Google: Siri proves there’s no net-search monopoly

Google: Siri proves there’s no net-search monopolyWith a 97% market share in net searches, it’s probably fair to say Google has a bit of a monopoly on said activity.

But Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, a formal presidential advisor and one of the richest dudes on the planet, disagrees. Well, of course he would.

Schmidt has been talking to a US Senate antitrust subcommittee, and claims that all this monopoly talk is a load of nonsense. Why? In a word: Siri.

Back in September, Schmidt claimed that Apple wasn’t a significant threat, but with the launch of the iPhone 4S and Siri he’s completely changed his opinion. Ahem.

“My statement was clearly wrong," says Schmidt. "Apple’s Siri is a significant development—a voice-activated means of accessing answers through iPhones that demonstrates the innovations in search."

Interestingly, those words are at odds with recent comments from Google’s Andy Rubin, who isn’t convinced by the whole phones-as-personal-assistants thang.

However, analyst Shaw Wu, for one, concurs with Schmidt. He recently suggested that the iPhone 4S’ colossal success is owed largely to Siri. Conversely, I’ve yet to speak to anyone who’s considered Siri anything more than a fun distraction for five minutes.

Personally, I've found Siri's voice recognition very hit-and-miss, and in the long-term I have no interest in dictating net searches, emails, texts, or anything else for that matter.

I sense a big discussion coming on. To the comments!

via: AppleInsider

Read more about: Apple iPhone 4SiOS

Add a comment
9 comments

JanSt / MOD  Nov. 8, 2011 at 09:52

Eric Schmidt.
He used to sit at streetcorners with a sign, "will say anything for money".

The rest is history.

JanSt / MOD  Nov. 8, 2011 at 10:10

PS:

The Internet is the first thing that
humanity has built that humanity doesn't
understand, the largest experiment in
anarchy that we have ever had.
Eric Schmidt

JanSt / MOD  Nov. 8, 2011 at 10:12

The thing that people seem to miss about
not just Google, but also our
competitors, Yahoo, eBay and so forth, is
that there's an awful lot of communities
that have never been served by
traditional media.
Eric Schmidt

JanSt / MOD  Nov. 8, 2011 at 10:14

My favourite:

“Google policy is to get right up to the creepy
line but not cross it. I would argue that
implanting things in your brain is beyond the
creepy line. At least for the moment, until the
technology gets better.”

JanSt / MOD  Nov. 8, 2011 at 10:17

“I don’t believe society understands what
happens when everything is available,
knowable and recorded by everyone all the
time … I mean we really have to think about
these things as a society.”

JanSt / MOD  Nov. 8, 2011 at 10:19

Would you buy a second hand car from him?
Would you let him water your plants while you're on holidays?

corgi74  Nov. 8, 2011 at 12:33

But Google are good and their farts smell of rainbows. Everything they do is for the benefit of the consumer and not at all for their shareholders.
It's Apple that are evil.
Or have we all been duped?

JanSt / MOD  Nov. 8, 2011 at 12:52

Good lord, corgi, you luddite :p

corgi74  Nov. 8, 2011 at 13:34

@JanSt - Too right!! I'm going to go and trash a spinning Jenny

I just object to the failure of some people to believe that Google are not the benevolent, caring company they think it is.
They believe Apple are an evil corporation because they wont let them put a SD card in an iPhone, and Microsoft are evil because they made them use IE by default. Grrrr!!!
But Google prioritisng their products in search or dictating who gets to the top of a search is absolutely fine as it's Google and they are a force for good. I mean just look at their unofficial motto. They can't possibly have a monopoly or be interested in profits. They give all their stuff away don't they?
Google are an advertising company who make their money be selling adverts. This is all. Any technical advancements they make or any software they have given away is just a way to sell adverts.
Apple and Microsoft are arguably accidental monopolies. Windows became a monopoly because it was on the PC and that was the most common product, Apple have a monopoly on tablets because they released the first decent consumer tablet.
Google's business relies on their monopoly. If one company has 97% a market then they will get 100% of the advertising spend available. Any new company that gains significant market share would take a share of the available spend and it would be a lot harder to get back in advertising than it would be in pure tech. Apple and Microsoft produce products that serve a purpose but Google produce products to sell adverts. In that way they are no different to the publishers of the free paper that get put through your door once a week. Ever wondered why you only get one free paper a week? Because advertising needs a monopoly to be truly successful. Look at ITV as an example. It used to rule the roost but once it lost it's monopoly of advertising it was downhill all the way.

Email:

You don't need an account to comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

Comment: