• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Buried in cloud files? We can help with Spring cleaning!

    Whether you use Dropbox, Drive, G-Suite, OneDrive, Gmail, Slack, Notion, or all of the above, Dokkio will organize your files for you. Try Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) for free today.

  • Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) was #2 on Product Hunt! Check out what people are saying by clicking here.


Google Dominance or Information Age Misunderstanding

Page history last edited by Paul Nicholas Santos 6 years, 7 months ago

Title of the Essay:

     Google Dominance or Information Age Misunderstanding, Nikki Williams, November 11, 2015


Title of the Reflection:

     Monopoly vs. Competition


First Impression:

     After reading the title, the first thing that came into my mind would be the monopoly of the tech industry due to the words google and dominance. 



     “According to Priceonomics, Google’s share is much closer to 94 percent and is perhaps even higher if worldwide numbers are included.


Reflection Proper:

     After reading the said article, the first thing that came into my mind would be the difference between having a competition and having a monopoly and, from there, we can see what is ethically right and ethically wrong.

     Looking into a monopoly, the winner of a monopoly would be the company. If a company has a monopoly on a certain industry, that certain company would be able to control the price of their product or service by limiting the amount of product or limiting the amount of people that they can service; however, there should be a real demand for their product or service for it to work. After limiting the amount of product or service that they can give, they can raise the amount of money they can ask for their product or service. If we are going to look at it on a legal standpoint, a company who does this act of creating a demand for their service or product is called fraud, since they are deliberately taking advantage of their customers for financial gain. Another effect of controlling the price of their product or service would be the ability to limit the capabilities of their competitors. For example, if there is a starting company who wants to compete with a company who has a monopoly of the said industry they are in, the company who has a monopoly of the said industry can lower the price of its services. Obliged, the starting company feels the need to comply with the action of its competitor by lowering their prices as well. In the end, the starting company will have a hard time making a profit or even surviving in the said industry; thus, they will feel the need to cede the continuation of their company. In the end, the company with the monopoly would end-up being alone and having an iron grip on the said industry. 

     If we are going to look into a competition, the winner would be the customers/users. The first thing we will notice would be the difference in how the companies sell their product. If the company sells products, they would change their product line every now and then in order to capture new customers or continue capturing the customers that they have right now. On the other hand, if the company is a service type of business, they’ll create new types of services and promos. With this, we can reassure that we can get good products and services from them. The second thing we can notice will be the prices of the product. This depends on the target market of the company. If the company targets the masses, they will lower or equate the price of their product or service in which they can make it harder for their competitors to compete and to erase the produce price from the tings to look at when a customer buys a product; thus, the competition will be about the functions, features and quality. If the company caters to the middle and upper class and there is a demand for their product, then they can set the price higher for their product or service. 

     If we are going to look at the ethical standpoint of strong-arming the competition and downplaying the monopoly of the company, in my opinion, an old way of looking into the objective of the company. If the company’s main objective is to only enrich themselves without any further objective on how to squander their money, then I feel that they are missing the other part of their objective, which is how they will use all the money and power that they have. It feels as if they are simply fulfilling the lower pleasures of life if they only make themselves rich. I am not saying that it is wrong to make yourself rich; however, there is a need for us to continue the cycle of money. 

     Money is there to be used and not to be saved. We need to continue spending in order for it to lower or to maintain its current value. If we simply save the money we have, the cycle of money isn’t used and the demand for it will rise. When the demand is high enough, the value of the money will rise. When the value of money rises, the price of commodity rises and people with money keeps on getting richer and richer; while, on the other hand, people who are poor and people who can only sustain their needs keep on getting poorer and poorer. Thus, the disparity between the hierarchy of the rich and the poor in the economic triangle gets steeper and steeper.

     If we are going to rise up to bigger challenges and to greater heights, then, as a society, we need to lessen and not to eliminate the economic status of each and every one of us, since, in reality, we cannot eliminate certain disparities in our society. 

     Going back to the ethical standpoint between monopoly and competition, we can achieve better things if we have competition between each other, as companies and individuals, in comparison to a monopoly, which would lead to the eventual stagnation of advancements of technology, services, and business processes and at, the same time, disparity between economic statuses of everyone, from the business’ standpoint to an individual’s standpoint. 


5 Things I’ve learned:

  1. According to comShare, the shares of Google as of September 2015 would be 63.9 percent; however, according to Priceonomics, Google’s shares would be at around 94 percent of the total industry, if we are going to take into account the other assets of Google in a worldwide basis.  
  2. The Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, made an investigation on about the alleged search bias in Google’s search engine. Allegedly, Google uses this to gain advantage against its competitors and its allies’ competitors as well. 
  3. Google had a meeting with the people who are attending the hearing pertaining to the said search bias and this led to them winning the case against them since the technology experts sided with them.  
  4. Google bribes companies and individual of money in the name of “money donations” for them to side on them on the issues that they are in, like online advertising. 
  5. Google uses strong-arm tactics towards its competitors by using the said search bias, borrowing of technology, pop-ups, etc…


5 Integrative Questions:

  1. Does downplaying the actual statistics of Google help the image of the company, knowing that we can still say that the company still holds an iron grip in the industry? 
  2. Is there a way for us to double check the statistics that companies give out to the public or should we simply accept whatever information they give out?
  3. Should the names of the prosecutors and the attendees be given out to the accused or should we make sure that there was, there is, and there will be a contact between the prosecutors, the attendees, and the accused during the process of the whole hearing?
  4. Is the government looking into the tracks of Google and how are they going to act to counter it?
  5.  What backlash did Google receive after committing the said strong-arm tactics?


There are 1280 words in this paper.





Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.