Google - Not a Monopoly, but Monopolyish?

Google’s birth-story is truly fascinating. It’s intriguing that the company was the unexpected brainchild of two knowledge-hungry techies hoping to “improve people’s lives through information.” I love that Brin and Page denied advertisers for years – this attests to Google’s humble roots. Instead of being controlled by haughty ad deals, they created an algorithm to provide users with free information and the ability to continuously search for it. This knowledge has impacted the entire way information is indexed, processed, and accessed. The company truly upheld its goal of “customer satisfaction”, placing the insatiable power of omniscience at the fingertips of your average web user. Want a satellite view of your librarian’s street? Want up-to-date news on city councils in all 50 states? Want to play God? Google’s “disruptive innovation” allowed us to do so.
Yet, even knowing the humble beginnings of Google, I definitely see validity in Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg’s statement that “Once you get to a certain size, you have to figure out new ways of growing… and then you start leaking on everyone else’s industry. And when you do that you sort of wake up the bears, and the bears come out of the woods and start beating the shit out of you.” Seidenberg hints at an essential underlying question throughout Ken Auletta’s Searching for Trouble: how much longer will Google’s unchecked reign over media last? Will the government – or Google’s mob of angry competitors –“beat the shit out of” Google?
There is definitely a cautionary undertone in Auletta’s article suggesting that Google reassess its management and business platforms before “trouble” occurs. It just may be growing too fast in too little time. At various points in the article, despite Google’s utopian motivations, I couldn’t help but wonder how much of these lofty ideals are being compromised as the company buys out more and more media outlets. Is customer satisfaction still at the core of the company’s plan to digitize books? Are Page and Brin still willing to just “produce this technology “ and “see how things work out?” Is the company’s mission slowly disintegrating as Google becomes wealthier by the click?
With these questions in mind, Google appears to be tittering the fine line between being a corporate monopoly and an innovative company – or perhaps both. I respect the impact the company has had on reshaping traditional media, information systems, and content but its rapid expansion makes me question the company’s ability to remain judicious. No, Google is not currently a monopoly despite the onslaught of Google-haters referenced in the article (AT&T, European Commission, China, even some factions of Apple etc.). Google simply discovered a creative way to profit from free information and the user’s needs. So no, it’s not a monopoly but yes, with the advent of its new products and business plans, it’s beginning to look real monopolyish.
Unless Google adjusts its growth and business plans to better accommodate competitors – I can see Google and the Federal Trade Commission on their way to a legal brawl that Google may not be able to win.