No one forced you at gunpoint to use Google today, but you probably have. The trouble is you don't know how evil that tech company with a "gusher of profits" is.
Fortunately for you, Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein does, and he thinks Big Government -- awash in a gusher of tax revenues it collects from you involuntarily -- has just the remedy. More regulation.
Accompanying a cartoon in the print edition depicting Google as a many-tentacled sea monster, Pearlstein devotes four paragraphs to asking "How Much More Should It Be Allowed to Grab?"
Pearlstein started off by noting that "Google is the quintessential business success story" and that its meteoric rise is standing the company in good stead on Wall Street while its chief rival, Yahoo, is faltering.
Basically one company is doing a heck of a lot better in market share, thanks to the decisions of millions of users. But far from celebrating the Internet giant running up the scoreboard and trouncing the competition through wise business modeling and financing, Pearlstein wants the government to blow the whistle and call a technical foul.
"But now, precisely because of its success, it's fair to ask if Google should be barred from furthering its dominance through acquisitions or collaborations," he writes before worrying about the purchases of YouTube and DoubleClick which "in both instances" were bought on auction courtesy of Google's "gusher of profits."
Although he offers no evidence to bolster his assertion, Pearlstein
sees government regulation as key to unlocking the potential of the
Internet, pointing to the Microsoft antitrust case as the key to
opening the golden age of Google.
Pearlstein concludes his April 22 mini-column with the question, "isn't it time
to begin restraining Google to increase the odds another Google will
come along?"
Isn't it time the Post find business columnists that are cheerleaders of business success within the playing field of a free market, rather than cheerleaders of more regulation?
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What have we learned today ab
April 22, 2007 - 15:56 ET by JMSUWhat have we learned today about Newsbusters' take on Google?
Google's potentially anticompetitive practices: okay.
Google displaying a picture of melting ice on main search page for one day: not okay.
I think this post and the
April 22, 2007 - 16:05 ET by PSOSI think this post and the previous Google post (about their melting ice cap logo) are an excellent illustration of the differences between conservatives and liberals. We have problems with Google, but our solution is just to use a different search engine wherever possible. None of the conservatives commenting on Google's ideological agenda suggest that the government should be used as a weapon against the company. Conservatives love success and admire achievement, even among those we disagree with politically.
The left, however, when confronted with their greatest enemies (success and profits) immediately advocates bigger government to destroy the ideological threat. It doesn't even matter to them that Google's corporate culture is left-wing. Liberals view their own lives as spoiled and wasted, so when they see anyone or anything achieve even the most moderate measure of success, they immediately insist that government be used to ruin the threatening achievement. Their ultimate goal is not really equality but equality in misery. They're determined to use government as a means of making everyone as thoroughly unhappy as they are.
Google's corporate culture is
April 22, 2007 - 16:13 ET by dahliatraversGoogle's corporate culture is left-wing
Good point. Didn't Mr. Pearlstein get the memo on that? What's he doing attacking a liberal corporation?
Does Google's left-wing corpo
April 22, 2007 - 16:14 ET by JMSUDoes Google's left-wing corporate culture (your analysis) hate its own success and profits?
Also, the point that was made in this article is, Google may be involved in certain illegal business practices that distort the free market, thereby preventing you from having alternatives.
Does Google's left-wing cor
April 22, 2007 - 16:45 ET by PSOSDoes Google's left-wing corporate culture (your analysis) hate its own success and profits?
Yes. My analysis, as it were, is based on where Google employees (not the corporation) are donating their money. Googlers support politicians who want to take away company and employee cash through tax increases, make "windfall profits" impossible, and regulate business to death.
Also, the point that was made in this article is, Google may be
involved in certain illegal business practices that distort the free
market, thereby preventing you from having alternatives.
True monopolies are very rare. Not so long ago, it was feared that Microsoft would be an internet monopoly and that companies like Google would be pushed out of the marketplace since Microsoft controlled the browser, the desktop, and MSN. No one foresaw the rebirth of Apple, the rise of Firefox, or the dominance of Google. There will always be an alternative search engine because even if Google bought MSN Search, Yahoo, and Ask, someone else would just invent a new engine, bill it as "the Anti-Google," and refuse to sell it. Monopolies are more likely to occur in resources, where one company controls the entire supply of a particularly scarce resource (e.g. diamond or uranium). Don't lose sleep worrying that Google is going to destroy democracy and capitalism as we know it.
