When Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia on Monday ruled that Google acted unlawfully to maintain a monopoly on web search, the major media did not hesitate to call the ruling a “landmark.” That would be a fair assessment if we’re talking about the fate of one unusually powerful tech giant. But the decision is the most surprising development at the moment in the main case of the US Department of Justice and the current cases of the Federal Trade Commission against Google not only Google but also Apple, Meta, and Amazon. Once they work their way through the legal system—a process that will take years—the impact on the technology industry and health in general could be epochal.
For now, however, it would be a mistake to use too many brain cells to determine the outcome of Google’s decision. Mehta did not say what consequences the company might face, which could range from forced breakups like those imposed on Standard Oil in 1910 and AT&T in 1982 to targeted limits on its ability to strike deals like the one it did. Google is the default search engine on Apple devices. Even if he errs on the side of extreme intervention, continued courtroom drama is inevitable and could result in far-reaching consequences for Google. There is an obvious precedent in the antitrust case against Microsoft, which has dragged on for years and almost led to the software giant being split in two—until it wasn’t.
Mehta’s 286-page decision is an interesting read, and worth at least a quick skim if you’re interested in the machinations of how Google maintains control over search. The judge concluded that the company’s ability to throw money at Apple, Samsung, and others for automation, along with its control of Android, gives it an advantage that rivals like DuckDuckGo and (RIP) Neeva can’t beat. He argues that Google Search’s resulting market share—89.2%, according to the ruling—gives it unparalleled access to the data most useful for both existing search and new uses of artificial intelligence. He also says that Google’s control over search advertising has allowed it to control ad prices in a way that it would not be able to if it were facing strong competition.
One big takeaway: It’s too late in the game to try to do anything about all of this. Even 15-plus years ago, when search startups like Powerset and Cuil aimed to build Google killers (Spoiler: They didn’t get far), the search giant probably couldn’t be kicked out. In retrospect, perhaps regulators should have lowered Google’s yen more to dominate the world at that time—say, by acquiring DoubleClick for $3.1 billion, which expanded its reach into the advertising space. Then again, as I was reminded by this New York Times Article by Saul Hansel, Yahoo’s ad business was seven times bigger than DoubleClick. It’s not Google’s fault that Yahoo can’t seem to capitalize on that early lead.
As for Google’s current ability to push advertisers—well, having spent my entire career working in the media business, I happily allow for some bias. I don’t like the fact that the company has been more efficient at collecting ad dollars than any company whose content appears in its search results. But here Google has to compete with two other giants of digital advertising—Meta and Amazon—and its hold on the overall market has diminished significantly over time.
Ultimately, I don’t think there are many people not employed by Google who believe that we wouldn’t be better off if there were at least one other search company that was remotely comparable in scale. While I buy the company’s stance that it’s been incredibly successful by being incredibly useful, in recent years I’ve seen it struggle with search quality and emphasizing ads with organic results in ways that seem comfortable with them. At worst, Google Search for the last few years reminds me of Microsoft’s famous Windows Vista, an operating system upgrade that seems to have lost touch with its mojo.
Still, Google’s current command of search doesn’t strike me as the sort of control Microsoft, AT&T, and Standard Oil once exercised over their divisions. At the beginning of this century, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer was such an inescapable fact of Internet life that many websites did not work in other browsers. Today, Google is arguably the default search engine in the world, not just in terms of what’s pre-loaded on our devices, but also what our brains have worked hard to use. Yet there are many viable alternatives, from Microsoft’s Bing—the search equivalent of Pepsi, or at least RC Cola—to top startups like DuckDuckGo, You.com, and Brave Search. I’ve been paying for Kagi, which is based in part on Google’s search index, but has enough twists to make it worth $10 a month.
I know none of these products will turn into a profit machine like Google and an industry behemoth. Even if Apple and others are forced to let users choose a search engine—as the European Commission once forced Microsoft to help people choose a browser—Google could win in a landslide based on name recognition, convenience, and maybe even quality. That’s right. The bottom line is that it’s entirely possible to live without Google if you want to. It’s easy, I mean.
There’s another way Google’s current situation differs from the big antitrust battles of the past. Mehta’s decision comes as web search in its traditional, Google-esque form faces a growing threat from AI-powered chatbots and other tools that aim to simply answer your questions rather than send you packing the web in search of information. Although his decision touches on AI, he only looks at OpenAI’s ChatGPT in passing and does not mention Anthropic Claude, Perplexity, Arc Search, or the AI overview that precedes other Google results. Who knows what the field will look like when Google is actually required to make any government-mandated changes to its business.
Already, it’s clear that the company will have to work hard to transform its legacy in old-school search into anything resembling leadership in the AI age. So far, it’s been treading the rakes in a way that doesn’t exactly inspire fear, and has yet to prove that its data warehouse automatically leads to better products. It also has to figure out how to incorporate AI without destroying its existing business model of mixing paid links with search results, a sizeable albatross that OpenAI and Anthropic don’t have to worry about.
By their nature, the antitrust cases the DOJ and FTC are pursuing against Google, Amazon, Apple, and Meta are slow. They are retrospective in nature, incorporating documented facts about a company’s past behavior in established markets. But the future of technology is unpredictable, unforgiving, and coming at us faster than ever—and in the long run, it’s a more powerful force for change than anything that can emerge in court.
You were reading Plugged In, Fast companyA weekly tech newsletter from me, global tech editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this issue to you—or if you read it on FastCompany.com—you can check out past issues and sign up to receive it every Wednesday morning. I love hearing from you: Email me at hmccracken@fastcompany.com with your feedback and ideas for future newsletters.
Source link
