che c'entra se una ciambella non riesce col buco ? l'importante e' che ne riesca una che limiti la concorrenza....
Quando G ha comprato YT la partita era aperta. E proprio con l'acquisizione si e' chiusa.
Quando MS faceva tying di media player la partita era aperta.
E proprio per l'intervento Antitrust (Dio abbia in Gloria il prof. Cardani) e' rimasta aperta.
Scritto da: Stefano Quintarelli | 16/12/2010 a 15:06
Peraltro quando è stato acquisito YT il perdente della partita era Google Video: l'acquisizione di un concorrente di maggior successo, anche in un mercato molto giovane, avrebbe dovuto già allora far riflettere.
Scritto da: twitter.com/alessiodd | 20/12/2010 a 11:49