Antitrust authorities should act cautiously because such actions may do more harm than good

Absrtact: The Economist has published a recent article pointing to growing concerns about the influence of internet giants, but antitrust authorities should act cautiously, because such actions may do more harm than good, and technology companies should not let their current size go to

Concerns about the influence of internet giants are on the rise, but antitrust authorities should act cautiously because such actions may do more harm than good, and tech companies should not be dazzled by their current size, The economist said in a recent article.

The following are the main contents of the article:

The four internet age giants-Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon-are excellent companies. No other company in the world has ever been able to achieve such a rapid pace of development or expand its tentacles. Apple has become a capital giant, accounting for 4.3% of the market capitalisation of 500 of standard and poor, and 1.1% of global stock markets. There are now about 425 million people using the itunes online store, where the virtual shelves are full of music and other digital content. At the same time, Google has become the undisputed world leader in search and online advertising. The company's Android software has powered the Three-fourths smartphones sold worldwide. Amazon dominates the online retail and E-book market in several countries; the company's behind-the-scenes power over cloud computing is not well known but has a strong presence. For Facebook, if the 1 billion users of the social network form a country, it would be the third largest in the world.

The digital revolution, helped by these giants, has brought great benefits to consumers and businesses, while simultaneously promoting freedom of speech and the spread of democracy. But they also raise concerns and questions. Without control, their size and speed can be used to stifle competition. That is why they have been closely watched by regulators.

Google faces the worst. The complaint says Google unfairly manipulates its search results to benefit its services. The European Commission and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have been investigating this. The company also faces allegations of other violations, including the use of patents to impede competition in the smartphone market. Although Google denies the accusations, regulators want the company to change its behaviour. If the talks fail, the search company could be in a costly lawsuit on both sides of the Atlantic. This may become a decisive antitrust struggle in the internet age, just as Microsoft's epic battle was a decade ago, and the case of a lawsuit tying the Web browser to the Windows operating system made sense for the PC age.

Those who argue that the power of the digital giant has become too big to benefit consumers are making three noteworthy trends. The first is that winners occupy almost all internet markets. While Microsoft has poured money into its search engine Bing, Google still controls more than two-thirds of U.S. searches and some 90% or more of the European market. Facebook also enjoys a near-monopoly position in social networking. Rivals worry that the big four will take advantage of their dominance in the main business to gain an unfair advantage in other areas – accusations that are at the heart of the antitrust case facing Google.

Second, the big four want consumers to stay on their platforms-including online services and apps running on smartphones and tablets. These platforms may be very attractive. Apple makes money because its lucrative iphone has effectively become a remote controller in many people's digital lives. But some worry that Apple and its peers will create a "closed garden" (walled gardens), making it difficult for users to move content from one platform to another.

A third worry is that internet giants are accustomed to annexing potential companies before they grow. Amazon has bought footwear online stores Zappos,facebook and Google have also made huge acquisitions, such as Instagram and AdMob, some of which have been severely scrutinized by regulators.

So far, regulators have been focusing on a scalpel in areas such as Web search and the E-book market, where Apple faces an investigation because of a cartel-like alliance with several distributors. Their goal has been to quickly reach a settlement in order to get compensation for reducing the violations.

Some critics argue that such treatment is not enough. They have called for the separation of Google into two separate companies, separating the search business from other activities. In order to promote competition, giant "information monopolies" such as Apple and Google should be forced to choose to become electronic content providers, hardware producers or information distributors, Tim Wu, an FTC consulting expert, a professor at Columbia University Law School.

The danger is that such business stripping may do more harm than good. The platform for users to congregate in large web companies shows that consumers are very willing to sacrifice part of openness in exchange for convenience and ease of use. In the broadband era, if they want to change providers, the cost of doing so has been greatly reduced. It only takes a few seconds to switch to a new search engine or music service. The situation is that there is no longer only one dominant company in the market (Microsoft has been in this position for some time), but a war for everyone.

The smartphone, powered by Google's Android operating system, has grown from zero to a market-leading force that has eclipsed the Apple iphone. Amazon's Kindle tablet will confront the ipad head-on. On social networking, Google + is challenging Facebook. Facebook and Apple and Microsoft are also interested in challenging Google's dominance in the search market. Smaller companies such as Twitter also want to join the Giants and reject mergers and acquisitions by these giants. Facebook was just a start-up 8 years ago.

Indeed, the technological world has changed very rapidly, reminiscent of Joseph Schumpeter's comments on "The Eternal storm of Creative destruction" (perennial Gale of Creative destruction). The importance of Microsoft's antitrust problems now seems less than the fact that the company is embroiled in a battle with regulators, but the giant has failed to perceive that it has gone against business trends. The 4 Big fish, Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon, now have an arrogant reputation and many rivals. If they really want to stop those who are demanding the dissolution of the trust, they should not let their current size go to the head.