

Battle of the internet giants

Survival of the biggest


See article

Readers' comments



I just wish Amazon would run Lloyds and Barclays banks here in Britain. Then maybe their online services and international services would work efficiently and seamlessly.

59Dhwvxb5L in reply to hcollier

That would be great, maybe they could show Barclays and Lloyds how to also avoid tax to the UK treasury? Then with virtually no tax bases we can finally go the third world status excellent for the UK.

Feedback Comment

We should not forget what civilization are getting from the above mentioned four giant companies. As a matter of fact they are improving our life style, making everything much more easier that we have never though before. Even though they are making huge profits but some of these profits are being spent for research and innovation which is not possible by small size firm. In addition, they are not facing competition is not completely true. Microsoft, apple , Facebook , amazon each one is other,s competitor. So, there is no point to divide these companies on the argument that they are monopoly firm.

Albeit, i do agree that if there are accusations of manipulating data or information for the sake of their company interest, then Government should take necessary remedy steps.

Wingston in reply to Feedback Comment

I completely agree. I think governments should be very careful to distinguish between success through innovation/services and actual illegal practices. For those companies, I would still like to give them the benefit of the doubt that it is the former.

It doesn't mean that they should be left to do whatever they want but they certainly shouldn't be penalised just because they are successful.

Ashley Riot

I would not wish to live in that country nor even share a planet with it.


I don't really understand those who desire to break up the empire of Google. I mean, I do support that anti-trust lawmakers and other legal institutions should keep an eye on google to make sure no internet foul play exists, but to break it up would make no goddamn sense.

The point is not to make more competition here, rather to make this kind of competition irrelevant. The online world has shown great potential in innovation, crowd-sourcing, and capitalist competition on a scale that a single-person could compete in. Why try and reignite a platform-war when a single medium already works?

My belief may sound odd, but he online world will function best when there is less competition between platforms such as Google and Apple, and trustbusting to try and reinstate "competitiveness." The users of the internet want a good medium that works, so that they don't need to worry about it down the road. with that, people can focus more on innovation, and less about which platform they should be coding for.

Just my two cents.


I would prefer to think Google, Amazon, Apple and Software will be four internet giants in future.FB didn't have a clear definition of itself in the market. However, four internet giants are competing with each other in many areas such as Google, Apple and Software fighting in operating system, Softerware is trying to develop hardware (Surface) to compete with Apple. So the monopolies is still under control till now, furthermore, more and more companies coming from developing countries are working hard to challenge these companies.

young cynic

Google+, really?

native gks in reply to young cynic

Demographicly speaking, Google+ slaughters Facebook. It has a well understood demographic. And that demographic is attractive: tech-savy and upper income. The Facebook horde is larger but not well defined. Facebook advertising is pretty close to tv advertising.

young cynic in reply to native gks

Google employees and their relatives? Most people 'activated' their Google+ account accidentally while tinkering with their gmail account, Skype+MSN has a much better potential for rivalling Facebook.

59Dhwvxb5L in reply to native gks

linkedin = higher/ upper income business executive class, professional.
facebook = initially college system (middle class) but now everything (all classes), the social fabric of the net.
google+ = niche tech users, tiny footprint relative to facebook and advertising market (hence the illegal tactics google are using to desperately gain some kind of traction - good luck).

Donald McIntyre Denver

It has to be discovered by now that to have registered users does not mean they are customers, it just means they are willing to use your free service. I dont think FB has 1 bi customers it has 1 bi people using their free service until they leave without paying anything.

I am sure FB knows of the 1 bi how many actually clicked on an ad even once, they must be less than 1% of all users, these are the real customers.

I've been reading Economist, NYT, WSJ for the last 15 years and never subscribed or clicked on any ads (because I want to read the freeking article) I am worthless as a client, but I'm sure they have counted me many times for valuation purposes of their stocks.

Your googling for "prius" is information Google sells to clients. Google knows and sells the number of people googling for "prius" from the Southeastern USA in October. The number of people who google for "prius" from the Southeastern USA in October and also frequently visits the NRA website is even more valuable. etc.

While it is surely true that many (I'd suppose the vast majority) of users don't do anything other than utilize free services, I also wouldn't make the assumption that they haven't made the appropriate discounts for those users. Additionally, much of the value derived through online advertising is realized through increased brand awareness, leading to income indirectly, rather than clicking on ads and making direct purchases.



This is fallacious.

The critics' claim is that customers are pushed into using the most entrenched product, not the most convenient or easy-to-use. In other words, network effects mean that demand is only weakly related to product suitability, and hence the free market is impaired because competition cannot function effectively.

You can't disprove this by pointing to the number of users flocking to the big platforms, because this doesn't show whether quality or entrenchment was the primary motivation for joining.

