Definitely an oligopoly. I think what people are getting confused about is the difference between what's an actual monopoly and what is considered a monopoly by the competition commission (in the UK at least), which is over 25% of market share. Anybody who thinks they're an outright monopoly clearly doesn't understand the term but due to such a huge market share they do share some similar characteristics such as control and whether they deserve it or not, a market share that large does disadvantage the consumer in one way or another, for example high barriers to entry so lack of new competition. Although, to Google's credit they have kept innovating, characteristic of it not being a monopoly but an oligopoly. Whilst, they do have many monopolistic characteristics, they are still in a competitive market and there are still search engines waiting to take their place. So let's hold onto that.
Damn straight. @blueuniverse: I remember when rouseindahouse was just starting out when DP was young! Congratulations on its 2nd birthday
@Art Yeah, coming along pretty well now. Anyway, to add onto what I said earlier, they do posess a lot of the traits of being a monopoly - the kind of things that cause us as webmasters trouble, sites being delisted and whatnot. In fact, I even wrote up a blog post about this a while back. Google is in an advantageous enough position to delist people and really choose which way the market goes, which can certainly be a problem (77% market share in the UK says it all) and the bigger they grow, the more power they'll have. They might not be a monopoly as such but the power they have from having such a large market share, has and will cause problems.
Problems indeed, Blueuniverse. I remember when the BBC launched its search engine, with the announcement that it was going to compete with Google to provide a top quality British led search engine. It was argued that with little investment in a British search engine, the BBC should fill the gap. Unfortunately, they ended up dropping this hard line in favour of a more gentle search engine for families, children and schools, looking for BBC related information. If I remember correctly, it was decided that the licence money needed was not justified considering that Google's UK version of the search engine covered the market well enough.
Google certainly dominates the market for search, to the extent that you wonder why the Monopolies and Mergers Commission don't get involved. But, on the other hand, they don't come anywhere near dominating people's access to new sites via the web. There are loads of other ways people can find sites without the help of Google: other search engines, directories, social bookmarking sites like Digg or StumbleUpon, and in fact every other site that allows external hyperlinking. Seen in this light, Google is just another website.
Well at anytime when one is doing well it seems like the monopoly. However as competitions comes by it shouldn't be the case. But it is Google!
Slightly off topic but relevant I think... "There are very few companies in the world that can have a couple billion in revenues and grow 80%," said Jordan Rohan, Financial Analyst, noting that Google's market capitalization now exceeds the value of all other publicly traded internet stocks combined. Part of this dominance is because Google keeps growing, but this year has also been a terrible year for other internet companies as their market caps have declined. "This is an amazing force, and one that anyone not working for Google has to watch," said Rohan. Rohan said that his analysis suggests that Google is more dominant than other ratings agencies, such as comScore, suggest. "The balance of power in the internet is now more skewed than I've ever seen it (since 1999). Google is more in the center of the internet today," he said. Eventually, he said, Google's competitors will mimic Google well enough that they'll catch up. This will force Google to differentiate, and he thinks video will be a key part of that differentiation. He also said that Google's new Checkout feature is "transformational." "Google will absolutely give you better inventory to target," said Rohan. "At the same time Google has mechanisms in place that will raise bid prices. Google is absolutely capitalistic in its maneuvers. They care almost as much about revenues as they do about relevancy," he said. What can cause the company to fumble? "Google's greatest risk is that they mobilize the ad community to be so angry at them that they move advertising funds away from them," said Rohan. Even still, he thinks it's going to be a challenge for Google's competitors to take mind and market share, noting that it usually takes a 3X improvement in a product or service to make users move away from an entrenched leader. "It's almost unheralded—there's no switching cost, so the amount of loyalty that consumers are showing to Google is unbelievable," said Rohan. "My guess is that whoever ends up toppling Google someday is a company that may not exist today." extract from Rohan:"The Job of an Analyst is not Easy" http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3623030
I wouldn't say they are a monopoly either with the other competitors out there. Just a strong adversary.
Competition Is Good For Evryone : The ones that benefict : atractiv ofers and good prices The ones that offer : more good services and quality Monopoply is bad see " Microsoft case"
Competition does lower prices, improves quality and fuels innovation. Yet Monopolies aren't always bad: in some cases they are the most effective for a particular marketplace. E.g. Local utility companies. Even though many people microsoft is a monopoly it isn't.