-Patrick
Patrick -Mr. Pearlstein direc
April 22, 2007 - 16:49 ET by JMSUPatrick -
Mr. Pearlstein directly addresses your point in his column, so I will spare my analysis and defer to him:
"Consider this: There may never have been a Google without the government's antitrust suit that prevented Microsoft from crushing upstart rivals."
It's a short column, and worth reading in its entirety, not simply what Ken has shared with us.
I took your advice and read
April 22, 2007 - 17:04 ET by PSOSI took your advice and read the full column. It strikes me that there's a fatal flaw with this argument: How did the antitrust suit prevent Microsoft from crushing upstart rivals? Pearlstein doesn't explain. Perhaps my memory is poor, but didn't the Bush Administration settle that suit, and wasn't the settlement very friendly to Microsoft? The company wasn't broken up. Microsoft made a few token concessions and paid out some cash. But I'm unclear on what specific actions the government took to allow Google, Apple, and others to catch up. Anyway, enjoy your Sunday ...
This is certainly worth furth
April 22, 2007 - 17:18 ET by JMSUThis is certainly worth further study. I'm going to e-mail Pearlstein and ask for the studies he refers to to make this point - I agree with you that this is the biggest leap he takes in the column. I'll let you know when/what I hear back from him.
(However, I would note that all Pearlstein has called for is regulation that mirrors the Microsoft Antitrust case. In your words, this only amounted to token concessions, so surely you wouldn't be too worried about similar actions taken towards Google, right?)
I suppose that depends on w
April 22, 2007 - 17:30 ET by PSOSI suppose that depends on whether my choice is between no regulation and token regulation, or full regulation and token regulation. ;-)
haha
April 22, 2007 - 17:33 ET by JMSUhaha
The case against Microsoft
April 23, 2007 - 00:08 ET by SportPoliticsThe case against Microsoft was partially destructive of the fortune of it's founders and shareholders. I don't think Gates ever got back to where he was, indicating msft hasn't either.
I enjoyed the case because msft argued that IE was an integral part of the os, and could not be detached from it. Some programming guru wrote a part of a tiny 1.44 floppy that did just that - removed IE from windows. It was hilarious, to say the least. It also wasn't allowed as evidence, as I recall. lol - Wow.
I think the problems with the government attempts in some cases are they go way overboard, don't know how to make their case, and wield large threats, instead of law and facts. I never quite liked the idea that the prosecutors want to make 20 charges, and hope they get 1 or 2 to stick, while they drive the stock down into the dirt, make false public accusations, and commit more crimes in their pursuit than the victim of their rampage likely has, or often ones of equally distrubing nature. Look how the government danced in the Martha Stewart case. That was disgraceful.
Tough to trust them to do the right thing. WE've got more lately, it's like a spreading virus. Lax on Sandy Berger, then on down the line, Fitzgerald lying in his press indictment about Libbyand the left wing ex-WaPo juror more or less saying they convicted an innocent man, Ronnie Earle, and Mike Nifong... who knows maybe it's so close to standard operating procedure, just a hare over what usually goes by. Can't say the SCOTUS makes me think any different about it, by what they've done the last ten years.
There were two major ways tha
April 22, 2007 - 22:21 ET by taznarThere were two major ways that MS was forced to change the way it did business.
The first was the "per processor" licensing. When computer manufacturers (OEMs like Dell, Gateway...) negotiated a license with Microsoft to put a Microsoft operating on some of their computers, Microsoft "required" they buy a license for every computer sold, not just the ones that would be sold with a Microsoft operating system. If they didn't agree to this term, MS wouldn't give them the same price breaks they would give other companies, placing disagreable OEMs at a disadvantage in the market place. That's why you couldn't buy a PC-compatible computer without a Microsoft Operating system. Even if a buyer wanted one without the Microsoft operating system, it didn't cost any less. That was the so-called "Microsoft Tax" which has been abolished, along with preferential pricing for OEMs who didn't install software that competed in any way with Microsoft (Netscape being the primary example).
