Economist: Should the monopoly of internet companies be broken?

The European Parliament's proposed spin-off of Google (Weibo) is the latest manifestation of the "Google phobia" of European politicians in an effort to protect both European companies and data-abuse concerns, the Economist's website said November 28. This is not necessary, on the one hand, the Internet in the field of regulatory necessity than the physical field, on the other hand, and to protect local companies, rather than more innovative efforts to encourage Europe's Google or Facebook turned out.

The following are the main contents of the article:

Although no mention was made of the company's name, the European Parliament was clearly the company of the US internet giant before the vote of November 27. In a draft, the European Parliament called for "lifting the bundling of search engines and other business services" to ensure that European companies and consumers have a fair platform. It is Europe's latest episode in the "Google Phobia" and the most dramatic event.

Joaquin Almunia, a former EU competition commissioner, Hua Jin Amuna A number of conciliatory terms this year, asking Google to highlight rival business and map services in its search results. But the European Parliament wants its successor, Margarett Wistag Margrethe Vestager, to take a tougher stance, calling for a break-up of Google.

The European Parliament has no right to force the break-up of Google, but it has touched the concerns of a number of politicians around the world from Washington to Seoul, and has integrated many issues from privacy to industry policy. So how worried is Google and some other companies ' dominance in the Internet arena?

Who is worried about the big bad search engine?

In the U.S. Internet search market, Google's market share of 68%, but the company in many countries in Europe, the share of more than 90%. Like Facebook, Amazon and other technology giants, Google also benefited from the network effect, the popularity of one of its services can attract more users, and thus create their own undefeated gold body. Google collects more data than any other company and is better at benefiting from it. Once people start using Google search services (and their email, maps, and digital storage services), they will be hard to stop. Some small advertisers have found it too troublesome to move to other advertising platforms.

Google clearly has a monopoly, so it is another matter whether it abuses its monopoly position. Google is accused of favouring its services in search results, making it difficult for advertisers to advertise on multiple online platforms, and Google is also suspected of providing answers directly on search results pages rather than directing users to other sites. But Google's behavior is very different from Microsoft's campaign against Netscape in the late 90: Google did not send a mass email to "truncate" its rival's "Air Supply". In addition, some of the features of Google's competitors have been hurt, but to the benefit of their users. For example, you can save time by showing your flight information, destination, or map directly to the user. Although advertisers often pay high advertising fees for the number of clicks, but users use Google services is not paid, just as the Yellow Pages service charges issued plumbers or gardener ads, but to provide users with free, and nightclubs to men charge a higher admission fee, while the women enjoy free admission to the treatment.

There are other reasons why the Government should not strictly monitor Internet monopoly services, as is the case with supervised services. First, the threshold in the digital field is low, and it has never been easier to release a brand new internet product or service, as exemplified by the rapid rise of Instagram, WhatsApp and Slack. Creating a competitive architecture in the real world is far more difficult, and telecoms operators and energy companies know it. As a result, there is much less competition in the physical field and therefore more regulation is needed. Indeed, big companies often buy start-ups, just as Facebook buys Instagram and WhatsApp, and Google buys Waze and Apture, but such acquisitions encourage more start-ups and create more competition in emerging areas.

Second, while moving from Google to other Internet services can have a lot of cost, the products they use don't lack customers, just like Microsoft Windows. In addition, while the network effect lasts for a while, it is not a permanent advantage, such as MySpace's social decline, and the recent decline in the orkut of the social services Google has dominated in the Brazilian market, both of which have been defeated by competition with Facebook, Facebook itself faces a wave of instant messaging threats.

Finally, the experience of recent decades has shown that the technology rulers, such as IBM in the mainframe field or Microsoft in the PC operating system, may monopolize it for some time, but will eventually be overtaken by the times they are not able to keep up, or new technologies will expand the market in unexpected ways, bringing them new rivals. Facebook is eating into Google's advertising revenues. Despite the success of Android, the rise of smartphones threatens Google itself: users now spend far more time on apps than web pages, and Google is losing control of Android as many companies build their own mobile ecosystems based on open source Android. So far, no company has been able to stay in the top two cycles of information technology. Sometimes the rulers of the past will only leave behind a lucrative business in the new era, just as Microsoft and IBM. But the areas in which they had ruled were only part of the larger map.

Do your own thing.

The European Parliament's Google phobia appears to have two symptoms of concern, one worth the other and the other less. One of the symptoms is a company that wants to protect Europe. The two companies that oppose Google's voice are the splinter group and the Burda Media Group, two of the largest German media giants. Rather than attacking successful American companies, Europe's leaders are less likely to ask why their continent has not produced companies like Google or Facebook. Opening up the digital services market in Europe will help create such a company rather than protect existing companies.

Privacy is another concern for the Internet giants in Europe. It is right to limit the use of personal data by companies such as Google and Facebbok: for example, their services should protect privacy in the default settings, and the company's collection of personal information should be licensed by the user. European politicians are far more interested in this than their American counterparts. But to allay that concern, they should oversee the company's behaviour, not their market position. European citizens would also benefit if European politicians were to have a clearer and clearer mind.

(Responsible editor: Lvguang)