Tip: Click here to scan for System Errors and Optimize PC performance

February 12th, 2009, 6:02 pm

9/10 searches in the UK were powered by Google. Yahoo and MSN were 4 and 3 percent respectively.

Google has definitely changed the face of the internet - some believe for the good of the net, others would argue with that.

People critical of Google point to their domination of natural search as well as PPC advertising. At this point in time, who could possibly com from from under the rug to challenge Google at what they're doing?

What are your thoughts?

Would you want to see a serious Google competitor break through or are you completely satisfied with Google and what they do?

February 12th, 2009, 6:26 pm

I don't think Google is a monopoly. A monopoly is when there are no other choices and there are.

Before Google, my favorite search engine was cyber411 which was unknown to most people. I also used Alta Vista for strange queries to obtain passwords. Google has topped those and more for any query and it's rare that I click on sponsored links.

[Breeze]

February 12th, 2009, 6:46 pm

It's not really a monopoly, there will always be other browsers, other search engines and other applications and programs. But to tell the truth I wouldn't mind. Google has high quality products and services, and they don't have the Microsoft 'in it for the money' approach or image. Even if there is a decent competitor in the future I couldn't see too many people making the switch, for reasons stated above.

[joebert]

February 12th, 2009, 9:24 pm

Google search works well for me.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I think the only people who have a problem with Google search-wise are failed businesses and con artists that can't get one by Google.

February 12th, 2009, 11:05 pm

Honestly I prefer Google over yahoo and msn.
I think searches in Google are more comprehensive.

February 14th, 2009, 3:19 am

I really do not think Google as the online monopoly because the guys working at the company have already proved to be professionals at what they are doing.

For example, all of the standards they have created in the SEO and web marketing world have proved to be useful and used by thousands of webmasters as well as other search engines.

Google is still leader in offering high quality content pages when people make searches and they are regularly working on their rankings algorithms.

February 14th, 2009, 6:02 am

So far, no one agrees with the OP.

February 16th, 2009, 2:56 pm

I like and use Google almost exclusively for searches and for other things as well.

Overall, to-date, the company has behaved well, in fact better than some of the companies they have literally replaced.

Having said that, there are inherent dangers ib having a single operator dominating one or more fields. And Google is not perfect. A particular beef of mine for which I have a lengthy post on my site is its over enthusiasm for marking genuine e-mail as spam if their origin is not a large company. It can and does introduce a barrier to entry to the Internet and that isn't good. The post I refer to can be found at http://zunob.com/content/gmail-and-spam ... ogle-power. It is in the form of an open letter to Google, which was the only way I could find to try contacting them about my genuine concern.

February 16th, 2009, 5:20 pm

Just because Google is behaving right now, does not mean it should "not" be considered a threat. For example the Rothschild Index is used as a measurement to determine if companies have to much market share within their product group. I read a book called "The Essence of Capilalism". It says how our society is moving away from monopolies, and towards a monopoly of capitals (aka P&G, Pepsi and Coke). Where will Google fit within this model 10 even 20 years from now? I am sure they will have many successful projects that will take more market share from other browsers.

My friend and I have decided the only way to become an industrial philanthropist & help benefit society was to beat the system. The only way you could beat the system & gain enough market share was to break through the market saturation (similar products from the same company), economy of scale (price breaks for running multiple ads), & brand loyalty (million $ contracts with global chains) is to take advantage of the consumer.

If you do not take advantage of the consumer, then your company may go under (due to market saturation, eco of scale, and brand loyalty). If your company goes under how do you become competition? Let's say your company does not go under, they they will make an attempt to buy your company/product out.

Catch 22... that is not necessary yet. I would say that Google is currently behaving. However never say never, the leadership of the company might change direction down the road.

[Breeze]

February 16th, 2009, 5:30 pm

Imagine how scary the world will be if Google goes to the dark side. Blade Runner comes to mind.

February 16th, 2009, 6:25 pm

Cerebro I see you call yourself the brain but you made one mistake. It's not taking advantage of the consumer that put's one ahead, it's taking advantage of the worker. The consumer can boycott a product but the worker can't boycott work. Read "Capital" by Karl Marx and other thinkers at:
http://www.marxists.org

Secondly, society is moving towards monopolies, not away from them. One example is in the media. Clear Channel and Murdock are two prime examples. Mom and Pop shops are on the decline. Look at all the lumber yards that Home Depot destroyed. There are many other examples.