Next, prior to the antitrust agreement, software bundling was nonexistant. Once Microsoft was denied its ability to prevent programs like Netscape from being installed on new computers by using licensing restrictions, they played the copyright card. They said the "look and feel" of Windows was copyrighted to the degree that having icons for "unaproved" software on the desktop or having dialog boxes pop up asking if you wanted to install 3rd party software was a violation of their copyright. According to their interpretation, a program like Netscape could be installed by the OEM, but there could essentially be no indication the program resided on the computer (no Netscape icon on the desktop, no popup saying it was there). The only way a user would know it was there is if they looked through the application folder and found it -but the presence of Internet Explorer was quite obvious. The antitrust trial also nixed that tactic.
So, like you, when I booted up the last PC I bought, it booted up with the Google tool bar right there in front of me. And, for better or worse, so did popups, notifications etc. for all kinds of 3rd party software. Without the antitrust trial, you would have been greeted with a MS brand of internet search and unless you felt Google search was really significantly better, you would never bother with changing (the fate of Netscape). Google wouldn't have had the opportunity to "get its foot in the door" the way Microsoft could.
Very informative post; than
April 23, 2007 - 16:05 ET by PSOSVery informative post; thanks! Given how terrible MS search is, I'm not convinced people wouldn't have switched anyway, but at the same time I've got to concede I'm pretty happy to be free from MS' lousy browser and engine. I guess the question becomes, is Google really doing anything similar to MS and how is the consumer being harmed? Moreover, would MS' attempt to gain a "monopoly" on the internet have really worked if the government hadn't stepped in, or would the company have faced a massive rebellion?
I can help you there PSOS
April 22, 2007 - 23:48 ET by SportPoliticsEverytime a microsoft operating system is installed, from win95, win98, win98se, nt,win2000, win xp, win2003 - etc, the default home page is msn . com , and the default search engine is microsoft.
One has to type in google or yahoo to even get to it. So much for the antitrust case destroying search dominance of microsoft. The default to this day in every case is microsoft's portal and search engine.
Ah well, sometimes libs don't have the facts, and supposition presented in ignorance is plenty for them to whine on about. I haven't even talked about the red msn internet icon on the desktop(msn internet explorer add ons), or the included msn messenger.
Google has been a good product, just like e-bay was years before it took off. Yeah, ebay, should that be toasted now as well ? It's huge.
How about wiki ? There's another "virtual monopoly".
Whatever.
Oh for pete's sake. Google
April 22, 2007 - 16:11 ET by dahliatraversOh for pete's sake. Google should not be regulated.
Google is regulated. So is
April 22, 2007 - 16:15 ET by JMSUGoogle is regulated. So is Newsbusters.
Google should not be regulate
April 22, 2007 - 16:19 ET by dahliatraversGoogle should not be regulated in the way that Steven Pearlstein describes. What is your stance on capitalism and making money, JMSU?
That's a much more rational p
April 22, 2007 - 16:22 ET by JMSUThat's a much more rational position to take, Dahlia, and I commend you for clarifying your earlier comments.
You'll be happy to know that I am a fellow money-loving capitalist.
JMSU,How do you understand NB
April 22, 2007 - 18:44 ET by BlondeJMSU,
How do you understand NB to be regulated, and why is that good or bad, in your opinion?
Striking Difference
April 22, 2007 - 18:34 ET by TheGuru22There is no logical connection to Micro-Softs anti trust suit and Google. The way Google makes money is through advertising revenue. The user gets services (and a lot of them) for nothing. The size of Google is almost irelevant since it does not even own assets that amount to anything. Its simply space on the internet. If they start over pricing their advertising, the market will solve that real quick by not buying ads. Googles advantage is just volume. I find it difficult to see how they stiffle competition on this front. The cost of starting up a rival is the same, you will just have to market your product well. Google was the champ at that.
Some one point out to me how their practice of adding more options should be illegal. The user gets a better free product, and advertisers can choose to place their ad dollars elsewhere.
We can only see.... The Guru
Bill Moyers is old.He needs o
April 23, 2007 - 10:13 ET by RackieBill Moyers is old.
He needs our prayers.
Let's all pray he doesn't get any older.