In a recent article published at Investor’s Business Daily’s online site, the author, Alex Epstein, gets it right about Google and the current increase in antitrust laws (“Google Deserves to be Celebrated, Not Persecuted by Trustbusters, June 4th, 2009).
Purportedly, such antitrust laws will help competition. That is, they will help less profound companies (lesser than Google) better compete with larger companies. So claim the passers of such laws. In my opinion, and in the opinion of Mr. Epstein, this logic is wholly false.
Is it unfair that Google has 60 percent of the search engine market share? Does it follow that we need to create laws to establish a "fairer" playing field?
In answer to the first, no, it is not "unfair" that Google remains the behemoth we know it as. To answer the second question, one has to go back to the first and check their premises. Fairness has nothing to do with it. You wouldn't give special treatment to the Olympic swimmers competing against Michael Phelps. He dominates because he has tremendous talent, and he works his tail off.
If the Olympic Committee decided that eight gold medals was simply unfair, and that the other, less talented, less hard-working swimmers should be able to wear special aquatic turbo boosters to help with "competition," well, that would be crazy. Correct?
It's the same with Google. Just as Phelps is an amazing athlete, Google is an amazing online search engine that provides great opportunity for advertising on the Internet. Tell me, why should we punish Google by giving the less qualified, less impacting, less dominant businesses an upper hand? Do we not benefit greatly from Google's exceptional technological prowess? Does Google not deserve the market share it has rightfully achieved?
Alternatively, imagine if a company like WebVisible, Inc. was dealt the same blow, and each of our competitors was given an upper-hand, or some such tool to establish an artificially “level” playing field. We would, suffice to say, obviously suffer.
In the end, each individual athlete or business excels at its own rate, due to its own efforts, where each of us excels due to whatever acquired or inherent ability we have and because of our own individual action.
Despite what some say, Google does not have monopolistic power over the competition. Small businesses like WebVisible and the customers we help on a daily basis have the opportunity to achieve just the same - not because of a lending hand, but due to our own drive to succeed, our own prowess, our own exceptionality, and our own version of I Want to Be the Best.
-- Contributed by Non Talbot Wels
Purportedly, such antitrust laws will help competition. That is, they will help less profound companies (lesser than Google) better compete with larger companies. So claim the passers of such laws. In my opinion, and in the opinion of Mr. Epstein, this logic is wholly false.Is it unfair that Google has 60 percent of the search engine market share? Does it follow that we need to create laws to establish a "fairer" playing field?
In answer to the first, no, it is not "unfair" that Google remains the behemoth we know it as. To answer the second question, one has to go back to the first and check their premises. Fairness has nothing to do with it. You wouldn't give special treatment to the Olympic swimmers competing against Michael Phelps. He dominates because he has tremendous talent, and he works his tail off.
If the Olympic Committee decided that eight gold medals was simply unfair, and that the other, less talented, less hard-working swimmers should be able to wear special aquatic turbo boosters to help with "competition," well, that would be crazy. Correct?
It's the same with Google. Just as Phelps is an amazing athlete, Google is an amazing online search engine that provides great opportunity for advertising on the Internet. Tell me, why should we punish Google by giving the less qualified, less impacting, less dominant businesses an upper hand? Do we not benefit greatly from Google's exceptional technological prowess? Does Google not deserve the market share it has rightfully achieved?
Alternatively, imagine if a company like WebVisible, Inc. was dealt the same blow, and each of our competitors was given an upper-hand, or some such tool to establish an artificially “level” playing field. We would, suffice to say, obviously suffer.
In the end, each individual athlete or business excels at its own rate, due to its own efforts, where each of us excels due to whatever acquired or inherent ability we have and because of our own individual action.
Despite what some say, Google does not have monopolistic power over the competition. Small businesses like WebVisible and the customers we help on a daily basis have the opportunity to achieve just the same - not because of a lending hand, but due to our own drive to succeed, our own prowess, our own exceptionality, and our own version of I Want to Be the Best.
-- Contributed by Non Talbot Wels
Powered by Compendium
Comments for Google: To Praise or to Condemn