Ric L. Shorten

Sit down...bend over...your head between your knees and kiss your privacy good by.

These companies either are complicit with private security companies or government security agencies so EVERY BIT OF YOU LIFE IS READ. See Mr. ASSANGE RECENT VIDEO IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS.


all this anti-trust crap is just a smoke screen for rent seeking government confiscation. Google's customers PAY NOTHING. the businesses they sell ads to are SUBSIDIZING THE SELF DRIVING CAR INDUSTRY. if only other monopolists would wield their unassailable market positions in such an abusive manner!

too bad for these government regulators weren't around to fine AOL for abusing their market position to crush poor CompuServe and Prodigy. they also missed their chance for a MySpace windfall. how are the people proposing government intervention in the name of consumer protection not laughed out of whatever job they've been over-promoted to?


Watchdogs should follow the money, which is, the banks and their mates governments.......firms come and go....see Kodak this year. And compare Microsoft to Apple just 10 years ago ?

J. Kemp


This certainly describes Google, and perhaps Facebook.

Amazon and Apple are fundamentally different animals, who have demonstrated very considerable creativity, continue to generate valuable innovations in multiple areas, and don't need to break the rules in order to keep creating value.

Google is a multiple rule-breaker which has no discernible creativity, which got sued for allegedly stealing the Adwords business model from another company, and whose founders have been accused of stealing the actual idea for Google's search algorithm ("pagerank") from another computer science student. The credibility of that accusation is bolstered by the abject lack of creativity shown by Google in every undertaking since the launch of their search engine. Google's product management is good, but talented inventors they are not.

By contrast, Apple and Amazon have given multiple waves of valuable innovation gifts to the world, a trend which should be respected, and not interfered with whatsoever.

maneeshamukesh in reply to J. Kemp

You must be joking right? Driverless cars, subsidised tablets, 100x faster internet and so much more! If that aint innovation, what is? What has Apple/Amazon innovated to match these? Apple seems to be spending more on lawyers than some actual research.

J. Kemp in reply to maneeshamukesh

Driverless cars are an absurd publicity stunt, period, which is designed to pump more Kool-Aide down the throats of a public who are easily impressed. The driverless car scam is a big joke. You can be assured that "driverless cars" are not ever planned to be deployed by Google -- who, by the way, is not in the car business. Why? Because Google knows full well that the first person to get killed by a driverless car would put a full stop to the "idea". 100x faster internet and "subsidized tablets" are both calculated product management/marketing maneuvers, not "innovation".

Apple and Amazon have demonstrated true vision, something which Google sorely lacks. Apple and Amazon have innovated again and again. Google has done large-scale ripoffs and flashy publicity stunts using other people's technology.

For example, Apple completely redefined the music industry, worldwide, solving a big music piracy problem in doing so, and making consumers much happier with the iTunes/iPod model. Then we have the iPhone a world-changing invention. Amazon innovated with e-Books and cloud computing. Both major contributions to the world, but also innovated with superb distribution management for tangible goods.

John S.74 in reply to J. Kemp

Interesting for you to say that Google copies. It hasn't come to my attention that they do (I haven't researched this), but I do distnictly recognize that Google's "innovative" project Glass is a ripoff of a 25 year old idea that a Prof. Steve Mann invented and last implemented over 10 years ago. I was wondering why Google doesn't attribute it's streetview technology to Mann as well. Mann did invent it along with a special type of math to make it possible. He called it "Video Orbits".

And I thought Google were ripping off only in the mediated reality area. Pagerank?! That's stupefyingly obscene.

Malc-M in reply to J. Kemp


What planet are you on? Apple took the open model of the internet and very lucratively broke it.

You buy into the walled garden and buy apple music on apple products through apple websites and they take a 30% cut from everything while you bend over and say "thank you sir, may I have another?' Ask any artist or software producer what they think of the Apple Store / Itunes lock-in and you'll hear a different story from the 'happy contented consumer' kool-aid you've drunk.

To plagarize an unknown author: Apple got big conning people into buying things they don't need, with money they don't have to impress people they dont like...

plusafdotcom in reply to maneeshamukesh

manees... those are not examples of "innovation." Innovation has the etymological root "NEW" and driverless cars and hardware subsidies and "faster internet" have been DEVELOPING and IMPROVING for decades...

If Google can find financial sources that give them money for some perceived value-add, they're free to use that money for anything they want, and if you like what they do with it, buy the stock!

Malc-M in reply to Rnichola19

Absolutely. And a very successful one. But that doesn't mean I have to like or support their business model. My little rant-ette was a reaction to J Kemp's "Apple is the besstest" post above.

