“Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″
It would be great to see more balanced discourse on monopolies, especially in a software-dominated world. Most analyses and articles fixate on the costs of monopolies.<p>Let&#x27;s assume the worst of Google and conclude they abused their search monopoly. Innovation in search was stifled. Competitors were damaged and achieved only a fraction of their potential. For instance, Yelp might be worth $15B instead of $3B in a world without &quot;evil&quot; Google.<p>But Google&#x27;s search monopoly and concomitant cash flows also gave society free worldwide communication, self-driving cars, cheaper smartphones, free digital maps, and countless other benefits.<p>All policies hurt some and help others.<p>Before supporting or rejecting a policy, it&#x27;s wise to consider the overall benefits to society instead of focusing only on the injured parties. Why should thinking about monopolies differ?<p>To reiterate, this is neither endorsing nor disparaging monopolies. It&#x27;s a request for objective analysis and updated thinking to reflect the potential new realities of monopolies like Google that give products away for free.