@Joe
So Joe, If you say monopoly often enough it becomes true?
Why do you always accuse Google of holding a monopoly even though people are not compelled to use them and people can with the click of a mouse go elsewhere.

Can you say that about Microsofts "MONOPOLY" on the desktop???

Can i just get a HP Pc without Windows or do i have to pay the Microsoft tax?? Im a guy not a business, do i have a choice??? answer = NO!!

I suggest you stop throwing mud hoping some will stick. Your just a corporate bully. Nothing more.

KitKat - Maybe you can't buy an HP PC without Windows, but there are plenty of other places you can go to buy a PC without Windows, and there always have been. It's HP's choice not to offer you other operating systems; I'm guessing they have chosen not to do so because they don't expect to make money doing so. Nobody was ever forced to use Windows.

And yes, it's correspondingly easy for users to use any other search engine, but I think the monopoly argument comes from the advertising standpoint: If Google has such overwhelming market share then advertisers are "compelled" to use them or get lousy penetration.

Not sure I buy it as a philosophical matter - as with Windows users, none of them are forced to use Google - but there's logic to the argument.

Joe: Please please learn the meaning of Monopoly. I do not mind if you argue that they have a monopoly, but at least start with a good definition.

Here is a good start for you.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=monopoly

It does not mention market share at all except for 'exclusive control or possession' and exclusive is always assumed to be 100% not 99.9%.

My definition involves the ability to influence the market in such a way that normal market forces no longer work. I do not think Google have that much power, if they tried to make adwords prices extortionate or tried to sell organic rankings, then their search share would drop as quickly as it rose.

If you still think they have a monopoly, then can the third in this series explain how they can influence the market, rather than just their market share.

We are only interested in market forces working properly, we do not care if someone produces something which is much better than their competitors and therefore everyone uses it (like the iPod - again another non-monopoly).

They're not a monopoly because I can't search elsewhere. They're a monopoly because I can't advertise elsewhere. As a consumer of search, there are almost surely alternatives that are as good as Google. But Google has 100% control over advertising, because if I don't like their terms, I can't effectively go elsewhere when their closest "competitor" has only a few percent of market share.

It's like saying the broadband providers don't have a monopoly. True, if I don't like RoadRunner, there's always dial-up.

If competitors have a few percent marketshare then by definition, Google cannot have 100%. According to Joe it is about 30%, not a few percent.

Their advertising revenue relies heavily on their search queries, so maintaining the best search results are paramount to them. If someone else can come up with a better search engine then they can take a lot of that share overnight. If someone makes a good competitor to adwords, then the same will happen.

joe you sound happy with the fact that Google has monopoly in advertisements but you hate the fact that Microsoft has monopoly in OS, why is this so? .. also what are you trying to prove by saying "...We now have two loveable losers, Sun and Microsoft, in a last-ditch gasp...."

@DaveN
He said "They're not a monopoly because I can't search elsewhere. They're a monopoly because I can't advertise elsewhere. As a consumer of search, there are almost surely alternatives that are as good as Google. But Google has 100% control over advertising, because if I don't like their terms, I can't effectively go elsewhere when their closest "competitor" has only a few percent of market share."
-
Now do you and people who Shill for MS realize why people promote alternatives to MS? No its not right, but I have very little sympathy for a desperate MS trying to push MSlive, when really this is just the beginning of the poetic justice that MS has coming to them all across the IT board.
-
I for one wont shed a tear for MSlives tragic efforts compared to Google.
-
Id suggest then, if Google is no good for you (or is that not the case?), you vote with your feet. Maybe you could explain what terms of Google are not good for you or what the problem is? Fact is rightly or wrongly people are using Google. You can moan all you like, this is not a problem with Google this is a problem with users using Google.
-
Im quite sure there are many engines that provide the same results as Google. The fact is google is a worldwide household name, and people are used to searching with it. Hell, its even become its own word. "Google me."
-
"MSlive me" doesnt have the same ring does it?

Monopoly? meh... not even close.

Microsoft is just a little boggled since their usual tactic of giving it away until the competition goes under doesn't work since we search for free as it is. Heaven forbid they have to compete on quality, use good marketing and name brand recognition.