Create your very own Auto Publish News/Blog Site and Earn Passive Income in Just 4 Easy Steps
Shocking news this week.
A US court has declared Google, the tiny Northern California company that provides search, advertising and other online services, a monopoly. Yes, a monopoly.
Reading the mainstream media coverage of the verdict, one might think that a giant alien had just been killed.
Headlines scream for superlatives, such as “How Google’s big defeat could change the way you search the Internet” and “6 ways the Google ruling could change the Internet.”
The monster is dead.
But is it really?
Many articles compare this ruling to the antitrust ruling against Microsoft in 2000, when the company was accused of using its web browser – Microsoft Explorer – as the default in computer operating systems. Is this a good comparison?
We didn't know, so we reached out to CMI's Chief Strategy Advisor, Robert Rose, to get his opinion. Watch or read on:
Is Google's decision like Microsoft's case in 2000?
Well, the comparison between the Microsoft and Google cases is valid, but not necessarily for the most obvious reason.
Reporters and analysts alike say the declaration that Google's influence on the search market is illegal is a major blow to the giant brand. They say it marks a potential turning point in the ongoing regulation of Big Tech. They say it paves the way for search engine competitors to fight for a piece of the hugely lucrative online search pie.
These observers also compare the case to the 2000 Microsoft ruling on the integration of web browsers into operating systems. And indeed, there are similarities. This ruling focuses on Google's embedding in devices and platforms. Google pays Apple over $20 billion every year to be the default search engine on Apple devices. Google is also evidently the default search engine on Android phones.
However, users can change the default search engine on Apple and Android devices as they wish. Now I'll get into the details, just as you might suspect Microsoft has done so and Google will likely do so in its appeals.
What happens next is anyone's guess. The appeal will take some time, and during that time there will be federal elections and other related news.
Microsoft did not immediately divest its computer and operating system divisions. A year after the original ruling, the company won the appeal. Finally, 17 months later, it reached an agreement with the government, which said, “OK, we don't need you to split up the business units, but we do need you to allow more competition on the platform. Open up your systems.” And that's what Microsoft did.
What changed after the Microsoft fall? Apart from the introduction of some competitors, including Firefox, and the eventual replacement of Microsoft Explorer, not much, except that Microsoft became stronger in other areas.
Marketers should stay on their busy tracks
What lessons should marketers learn from Google's case? Not much.
You have enough to do in marketing, advertising, search and content without having to worry about what's happening at Google. The headlines talking about ripple effects on other companies like Apple, Amazon and Meta are probably true, but those ripples are likely years away.
For consumers, Google's decision is mostly good news. In the long run, it likely means more choice, better selection and more competition. Watch what Apple does now. Does it build its own web search or buy someone else's? Does it even matter?
These big tectonic shifts in the economy are like real earthquakes. They're easy to feel and see – and scary when they happen – but they're incredibly difficult to predict. Just because a big quake happens today doesn't mean things will change tomorrow. The next big quake could happen next week or 100 years from now.
Subscribe to weekday or weekly CMI emails to receive rose-colored glasses in your inbox every week.
HANDPICKED RELATED CONTENT:
Cover photo by Joseph Kalinowski/Content Marketing Institute
Create your very own Auto Publish News/Blog Site and Earn Passive Income in Just 4 Easy Steps
