Google 2021 revenue: $258B
Meta 2021 revenue: $118B
Can someone explain how Google has a monopoly when there are competitors in their league?
Can someone explain how Google has a monopoly when there are competitors in their league?
> The lawsuit said Google had “corrupted legitimate competition in the ad tech industry by engaging in a systematic campaign to seize control of the wide swath of high-tech tools used by publishers, advertisers and brokers to facilitate digital advertising.”
Actually, yes. Because if they take down the #2 worst offender, that leaves #1 as the default option for consumers, and strengthens #1's position at #2's expense. It makes the problem even worse than before.
As a consumer who doesn't want to use Apple devices, and uses Google because that's basically the only other option for many things, anything that greatly harms Google harms me. Take down Apple and create more competition, and then I'll have more options and I'll be able to maybe choose some things other than Google. After Apple is broken apart, then Google becomes the #1 problem, so go after them at that time. (Yes, I know this particular case probably won't have that much effect on Google.)
And yet immediately:
> ake down Apple and create more competition, and then I'll have more options and I'll be able to maybe choose some things other than Google.
But Apple is #2. In everything except AppStore revenue.
Google's Android is #1
Google's Chrome is #1
Google's search is #1
Google's ad engine is #1
Google's Gmail is #1
A bunch of people in India using Android isn't much help when you're in a country where most people use Apple.
By your logic, most monopolies shouldn't be investigated or regulated at all, because most people on the entire planet don't use their products. One airline is fine, because most humans don't ever fly. One car company is fine, because most humans don't have cars. Etc.
It all depends on how you define the market. If you’re motivated to desire a certain outcome, it’s easy to define the market in a way to get what you want.
Indeed, the original purpose of anti-trust laws was to prevent trusts and cartels--multiple companies collectively fixing prices and ensuring that no new entrants can compete.
Also, having a monopoly (even an absolution monopoly) does not automatically mean you are violating antitrust law. You had to do something anti-competitive to get that monopoly or be doing something anti-competitive to maintain it.
The easiest way to think about it is that US antitrust law is about preventing monopolization, not about preventing monopolies.
The relevant part is around paragraph 187, under the "Google Further Stunts Header Bidding by Working to Bring Facebook and Amazon into Its Open Bidding Fold" header.
Maybe relevant disclosure: I used to work for a company that was a launch partner of Facebook's Audience Network [2]. In a separate lawsuit in 2020, some state attorneys general claimed that Facebook's internal communications showed that FAN was just a smokescreen to get Facebook leverage to make a deal with Google. Oops, silly us.
[1]: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1563746/downl...
[2]: https://www.facebook.com/audiencenetwork/news-and-insights/h...
Being a monopoly doesn’t mean you have no competitors - it means you have enough control of the market to artificially affect/set the market price for something (ie that there was not enough competition for efficient pricing).
Does it? Then why isn't every App Store's 30% developer fee a much more obvious monopoly?
This one is about ad tech.
DoJ is probably filing this lawsuit first either it's easier to win and/or they have gathered enough evidence.
Pretty sure they are looking into App Store antitrust too.
(i.e. in an effort to demonstrate competitiveness)
AFAIK, the app stores on gaming consoles want a similar cut.
It is also a monopoly. [1]
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-13/will-appl...
The critical thing here is how you define "market". Some people say that iPhones are a market, therefore Apple is a monopoly. Some people (like Apple) say that mobile devices are market, and Apple has like 30% market share.
You could argue that apple abused their market position to administer the fee. Or you could argue that they are entitled to charge the fee and consumers are free to leave the platform. It's a grey area.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.53...
Android/iOS market share? Duopoly really. Call it a monopoly? "How is it a monopoly when..."
What they mean. What is always meant, is, you have a market position so significant, that you can use to get an unfair advantage on competition. That's what this is about, that is what all of these usually are about.
But, it gets sidetracked by misuse of words that should be understood from context.
Antitrust, isn't exclusively about monopolies abusing their market position. It doesn't care that much about whether it is one actor abusing it's position, or if it's two... Or three.
The Amazon antitrust paradox is about how they aren’t a market leader in tons of their product categories but that they can cross leverage advantages between product categories and verticals to create anticompetitiveness. It’s an analysis of the internal structure of the business, not if they have competition in a narrow subset of outcomes.
Monopoly is being used as a substitute for the words bad actor or predatory not duopoly etc. IMHO it’s sloppiness and jargon to invoke emotion, and I’d prefer they used more precise words.
I think that behavior should be broadly illegal on the basis that it’s tantamount to false advertising and extortion.
Google claims to be a search engine; if you search for something very specific and well known like Spotify, providing you a paid advertisement as the top hit is essentially fraud.