Comment by the_arun

18 hours ago

If google is serving 90% traffic & others are unable to enter - Doesn't that mean google is doing something right for the customer and others are unable to outcompete it? Isn't this how life works?

Google is allowed to be big, be better and win users. But happy customers is not the full test of monopolization. The real question is, "Could a meaningfully better search engine realistically displace Google today?” If the answer is no, then competition is broken

  • > "Could a meaningfully better search engine realistically displace Google today?”

    ChatGPT clearly demonstrated that displacing Google is possible. All previous monopoly arguments seemed even more flimsy after that.

    • I think you’re proving the monopoly argument yourself: if they only way to compete with Google is an innovation that generations of scientists have been working towards, it does paint a grim picture of competition in this space. Besides, are we ignoring Gemini?

      1 reply →

    • ChatGPT did not build a search engine though. They built something else (equally impressive) and then were able to use their weight to enter the web search business where most sites now have to allow them in.

      While it's good that building other products is possible, it doesn't detract from the point that search engines are a de-facto monopoly.

This is a woefully naive view on the nature of monopolies. You could have made the same argument for Standard Oil.

Is the user's choice to use google a meaningful one when they're effectively the only game in town?

Google must be right for the customer because Google pays billions of dollars to be the default search engine for all the major browsers. And end users are notorious for changing application defaults.

...No. Not at all. Not in the case of Google and generally that's not "how life works". If it was true, why would Google spend so much money to be the default search engine in so many devices/browsers?