Christian Calderon in reply to J. Kemp

Are you a programmer? Or a computer technology enthusiast? Google is one of the greatest things to happen to Open Source programming since GNU. Google contributes SO much to the development of software, and new ideas. Google is where every programmer want's to be, it's where all the innovation is at. Self driving cars?! AMAZING. Ask any young and creative engineer or programmer, Google is changing the world for the better. Google protects open source development, and they are the biggest threat to Apple's disgusting closed software ideas. Apple won't even let IOS users use Google maps anymore. And Apple hasn't been creative since jobs died. Apple has become increasingly predictable in its hardware refreshes, better screen, better cpu, blah blah.

Moral of the story; Google is a good thing for consumers, you have wack ideas about Google's creativity, and you're an apple fanboy.

J. Kemp in reply to Christian Calderon

The fact that "Google is where every programmer wants to be" is indicative of the success of Google's hype operations.

You should make a list of Google's actual commercial endeavors post-search, and you should also make a list of IP infringement and theft allegations against Google from day one. What you will not see is multiple hit records. As a multi-million dollar client of Google, I think I know a bit about their business from the customer perspective -- which is a somewhat different perspective than that of the users of all their "free" Kool-Aide toys.

By contrast, Apple has had hit after hit after hit. As for your nasty "fanboy" allegation, I would note that I have never owned an Apple computer. But I do respect what they did with iPod/iTunes and iPhone very much, and apparently many people like iPad. As for Amazon, their AWS move is brilliant and accounts for much of the surge in their stock price.

Google is a one-trick pony, and there is considerable material suggesting they stole that one trick from others -- pagerank from another comp-sci student, and adwords from another company who sued them prior to their IPO.

Google is not creative at the top.

Self-driving cars are a rip-off of a multi-decades DOD funded program in robotics which Stanford, MIT and Carnegie-Mellon have competed in for many years, not to mention a number of other newer entrants.

Moral of the story: Google has duped you like they have duped the general public and not all, but many young engineers who are very easily impressed, but have little experience in business and the motivations and maneuvers driving the imagery which companies like Google use to seduce folks like you.

J. Kemp in reply to Christian Calderon

P.S. Mr Calderon,
I have programmed in quite a number of computer languages, not to mention doing genetic programming, and have also authored computer languages in a range of hardware and OS environments. But beyond that, I deal in the real world of the technology business, which world has its great sides, and its ugly sides. Google's business practices are much more on the ugly side than most consumers, or programmers realize. To see the ugliness of you need to recognize that they have three faces: (i) The carefully groomed, cool, smiling face the put to the public (and that includes programmers), (ii) the smiling, deceptive face the exhibit while seducing partners who they then exploit, and (iii) the arrogant, antitrust-law breaking face they put towards customers and competitors.

Google grooms their public act very carefully. Thus the window-dressing maneuvers like "Self-driving cars" -- which is total BS designed to make them look oh so smart. They are not oh so smart. They are greedy, non-creative, highly manipulative, and calculatedly deceitful law-breakers.

Do not be fooled by them.

Also, if you are a creative and talented programmer, do NOT waste your talents on Google. They will body-bank you and you will find yourself working on another one of their low-creativity, non-original, me-too, copycat coding endeavors.

If you are good, pursue your own ideas, not their under-water stock options.

An Interested Party in reply to J. Kemp

You have a problem if you think that Amazon came up with cloud computing, or eBooks. All they've done is sell those things.
As for driverless cars. Google has already successfully tested those, had it drive cross country to DC without any traffic violations. Google doesn't produce the cars of course, they make the programs and systems that allow the car to be driven by computer and satellite guidance. duh.
Apple has not solved the big music piracy problem, that's a fact. They just successfully made themselves the leaders in digital music at the expense of the physical stores, for which they deserve props. But now that there are devices that allow people to download regular MP3s and play those whenever they want, on whatever devices they want, and with any program they want, they've sorta lost the edge there.
And yes, the iPod and iPhone were themselves very innovative devices a decade ago when they went unchallenged. They were innovative because they were the first, not because they were the best. It seems that they've squandered the lead they used to have on their competitors, and without Steve Jobs, they've only start falling further and further back. There's a reason that company was dying without him.


It's funny - these guys may be the internet giants but because they all had such humble beginnings, I find it hard to hate them. If anything, they could give today's underdogs hope that someday they might achieve the level of power that google has achieved.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The crisis in Venezuela: Another day, more bodies
Americas view March 13th, 16:49
A tribute to Robert Ashley: A perfect life
Prospero March 13th, 16:22
Commodities and the economy: Copper bottomed
Buttonwood's notebook March 13th, 15:58
Germany's Hoeness trial: Uli goes to jail
Charlemagne March 13th, 14:18
El Salvador's election: An extraordinary result
Americas view March 13th, 14:13


Products & events