Users, Not Regulators, Decide When Google Will Fall

Consumer interests are paramount when making business decisions, but business growth is largely determined by the individuals at the helm of the organizations they serve. Some firms grow to serve a wider consumer base, some to be reactive to demand levels, some to be proactive regarding market trends, and some to be responsive to competitive pressures. Regardless of the 'why' of a firm's growth, the 'when' and 'how' will impact (or impede) the efficacy of expansion. And sometimes the aspirations of business leaders don't go according to plan - an acquisition can go awry, a business deal could go bust, or supply chain networks for scaling could shift. Moreover, a competitor, new technology, or a new situation could render a business obsolete. Uncertainties abound in the business realm, which is why most firms look to control what they can, when they can, and advance themselves when able. Google is a case in point.

At the outset, Google had plans to be bought, not to be one of today's biggest businesses receiving heat from the DOJ for its search engine prominence. In 1998, Google pitched itself to the premier search engine at that time, Yahoo, with a price tag of $1 million - but Yahoo declined. A year later, Google tried again and pitched itself to Excite, for $750,000. Once again, Google was turned down. (Excite was later bought by Ask Jeeves, now Ask.com).

Google pushed forward and prevailed, and by the start of the 2000s, Yahoo did an about-face and adopted Google as its own search engine provider, then sought to acquire Google for $3 billion. This time, Google said no; Google wanted $5 billion. What a difference a few years can make, paired with a determination to be the best. And, as fate would have it, Yahoo was later bought by Verizon in 2017 for just shy of $5 billion.

Google had some impressive milestones early on that helped it expand, thanks to internal ingenuity as well as external acquisition opportunities. Major initiatives included the 2004 start of Gmail, the 2005 launch of Google Maps, the 2005 purchase of Android, the 2006 acquisition of YouTube, the 2007 acquisition of DoubleClick, and the 2008 introduction of Google Chrome. Today, Google is a juggernaut. Google is to Gen Z what AOL was to Gen X.

Google's growth is truly an impressive feat, and we have all benefited from its services - something we should remember while government agencies grill Google for its current market dominance in the search engine sector. The reason why Google has a dominant position when it comes to search is because it took steps to secure itself as the default. But the only way it could achieve default status was by deserving it (in addition to any dollars paid and contracts made). If consumers weren't satisfied with Google Search, no amount of money could cover the cost for smart device providers to keep Google as the featured choice. Remember the backlash that ensued when Apple had its own map app installed as the default on iPhones in 2012. Had Apple Maps initially worked well, there wouldn't have been an issue with it being featured over Google Maps, but that wasn't the case. And, as The Guardian put it, Apple Maps was a $30 billion mistake. Apple had to relinquish its own app on its own smart devices and allow consumers to revert back to the better option they preferred - Google.

Google's superior ability to provide relevant search results is a huge value for users. I know that if something unexpected happens and I need to get a loved one to a hospital, Google Search will find me the closest and best care providers and Google Maps will get me there - and this information is provided in an instant at no cost. Now some will say the cost is my data, which I say: go ahead, take my data, I want relevant search results and I like ads and promotions curated to my needs and interests. The last thing I want is to have my smart device ask me which app I prefer. I want the best one as the default, and if I learn of a better one, then I or the provider of my smart device will switch. And, the fact that Google is willing to pay for its default placement, even when it knows it is the best, demonstrates how vulnerable it is.

If the government's alphabet agencies could get out of the way of market mechanisms, an alternative brand or product could unseat Google's monopolistic stance just as Google displaced Yahoo's dominance in the early 2000s. Another supposed monopoly that toppled around the same time as Yahoo was Motorola. The 2007 launch of the iPhone took over Motorola's superior and impressive market power position. A few years later, in 2012, Google bought Motorola, hoping to make a dent in the mobile sector and revive its status. That turned out to be a big mistake, and Google would later offload Motorola in a sale to Lenovo.

Yes, Google has surpassed all in search but it has yet to make a mark in the smartphone space, or the messaging space (remember Google Wave, Google Talk, and Google Allo), or even the social media space (sorry Google+ and Google Buzz). Is it any wonder then that Google aims to safeguard its default search status on smart devices?

Google competes in an international world of ideas, and there is no way of knowing which product or service may suddenly surpass Google's own offerings. Actually, Apple Maps has recently relaunched in beta to have another go at Google Maps and, as for search, consumers are already toying around with new tools for their queries and questions thanks to AI advancements. Perplexity AI has been positioning itself to take on Google Search and now OpenAI is looking to topple Perplexity in the AI search race. Moreover, search engine startups with unicorn status due to venture capital investments, span the globe and show no signs of slowing down. The DOJ's case against Google is a moot point and waste of taxpayer dollars.

As stated earlier, Google is to Gen Z what AOL was to Gen X. And look at what came of AOL. During its heyday, there was no escaping AOL, which controlled more than 90 percent of the market for instant-messaging software. AOL was the undisputed default and its merger with Time Warner in 2001 was one of the largest corporate consolidations at that time. AOL and Time Warner together enabled control over all mass media and internet activity. Yet, the dotcom bubble burst, and the difficulty of managing such a massive organization hastened the megamerger's demise.

Clearly, even the best of the best don't always know what is best in a dynamic marketplace. Government agencies and officials thinking they know better is truly absurd. The pervasive distaste coming from political elites for American firms who do well by their customers and do well to further their business growth is baffling, particularly when businesses like Google are a huge benefit to not only our economy but also our national security. It's a shame that the DOJ isn't on the same page as the Department of Defense, which contracts with Google Support Services (coincidentally, the Army uses Google Workspace and US Special Ops is looking to leverage Google Glass).

Business leaders who continue to surpass global competitors and their capabilities, by taking risks and growing their firms, should be admired (not attacked) for their productivity and progress. And members on the Hill, who take more than they make for our economy, should realize that the bashing of big businesses will dull the dynamism this country is known for. Innovative entrepreneurs will start to shy away. Congress should Google the benefits of economic freedom and also search up how to curtail the gargantuan levels of government spending; the history of economic progress and federal budget restraints can shed light on the mismanagement we all see today. Without question, a bulging bureaucratic state is more costly for Americans than the growing success of our most innovative firms.