Google doesn't pose that threat. They never get a dime out of me no matter what they do.

[ATNO/TW]

February 16th, 2009, 7:27 pm

Breeze wrote:

Imagine how scary the world will be if Google goes to the dark side. Blade Runner comes to mind.

Imagine what little attention this post may have gotten if I hadn't headlined it (given the current state of the search engine forums -i.e. predominantly worthless posts). Now think on that for a second and wonder why Google is so popular? Because everyone caters to it. Everyone watches what it does. Everyone wants to learn how to manipulate it, overpower it, beat it to death and feel they have "won"! Even in the other search engine forums here people constantly compare to Google.

Why don't people pay as much attention to the other engines? Because right now Google does it better. How did Q-Tips become a generic name for a branded name? After all Johnson and Johnson makes an equally good "cotton swab" product. But I bet you ask anyone that has J&J Cotton Swabs in their house for a Q-tip, guess what they go get. Same thing with Kleenex.

Google is permanently branded. Bet you most of us can't go a day without "Googling" something. Not to mention their other products work. I've used Google desktop since it came out and am about to install the enterprise version on my network. Why? Because it works and nobody else offers it like they do.

Monopoly? No. Just a better product that people currently prefer. I think somebody a few posts up mentioned a monopoly is when there is no other choice. And noted there are plenty of other choices.

Google, right now is just plain downright better. And as long as they stay better, I'll continue my preference for them.

February 16th, 2009, 7:34 pm

Google is Number 1 because they deserve it. Their search results are relevant.
Google is also a more benign company compared to Microsoft. They don't try to bully the competition and don't have an unfair advantage.
They are Number 1 because they are the best and deserve that spot.

February 17th, 2009, 12:14 pm

Don2007 wrote:

you made one mistake. It's not taking advantage of the consumer that put's one ahead, it's taking advantage of the worker.

You go to a restaurant, are you a consumer or a worker? What choices do you have for non alcoholic beverages? Pepsi or coke. Are you a worker or a consumer when forced with these 2 alternatives. You are not a customer to coke, their primary focus is on brand loyalty with franchises and restaurants. However, it is part of your daily lifestyle to ask "do you have pepsi or coke products?" As of right now, you do not have to work for these 2 900lb gorillas in order to feel the effects of their product dominance.

I will agree that maybe down the line, they will a stronger influence on the worker. Currently, coke is stirring up trouble in 3rd world countries with union repression. There are those who say, union activists in their work camps (yes folks they live at the factory) have been killed for these reasons. Coke is avoiding the unions since it will bite into their profit margin.

Don2007 wrote:

Secondly, society is moving towards monopolies, not away from them.

Coke and PepsiCo are 2 separate companies that are considered independent confectioners. They are past the stage of monopolies... they are monopoly of capitals. This means that instead of having one product and dominating the market with that, they are dominating the market with multiple products aka capitals. Coke has more than 450 brands in 200 countries. Proctor and Gamble is another example instead they are horizontally integrated (it is scary just how many capitals aka products they are trying to monopolize http://www.pg.com/common/product_sitemap.shtml).

The mission statement for PepsiCo is to basically sell you everything that you put into your body. Not just beverages, but food. I would consider them a monopoly if they dominated the market for 1 product, however they are talking about everything that you consume. This is a monopoly of capital.

Don2007 wrote:

Google doesn't pose that threat. They never get a dime out of me no matter what they do.

They do not pose a threat yet, however their leadership may change down the road (ie new board directors with special interests). Never say never. Since the goal of anyone in management is profit maximization, there is nothing wrong with checks and balances.

Don2007 wrote:

Cerebro I see you call yourself the brain

I'm not a brain, I just have mad skill.

February 17th, 2009, 6:25 pm

First of all, I like Pepsi but I would probably order a mixed drink anyway. First you said that we are moving away from monopolies, then you gave me 3 examples of monopolies, Coke, Pepsi and P&G and how they have me cornered. What about when I go to the health food store and order carrot juice or wheat grass juice, which I do quite often? Coke and Pepsi are nowhere to be found.