9621 Agnes Crossing, Lake Suzanneview, New Mexico Island 84604-9295.
The American court has ruled that Google has abused its monopoly position in the search world. The consequences for the almost unassailable market leader could be major, as
The American court has ruled that Google has abused its monopoly position in the search world. The consequences for the almost unassailable market leader could be major, as well as for the partners with whom Google has worked in recent years.
Google illegally strengthened its monopoly position in the search world and then abused it. This was the decision of the American court following a complaint by the Federal Department of Justice and several states. The conviction is not final: Google can and will undoubtedly appeal. The consequences are also unclear: Do Americans want Google to take control measures, or will the blunt axe be brought to light?
In any case, the statement is important. After all, Google is being condemned for behavior it will not repeat anytime soon, and other tech giants seeking market dominance are also taking note. The US is signaling that it will not shy away from enforcing its antitrust laws against its own big tech companies.
The crux of the matter is alleged misconduct by Google. It turns out that it was the most popular search engine in the world, so much so that the company name is now an official verb in several languages. Just google it.
Due to its dominant market position, Google decided not to give its competitors a fair chance. The company managed to do this by paying billions to other parties such as Samsung and Apple to make the Google search engine the default. Apple, for example, received $20 billion for this in 2022 alone, up from $18 billion the year before.
By setting it as the default search engine on all smartphones from Apple and Android market leader Samsung, Google was able to capture a global market share of over 90 percent. In Belgium, 90.89 percent of searches are made on Google, followed by Bing in second place with 6.26 percent.
This market share has a direct impact on the value that Google can get from its search engine. This near-absolute dominance means that the company can charge more for search-related advertising. It makes sense: do you want your ad on Bing, where no one sees it, or on Google, where it appears in front of everyone?
Do you want your ad to be on Bing where no one sees it, or on Google where everyone sees it?
In this way, Google created a perverse cycle: by paying money to maintain market dominance, it earned more money that it could use to secure that dominance. Even a party like Microsoft had little to gain from this.
Apple, for its part, had no interest in making billions more for a small business. If the ruling has any effect, it is that such bribes are off the table, at least for a while. What will Apple do now?
Maybe Google will remain the default because that’s what people want. On the other hand, the smartphone maker can look for other money. In principle, Microsoft can pay to put Bing in the foreground because Bing is not a market leader.
In other words, things can start moving again, and that is the essence of the message. Google suppressed competition by buying up fair opportunities as a precaution. That is now over. In theory, the market is open again.
But does it matter anymore? Google has become a habit. Those who use Bing do so primarily because they don’t know where Microsoft has hidden the menu to change Edge’s default search engine. Annoying pop-ups, similar to the adware of the 2000s, casually try to lure Edge users back to Bing.
With such practices, one would expect a higher market share for Microsoft. This is not the case, as people now prefer Google over the alternatives. Even the lone privacy warrior who prefers DuckDuckGo or the digital ecologist who joins Ecosia have no impact on market share, despite the attractive unique selling points of both search engines on paper.
Google is neither the first nor the only one to violate antitrust laws in the United States. The most famous case is probably that against Microsoft, where the US government initially ordered the company to be split into one branch for the operating system and another for software (such as the then-dominant browser Internet Explorer). After an appeal, this decision was overturned.
It seems unlikely that a court will ask Google to be split up. It is likely that the US and the company will reach an agreement that will give users more freedom to choose search engines.
In Europe, such a choice is now mandatory thanks to the Digital Markets Act. For example, anyone who installs Chrome can choose their search engine. Android also offers such freedom of choice in the EU. The impact on Google’s market share as a search engine is negligible.
The calf has drowned: Google has achieved its dominance. Changing that will require more than a lawsuit. We have already seen such a scenario between 2002 and 2006. AMD took its competitor Intel to court for anti-competitive behavior. Intel paid HP, Acer and Lenovo to stop or even halt the development of products with AMD chips.
The calf has drowned: Google has achieved its dominance.
In other words, Intel, like Google, paid partners to integrate its solution rather than that of its competitors. Just as Apple agreed to such payments to give the Google search engine a preferential position, computer manufacturers had no problem accepting money from market leader Intel.
Intel was convicted in the case, which later became a legal farce. In the US, the chipmaker was convicted in a similar antitrust investigation. Negotiations and compensation failed to repair the damage: AMD was sidelined for more than a decade. For the manufacturer to regain market share from an outsider position, a completely new type of chip was needed, and although the company is making progress, Intel remains by far the largest.
There is little reason to believe that Google’s antitrust conviction in the US will now have a major impact. Google’s goal has been achieved. The advertising giant will now opt for a long legal battle and will gladly accept any damages or fines. At most, they cost the company next to nothing compared to what the search engine brings in.
Microsoft is currently using a similar tactic. Redmond has temporarily linked Teams to Office with impunity and will only release both products after the competition has been pushed out. Any EU measures will come too late.
The same thing is happening in the AI landscape. Google wants to link Gemini to Android smartphones and Microsoft is trying to force its own AI solution on users with Copilot.
We can hope that the antitrust ruling serves as a warning. The sleeping dogs seem to have woken up somewhat due to the significant abuse of market dominance that is taking place today. Hopefully this will at least force large companies like Google and Microsoft to exercise caution.
Practice shows that antitrust decisions often come too late and do not have sufficient consequences to have a real deterrent effect. This is no different: the additional freedom of choice of search provider on an iPhone or Samsung phone will not have an immediate impact on market share. No major changes are to be expected for the search engine market: Googling will remain the norm.
Source: IT Daily
As an experienced journalist and author, Mary has been reporting on the latest news and trends for over 5 years. With a passion for uncovering the stories behind the headlines, Mary has earned a reputation as a trusted voice in the world of journalism. Her writing style is insightful, engaging and thought-provoking, as she takes a deep dive into the most pressing issues of our time.
