When it comes to monopolies, duopolies, and cartels it appears to me that many economists, and free-market capitalists have differences of opinion on these definitions.
Let's take the definition of monopoly.
I don't consider a monopoly a company which has earned the right to deliver to the customers what they demand, and has found a way to do that in the marketplace better, more efficiently, and cheaper than their competitors, therefore garnered the lion's share of the pie chart.
If you fail to service your customers, your competition will.
That's how the free market works, and Google as an example along with Microsoft a decade ago, were able to grow to the size they are today because they gave the customer what they wanted, and at a price they could afford, and those customers kept coming back for more.
When the Federal Trade Commission went after Microsoft I asked myself; "was I harmed by Microsoft's enormous size," and the answer I came to was no, I was getting a free web browser, a good operating system, and a bunch of computer programs that I needed to run my business.
By using these programs and that operating system, and that Internet browser, I was able to grow my company beyond the level I ever could have without those business tools.
Because I was able to do that, I could run a more efficient business, and hire more people, expand my operations, and since I was in the franchising industry, I increased the tax base for our society, and provided jobs, which helps increase people's standard of living.
I don't see anything wrong with what Microsoft did, in fact we should thank them, all of us, along with Bill Gates.
Indeed, I didn't have a problem with Microsoft giving away a free web browser, but I did have a problem with Netscape, a garage startup, which was able to go public and instantly have $500 million in their coffers.
I thought they would've spent that money to grow their business, but instead they used some of that money to hire lobbyists and lawyers to coax the FTC into going after their biggest competitor; Microsoft.
Okay so, apparently history repeats, because now the FTC is going after Google.
In PC Magazine there was an interesting article not long ago published on August 11, 2011 which was titled; "Report: FTC Google Probe Focusing on Android, Search," written by Chloe Albanesius.
It was a very well researched article and put everything into simple layman's terms so a major kudos goes to Chloe in my professional opinion as a writer.
She has reduced the area of focus which concerns the FTC to three main Points: 1.
If Google blocks handset makers that use Android from adding rival services.
2.
If Google gives its own services prime placement on its Web sites, like Places, Shopping results, and Google Finance.
3.
If Google takes data compiled by rivals and uses it on its own sites, pushing the original sites lower down in search results.
Now then, let's discuss this.
Why should Google be forced to allow their competitors to get a free ride on the platform they created? If their competitors wanted to compete they could create their own platform.
If the customers were upset that they couldn't use the competitor software on the android phone, then those consumers can buy someone else's phone.
It's a free market, and we have the right to free contract, if we don't like a company, then don't buy their products.
If Google gives its own services higher placement in the search engine than its competitors, maybe it's because Google feels that those services it offers are better than its competitors, and that its users want what's better - in which case their services should be above their competitors.
If I as a web surfer didn't like that, I am free to choose a different search engine.
That's how free markets work, that's how free markets should work, and the FTC should stay the hell out of it (my opinion).
All businesses are entitled to the data they collect to make their businesses more efficient.
If Google is doing that, then good for them, and I'm not saying they are, the FTC may be way off base here, but even if they were; so what? If the Federal Trade Commission thinks they can build a better search engine, then by gosh do it.
And I will try it out myself and if it is better, I'll switch guaranteed.
If the Federal Trade Commission knows of a better search engine, then tell us.
Not that I trust the FTC's conclusion on anything anymore, but if they have a suggestion I'm listening.
Personally I've chosen to use Google, and I also occasionally use their competition, and it's my choice.
I like the "Freedom to Choose" - and let me tell you; so did Milton and Marian Friedman.
And I hope you will read their book.
Please consider all this and think on it.
Let's take the definition of monopoly.
I don't consider a monopoly a company which has earned the right to deliver to the customers what they demand, and has found a way to do that in the marketplace better, more efficiently, and cheaper than their competitors, therefore garnered the lion's share of the pie chart.
If you fail to service your customers, your competition will.
That's how the free market works, and Google as an example along with Microsoft a decade ago, were able to grow to the size they are today because they gave the customer what they wanted, and at a price they could afford, and those customers kept coming back for more.
When the Federal Trade Commission went after Microsoft I asked myself; "was I harmed by Microsoft's enormous size," and the answer I came to was no, I was getting a free web browser, a good operating system, and a bunch of computer programs that I needed to run my business.
By using these programs and that operating system, and that Internet browser, I was able to grow my company beyond the level I ever could have without those business tools.
Because I was able to do that, I could run a more efficient business, and hire more people, expand my operations, and since I was in the franchising industry, I increased the tax base for our society, and provided jobs, which helps increase people's standard of living.
I don't see anything wrong with what Microsoft did, in fact we should thank them, all of us, along with Bill Gates.
Indeed, I didn't have a problem with Microsoft giving away a free web browser, but I did have a problem with Netscape, a garage startup, which was able to go public and instantly have $500 million in their coffers.
I thought they would've spent that money to grow their business, but instead they used some of that money to hire lobbyists and lawyers to coax the FTC into going after their biggest competitor; Microsoft.
Okay so, apparently history repeats, because now the FTC is going after Google.
In PC Magazine there was an interesting article not long ago published on August 11, 2011 which was titled; "Report: FTC Google Probe Focusing on Android, Search," written by Chloe Albanesius.
It was a very well researched article and put everything into simple layman's terms so a major kudos goes to Chloe in my professional opinion as a writer.
She has reduced the area of focus which concerns the FTC to three main Points: 1.
If Google blocks handset makers that use Android from adding rival services.
2.
If Google gives its own services prime placement on its Web sites, like Places, Shopping results, and Google Finance.
3.
If Google takes data compiled by rivals and uses it on its own sites, pushing the original sites lower down in search results.
Now then, let's discuss this.
Why should Google be forced to allow their competitors to get a free ride on the platform they created? If their competitors wanted to compete they could create their own platform.
If the customers were upset that they couldn't use the competitor software on the android phone, then those consumers can buy someone else's phone.
It's a free market, and we have the right to free contract, if we don't like a company, then don't buy their products.
If Google gives its own services higher placement in the search engine than its competitors, maybe it's because Google feels that those services it offers are better than its competitors, and that its users want what's better - in which case their services should be above their competitors.
If I as a web surfer didn't like that, I am free to choose a different search engine.
That's how free markets work, that's how free markets should work, and the FTC should stay the hell out of it (my opinion).
All businesses are entitled to the data they collect to make their businesses more efficient.
If Google is doing that, then good for them, and I'm not saying they are, the FTC may be way off base here, but even if they were; so what? If the Federal Trade Commission thinks they can build a better search engine, then by gosh do it.
And I will try it out myself and if it is better, I'll switch guaranteed.
If the Federal Trade Commission knows of a better search engine, then tell us.
Not that I trust the FTC's conclusion on anything anymore, but if they have a suggestion I'm listening.
Personally I've chosen to use Google, and I also occasionally use their competition, and it's my choice.
I like the "Freedom to Choose" - and let me tell you; so did Milton and Marian Friedman.
And I hope you will read their book.
Please consider all this and think on it.
SHARE
