The Google Monopoly - Are They Too Dominant?

I'll stick with generic products... The scenario did not include mixed drinks

...but if it did I would get a Ginger Ale with Whiskey, splash of lime please.







I should have clarified, we are moving into a new bread of monopolies (aka much different and powerful). We are moving towards a handful of companies controlling everything. That is a monopoly of capitals... If you would like to only look at one side of a rubric cube, then you can call this a monopoly.















That is because either these health food stores are:
A.) not major players in the restaurant/franchise business (Coke/Pepsi haven't noticed them on their radar yet).
B.) These health food stores center their strategic vision without Coke/Pepsi in mind. However, your health food store is a fluke comparison when considering other restaurant/franchise businesses (mom and pop diners, Taco Bell, Subway, Applebee's, Dairy Queen, Sushi restaurants, Walmart, CVS). This list can go on and on with majority of places having to decide between Coke and/or Pepsi. They have created a self-sustaining market that should be monitored to enhance the competitive environment. This is just one example of what can happen with companies that boast a boatload of brands.

This post is starting to remind my of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"

Google is still my search engine of choice, but that's the important operative term... I choose to use this service. At times, when I am looking for more esoteric information that I cannot find using Google, I will turn to Cuil, which turns up some very unusual results.

To a certain extent they are a monopoly by default, simply because the alternative choices that exist just don't return the consistent results that Google delivers.

— Möe

Capitalism encourages monopoly.

Until everything is produced by machines and the only jobs that humans do are entertainment jobs, someone must be taken advantage of in order to turn a profit whether it's the consumer or the worker.

Most businesses tend to lean on one untill that one begins to buckle under the pressure, then they switch to the other. Since people are a renewable resource thanks to sex, the other side tends for lose sight of how things work until they begin to feel the pressure again and the switch goes the other way.

Once in awhile a company leans the other way too soon, or leans on one for too long and the company crashes.

That sounds absolutely "dystopic" in a strange and wonderful way — but I think you will find, going down that route, that manufacturing efficiency and rabid consumerism have no staked interests in the welfare of anyone... one way or the other.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly (per se), right?

— Möe

Monopoly is a sign of near perfect efficiency, on its' own it's actually a good thing.

It's when people realize they can charge whatever they want and begin to get more credit than their product is reasonably worth where things turn sour.

"The scenario did not include mixed drinks"

What are talking about? The scenario was a restaurant. What restaurants do you frequent that only have Coke and Pepsi?

I've spent a lot of time studying economic structures and political super structures. You seem to be interested in that as well.
http://www.marxists.org is a good place to start. One can't understand capitalism until he understands Marxism. You don't have to be a Marxist but you have to understand the concept.

That's showing popularity of Google and whenever we need to search something first we remember Google because it's search result is quite relevant and people are happy with it's services so Google is on top.

It's not about google dominance, but the fact is that they are also providing good information in the internet.

I agree, companies try to lean out cost by the using a mixture of labor and capital. Depending on which is more efficient (cost min and production output) will determine what % of they use. I remember thinking about lights out factories that were completely automated by robots.


To take your statement a step further (with monopolies in mind), all empires fail with time. They over extend their resources, become corrupt, or loss productivity. We live in a new cultural age involving information, how long will Google remain dominant? Since an uncompetitive market does not benefit the consumer, how long until Google will have a reasonable competitor?

They are providing good information right now. Google has only been around for 11 years, they are merely a toddler. What will be Google's role with information in the next 20 or 30 years?

Normally, no one can see that far ahead. As you said, all empires eventually fail. Google's length of rule will depend on the length of capitalism which is in a state of decay, also over extending itself. I thought capitalism would limp along for another 50 years but it looks like it won't make it. All Americans should have a passport just in case. I have mine, do you have yours?

Ups to Breeze and and Cerebro. Everything you have said is on point. But, honestly, I don't worry so much about Google. Anyone who can make The Giant back pedal is okay with me. The fear with Google, because it is a publicly traded company, is that the ownership of the company could alter very quickly and therefore change the current responsible practices of Google.

My fear is access to the internet by the large cable, telephone, and broadband companies. They have been trying for years to squealch, control, and capitalize on all traffic and democratic practices via the internet. Google and the search engines are no threat to web neutrality like AT&T, Cox, et al. are.

Don2007, please expand your political and social consciousness a bit more, or at the very least avoid ad hominem attacks to support your thesis.

My world view is based on the indisputable characteristics of capitalism, the study of economic structures, political super structures and the current decay that we see occurring in front of our eyes. It is not based on corporate news reports which are just a mouth piece for the government.

No matter what I see in this world, there is always a republican near by to tell me that I don't see it but I don't listen to them and I won't listen to you either.