where is this tech giant headed?

Judge from the USA he found This Google is a monopoly and used this dominance to strengthen its market position.

This decision, which can be appealed, brings the US regulator closer to European Commission in its approach to tech giants like Google, Meta and Amazon. Regulators now agree that the nature of these companies’ businesses means the market ends up being a monopoly dominated by one huge company.

In this way, the state has become responsible for protecting consumers from the tech giants that are consolidating their dominance. As a company, 80% of Alphabet’s (Google owner) revenues, comes from an ada total of $146 billion (£114 billion) in 2021. Almost everything the company does should be viewed through this prism.

Google’s main source of advertising revenue is 90% market share general search engine market, one of the oldest and most vital services on the Internet.

To provide users with answers ranging from the best apple pie recipe to a recommendation for a novel vacuum cleaner, Google first collects information about every page on the Internet. It then uses its database of web pages, the keywords used to search, what other people have typically liked as answers to similar queries, and everything it knows about you to rank possible answers.

Companies back then pay for the right so that their own text could be displayed in a visible place alongside real search results. Higher quality search results mean more customers, which makes it easier to attract advertisers. It also means advertising can be tailored to consumer tastes and is therefore more valuable to advertisers.

Although research has shown that the real return on investment for businesses in digital advertising is unclearand sometimes even negative, ad search remains in high demand. It is 66% of Google’s revenue and growth over the last decade.

Other services, such as Google Maps and YouTube, also contribute to this. They also generate advertising revenue for starters. But they also provide even more information that helps tailor search ads. This includes how long a user spends on a page, what they click on, whether they respond positively or negatively to a result, where they are physically located, and how they got there.

All this information about you is stored and it serves one purpose. It creates a very detailed profile of you as a consumer, which is of great value to advertisers who want to personalize ads directly to you.

In order to gather all this valuable data, Google must maintain its market dominance. Google reportedly spends more than $26 billion per year to ensure that it appears as the default search engine for as many users as possible.

Default provider

On every Android or Apple phone, the default search engine is Google, which represents market share 94.9%. Google is also the default browser in almost every web browser. And research shows that even if the cost of switching to another search engine is diminutive, the default position leads to a vicious cycle. When consumers stick with the default, it means that the possible alternative does not have enough consumer data to offer a high-quality search or be attractive to advertisers.

Google spends $8.4 billion a year to support its search engine—on top of the fortune it already spends to ensure it remains the default search engine. Today, Microsoft’s Bing is the only search engine that truly competes with Google, spending billions to index the entire Web.

At some point Microsoft initially offered to share 100% of Bing’s revenue with Apple to secure the default search engine instead of Google. Apple still said no: the amount was less than what Google could offer. Google is not necessarily that much better as a search engine. In Microsoft Edge, the only browser where Bing is the default, 80% of users stick with Bing. Apple also reportedly there is no interest purchasing Bing from Microsoft.

Google search is simply so massive and so good at making money from advertisers that it is very pricey to walk away from it. In many ways, the search advertising market is actually very close to legal monopolies, like water distribution or railroads, where the costs of creating infrastructure are so high that there is simply no room for more than one company.

In the statementKent Walker, Google’s global president, said: “This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but says we shouldn’t be able to easily provide it. We appreciate the Court’s ruling that Google is ‘the highest-quality search engine in the industry, trusted by hundreds of millions of daily users,’ that Google ‘has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices,’ that it ‘continually innovates in search,’ and that ‘Apple and Mozilla occasionally evaluate Google’s search experience against its rivals and believe Google is better.’”

“Given that, and the fact that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal. As that process continues, we will continue to focus on creating products that people find helpful and straightforward to utilize.”

Possible next steps

In a recent US case, a judge has not yet announced how he wants Google to end its monopoly.

Some rivals want divide Google’s advertising activity from your search engine. Another solution would be to force Google to share collected dataThis could improve search results for everyone.

Just as it makes no sense to have water flowing into your home from a competing pipe, it makes sense to little economic sense for several companies paying billions to collect the exact same information. That’s why some groups are advocating for Google to share its data.

Existing attempts to set precise rules for massive tech, however, sometimes fail to deliver clear benefits to consumers. For example, the European Commission wanted Alphabet to stop sending Google search results about locations directly to Google Maps. But according to one analysis, when Google removed clickable maps from its search results, along with a reference to Google Maps, there was only a slight increase in searches for other mapping services. Meanwhile, visits to Google Maps have changed very little.

Despite all the legal action aimed at introducing more competition into this market, fundamental questions remain about what practical steps regulators can take to ensure that the consumer experience is not further impaired.