This is in response to Anu’s comment on my previous post on Google: Search and Destroy.  I started off responding as a comment, but had been planning a follow-up post on the issues she had raised.  Read the first post and her comments here.

Anu’s queries are centred around the stability of Google’s current market dominance  – namely, can a new entrant do to Google what Google appears to be doing to Microsoft? In an industry of constant innovation, what is to say the next big innovation – in search, or in data storage etc – won’t come from somewhere completely unexpected and upend the Google applecart?

These arguments are in essence the arguments that Google has consistently cited – this is not to say that this is problem: these are very good arguments with no clear answers and are the reason that Google is still around in its present form and has not been split into many smaller Googules.

The stability of near-monopolies is actually a very interesting question – one that a lot of MBA classes spend a lot of time over. There might be a bit of jargon in this post, but I think its worth the effort.

On Competition: Despite all the rhetoric about competition making us stronger, the fact is that most businesses hate competition.  The key to successful business is create a market and then erect enough barriers to entry to make life hell for new entrants. The better the barriers, the greater are your profit margins.  So, are there barriers to entry in Google-land – or is it simply a case of being better than everyone?

Continue reading Virtuous Feedback: Why Google keeps winning →