You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-09-05 16:10
ABC columnist Michael S. Malone used some real tough words to describe Google: 'amoral" (twice), 'sinister' (twice), 'Big Brother' (thrice), -- in his column: "Is Google turning into Big Brother?"
It's a worthwhile read for Googlephiles because it highlights some impotant information Google would like to brush under the rug.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-09-04 11:57
Google's dominance of the Internet's business model for monetizing content only grows.
As I read the article, I thought many involved in the FTC's investigation and subsequent 4-1 approval of the Google-DoubleClick merger must be getting awfully worried that they made a big mistake in not appropriately enforcing antitrust law last year when they had the opportunity.
If you want honey, don't kick the beehive! -- Google to DOJ: We're going ahead with Yahoo regardlessSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-09-03 11:21
Google is so arrogant it isn't even aware it is being arrogant.
Per a San Francisco Chronicle article:
Let's put this Google behavior into a little context.
DOJ antirust prosecutors are currently involved in a serious antitrust investigation of the Google-Yahoo online advertising partnership for potential Sherman Act collusion/price-fixing illegality.
Bottom line: Normal companies, who respect the rule of law and law enforcement authorities, understand the old adage that "if you want honey, don't kick the beehive."
Let me leave you with this analogy:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-08-19 11:32
Kudos to David Smith of the Gaurdian Observer for his outstanding piece on Google as it turns ten years old.
Some of my favorite insights from the piece are highlighted below:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-08-18 15:05
Does Google inherently favor its Google-owned applications over competitors in search results? The more one looks, the more it looks that way.
Saturday's New York Times article: "Some Media companies choose to profit from pirated YouTube clips" -- got me thinking about the anti-competitive nature of Google's increasing dominance of the process of locating copyrighted content online.
Additional evidence of Google's bias for its own content -- not a neutral search advertising platformSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-08-15 18:00
GoogleBlogoscoped has flagged additional evidence that Google anti-competitively favors its own content over competitors in a good post: "Google allows itself a special ad."
The case builds...
Bottom line: How the DOJ ultimately rules on the Google-Yahoo ad partnership will tell us a lot about how much of the future online content economy Google will be allowed to de facto control.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-08-14 16:14
Does Google anti-competitively leverage its dominance in search to disadvantage its competitors, including Google's media competitors? New evidence suggests yes.
The evidence shows Google is not a neutral search engine or a neutral wholesaler of search services.
As I will show below:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-08-12 16:13
Harvard Business School Professor Benjamin Edelman posted his earlier House antitrust testimony on why the "Google Yahoo ad deal is bad for online advertising."
In short, it is a useful and concise read, for those closely following the Google Yahoo deal and those trying to determine whether or not the DOJ will have problems with the proposed online advertising partnership.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-07-31 16:23
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-07-29 13:24
I was amused at the near total absence of business analysis in most of the coverage of, and commentary on, the new hyped "Cuil" search engine, the reportedly most-promising potential Google-beater.
Most commenters on Cuil totally miss that it is NOT their user perspective that determines success or failure of a search engine's business, but the BUSINESS perspective that matters.