US judge Amit Mita has ruled that Alphabet, the parent company of Google, illegally strengthened its position as the number one search engine on the Internet
Photo: Shutterstock
ROBERT SHEERAN/REUTERS BREAKINGVIEWS
The liquidation of a monopoly worth 2 trillion. dollars cannot be considered an easy task. US Judge Amit Mita ruled that Alphabet, the parent company of Google, illegally strengthened its position as the number one search engine on the Internet.
The problem will remain as no competitor can gather enough traffic
For its part, the Google giant handles so many queries – more than 90% in the United States – that the resulting data can tailor its answers in a way that competitors cannot.
Like users, advertising companies want a large audience to target, and Google has it. An executive at travel site Booking.com said that “as a company I would happily spend more for Microsoft's equivalent search engine called Bing, but there is clearly no significant demand.”
In this context there are also adverse consequences, such as the ability of Google to raise prices for advertisers. The thing is, Alphabet is enforcing this giant dynamic by signing exclusive deals like the $20 billion default search spot on Apple's iPhone. The court ruled it illegal because it excludes competitors. A second trial will determine what should be done about it.
Antitrust authorities are considering whether to force the spin-off of Alphabet's text advertising business, according to Bloomberg, based on information. Of course, this is after the symptom, without curing the disease, which is that no competitor can garner enough traffic.
Google's ability to channel Android users – which as an operating system powers 2 .5 billion mobile devices worldwide – and users of Chrome, which is the most popular internet browser, make them obvious targets for a potential takeover from the parent group. However, history suggests they will struggle. Independent operating systems, such as the once-dominant Symbian or the Firefox browser, have struggled to compete with the total services of the tech giants.
A viable solution requires three pillars: distribution, technology and time. Google will appeal the decision and the entire issue will take years to resolve, but technology moves faster than the courts. In conclusion, in the past similar litigations of an antitrust nature, such as those of IBM and Microsoft, distracted them by losing new markets, such as “smart” phones.
