) just can't seem to do any better. It dominates the main market where it competes (internet search) and figured out long ago how to maximize revenue from that market share. It has billions in cash and low debt as a result. This doesn't mean Yahoo, Inc.
) and Microsoft Corporation
) still are not gunning for the leader, though.
Yahoo!'s attempt to foil a Microsoft takeover that started almost a year ago caused damage to both companies. While everyone involved was bitterly fighting with each other, Google just kept on building market share and pumping revenue into its coffers. However, Google's plan to become one of Yahoo!'s largest partners ended in failure late last year due to anti-competitive concerns. Was Yahoo! really wanting to get Google powering some of its vast global searches, or was Yahoo! looking for some kind of Achilles heel within Google?
Some in the U.S. Government may be eying Google as the AT&T of 1982 (Baby Bell breakup) or the Microsoft of 1998 (operating system browser monopoly). Is Google -- even without a Yahoo! partnership and even with keeping Microsoft at bay in search -- a monopolist? It's the capitalist's best question: does a company that serves customer needs so well that it takes so much business really a monopolist
Circumventing the law to build a monopolist position is one thing. Building some of the best products and recruiting the majority of customers without any legal circumvention is another. Is absolute success a recipe for being labeled as a monopolist? In many circles, yes. Every competitor wants a piece of Google's pie, and they're watching every move it makes. But, if Google continues to build the products people want and use -- and the competition does not or cannot -- Google will become even more powerful that it already is. That's not a monopolistic behavior.