Google’s seemingly unstoppable meteroic rise to online success is starting to trigger calls to do something about the search and advertising giant. Microsoft, of all companies, thinks Google’s $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick is a violation of the antitrust laws.
Viacom has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Google-owned YouTube and privacy advocates are kicking up a fuss over just how much specific consumer information Google will have in its hands once the DoubleClick deal goes through.
Today we have this curious and cryptic column from the Washington Post’s Steve Pearlstein that says, in essence, Google is just too big and too successful and therefore it’s time to restrain the company.
Pearlstein’s logic doesn’t hang together, however. He basically says that Google is getting more profitable all the time and has so much money it can outbid rivals for gems such as YouTube and DoubleClick. He then conflates Microsoft’s antitrust suit with the rise of Google, saying that without the government’s suit against Microsoft, Google might not exist. Therefore, Google should be restrained.
Consider this: There may never have been a Google without the government’s antitrust suit that prevented Microsoft from crushing upstart rivals. By the same principle, isn’t it time to begin restraining Google to increase the odds another Google will come along?
Say what? The fact that Google has soooo much money it can outbid rivals is not a justification for imposing restrictions on Google. The only justification for imposing antitrust-based restrictions on Google is if the company’s actions or market share make the marketplace less competitive.
Moreover, in theory Google’s mountain of money may just be a result of the fact that it is a better, more efficient company than most, and not a result of monopolistic profits. The government is not usually in the business of punishing efficient, successful companies. And there is a lot to say about how Google is making the marketplace more, not less, competitive.
And does anybody think that Microsoft’s antitrust woes led to the rise of Google? Microsoft, as well as the rest of the tech industry, had little interest in search as a stand-alone money-making business until Google showed the way. Although a lot of companies were in the search business, only Google tackled search as its main focus — everyone else thought it a nicety and not a main business. The DOJ’s pursuit of a lawsuit against Microsoft had no bearing at all on the rise of Google because Microsoft didn’t even fear the rise of Google until it was too late.
Still, there’s no denying that when it comes to Google, the argument that “big is bad” resonates with many smart, knowledgeable people. Om today has this item on the privacy suits Google is facing and notes that
Though most of the issues are quite known amongst the technorati, the groups are right in bringing them up, as Google’s dominance of the online world is only increasing.
And where there is smoke, people will start finding fire. That’s just the way the world works and whether the company deserves to be restrained or not, the knives are most definitely out for Google.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 12:18 PM | Print | Comments (1)Yesterday I signed up for Twitter to see what all the fuss was about. As it turns out, MIT’s Technology Review’s Jason Pontin has this timely piece today in the New York Times about the so-called “instant blogging” tool which allows users to inform their network of contacts on a minute-by-minute basis what they’re doing.
But signing up for Twitter was as far as I got. Once I fully registered (twitter name msbrumfield), sent a text message from my phone and sent an IM from my instant messaging platform just to make sure I had set everything up properly, I realized that I don’t have much to communicate on an ongoing basis to that many people.
The first point where I got stymied was in choosing my Twitter friends. Hmmm…well, I do have friends and family members, but not that many who are on Twitter, or whom I could convince to join Twitter. I also have business associates and colleagues and fellow bloggers who are on Twitter, but do I really want them to know the minutiae of my my mostly uninteresting (to them, I would suppose) days?
And here’s another problem: I sometimes do things that I want only a very few close personal friends to hear about and I sometimes do things that no one ever gets to hear about. In other words, even if I had enough friends and colleagues to “tweet” on a regular basis, I don’t want everybody to know everything about me. And if I were to leave something out from my stream of tweets, I would feel, well, secretive or duplicitous.
Or as Pontin put it
But I also strongly disliked the radical self-revelation of Twitter. I wasn’t sure that it was good for my intimate circle to know so much about my daily rounds, or healthy for me to tell them. A little secretiveness is, perhaps, a necessary lubricant in our social relations. I wondered whether twittering could ever have broad appeal.
So, right now Twitter is a communications tool for only those people who have tons of trusted friends and who have nothing to hide or keep private. How many people fit that description? Not very many, I suspect. Or as Pontin puts it, it’s not clear if Twitter has enough universal appeal to be a successful business. He’s skeptical and so am I.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 10:53 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
