Google is entering the browser wars today (if any such war still exists) with the launch of Chrome, its new web browser. I’m glad to see more competition in browsers as I think—and I hope everyone else agrees with me—that Firefox is the only real game in town. I know that Internet Explorer is more popular, but that seems to only be because it is shipping with every Windows PC and because many enterprise web applications require IE’s non-standard browser. Firefox is preferred browser for anyone who works with the web regularly and has bothered to compare browsers.
One implication of this foray by Mountain View into the browser arena is that—should Chrome be at all successful—they will soon be accused of using their supposed search monopoly to squeeze out competition from IE and Firefox. That is assuming that anything in Chrome favors Google’s search, like making it the default search engine for the browser, which I’m sure it will be.
It’s funny to think that Microsoft, the poster-child from antitrust suits, could be the one launching such a suit. Just a few short years ago we saw Microsoft scoffing at the very notion of antitrust or monopoly power, arguing that it in no way used its market share to its own advantage. Now we see Redmond lashing out against Google as a monopolist. At a recent conference I had the unpleasant experience of watching a panel on online advertising devolve into a fight between the Microsoft and Google reps over whether Google was a search and advertising monopolist.
To be fair, Google has sued Microsoft over things as petty as Vista’s built-in MSN/Windows Live search. They may soon regret this suit over built-in search as Microsoft could run a find/replace on that lawsuit and turn it into the “Chrome case.”
Both companies should put a leash on their legal teams and look at the implications of these lawsuits on the overall landscape of public policy. By constantly using antitrust against one another, both companies legitimize the underlying notions of antitrust, namely that a company can truly choke out competition by virtue of having a large market share.
But this isn’t true. Apple has made serious gains against Microsoft in the last two years, growing to roughly 10% market share.
Similarly, Google remains very vulnerable to technological change. Anyone who figures out a decent way to search the growing amount of audio and video content on the web will be on their way to blowing Google out of the water. Sure, it will take A LOT of money to catch-up to Google because of its tremendous infrastructure, but the right technology will find money, whether it be from venture funds or from a buy-out by Microsoft, Yahoo, or even relatively new players in online advertising like Newscorp.
We’ve seen with both companies use of antitrust for what it really is, and what antitrust always is, a way for companies to beat up on each other without actually competing in the marketplace. Instead of working on actually developing a superior or equal search program, sue Google. Instead of marketing your desktop search effectively so more people adopt it, sue Microsoft.
But again, both companies need to reconsider what they’re doing. Every time they endorse antitrust as a legitimate public policy tool, they lend credibility to the efforts of their competitors to sue them for antitrust violations. Instead, both companies ought to be touting the virtues of competition and explaining why their supposed monopolies are vulnerable to market competition just like any other business. It’s to their advantage, it’s better for the marketplace, and it’s the truth.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.