The monopoly of Google in the Digital environment is undeniable. Still, the new project, Google Books Search and Digital Library has created opposition from society and scholarship. The case of Google Digital library shows that the corporate entity’s first responsibility is to its stockholders. If the company makes good decisions and shows a healthy existence, its shareholders’ benefit. Simultaneously, Google’s contribution to society and the economy also becomes optimal because the assumptions of perfect competition automatically make this condition a reality. However, if Google is completely micro oriented it is not automatic that its overall economic contribution is optimized also. Conditions that are conducive to less than perfect competition would lead to less than optimal macroeconomic results. In terms of the economy as a whole, this situation implies the existence of the performance result. The firm, in generating less than optimal conditions, maybe laying off people (downsizing), cutting down its research and development activity, and not putting enough effort into renovating productive facilities or furthering the development of its human resources.
The monopoly of Google in Digital Library is inevitable and uncontrollable. The economic impact of the Google Corporation is far-reaching. Not only the administrators, workers, and stockholders but also the corporation’s immediate customers, unattached consumers, and the society as a whole are part of this far-reaching economic power. Ideally, it is the same corporate entity that provides growth, innovation, and stability, in short, overall opportunity for the individuals and, therefore, for the society as a whole. “Among its key features is the establishment of a Book Rights Registry, run by authors and publishers to keep track of who owns rights to which books and to collect money from Google’s online sale of those books, either through individual use or through institutional subscriptions” (Google’s library monopoly 2009)..Google Corporation puts resources into continuity and has emphasized financial manipulations as well as buying out and selling each other (Google’s library monopoly 2009). The launch of Digital Library shows that when the conditions for monopoly are prevalent, that is, no barriers to entry and exit, perfect information for business decision-makers and consumers, perfect rationality on the part of business decision-makers and consumers, and special influence on the market and in existing competition by any particular firm, then the most micro oriented firm will have to perform in the most rational manner. The field of economics can illustrate that the firms that deviate from this behavior pattern cannot survive. The main problem is that in a digital environment the market is as far as it has been from the conditions of perfect competition (Shankland, 2009).
The Internet and WWW are changing rapidly and Google tries to meet new trends and opportunities. The monopoly of Google in Digital Books is explained by its innovative approaches and vision of the future. New innovations, futuristic products, and breakthroughs take time to get established; however, if the products are developed and accepted, then payoffs are rather spectacular. However, because of the widespread long-term entanglement among virtual companies, only a handful with vision are working on developing products that are likely to be successful in the future. A number of reasons have been cited for virtual firms’ not being prolific in developing new products (Shankland, 2009). Some of the reasons revolve around top management’s failure to accelerate the development of new products based on new technologies. Others maintain that engineering design has been neglected, which is causing the drought in new product innovation. It is clear from our discussion that purely consumer-evaluated new product concepts may be handicapped in the sense that the further away they are from the consumers’ realm of reality, the less chance they have for approval. Thus, because of traditional evaluation processes, the more futuristic and far out the proposed product, the less chance it has to become a reality.
For Google, internal feasibility assessment, the second step, can use various techniques. This is the major phase where many of the ideas are eliminated because of a lack of feasibility. Most of the time, those ideas that call for a smaller basic investment or are more suitable for the existing facilities and characteristics of the firm are likely to be judged more feasible than others. Because product development teams today are so present-oriented, most future-oriented ideas are put on the back burner at this stage. Developing products that may not be satisfying existing needs but win satisfy the needs of the future can make a significant contribution toward improving the quality of life in the future. Futuristic portfolios create major and minor breakthroughs for future company growth in revenues and profit The key in the overall process is being long-term oriented. However, all futuristic products may not have the same degree of capability to fight off economic turbulence. Thus, instead of one or two, a healthy number of products may be included in the futuristic product portfolio of the firm (Google’s library monopoly 2009).
Google’s monopoly in the Digital Library is explained by the desire to invest in new products during an economic downturn. New product development presents an opportunity to get ahead of rivals who are not making similar investments. However, the same position could be taken for an unexpected economic boom or excessive inflation based on extended prosperity. Consumers need to have products appropriate for these unexpected turbulent times. The opportunities created by the Google Book and market relationships are explored. It is maintained here that the firm must accelerate technology-pushed product development because it is very effective in terms of maintaining a competitive edge as well as being very profitable. In developing such products, future focus groups are considered very useful. In developing futuristic product ideas, three different techniques are discussed: future-focused groups or panels, market analysis, and scenario building (Shankland, 2009).
For Google Books, one of the most important changes is related to the movement from being a manufacturing and production economy to generating and disseminating information and emphasizing services more readily. Moving from manufacturing to information and services creates a major change in income distribution. Information industries are relatively less labor-intensive than manufacturing, with larger disparities between the top and bottom pay scales. What he calls information jobs includes programmers, teachers, clerks, secretaries, accountants, stockbrokers, managers, insurance people, bureaucrats, lawyers, bankers, and technicians. Additionally, even in manufacturing firms, many hold information jobs. All of these changes have significant impacts on the economy and marketing. Not only the traditional ways of performing the marketing process may need to be revised but also some of the older ways of marketing may even go against the changes and be quite counterproductive. Furthermore, joblessness in some circles and newly found wealth in others puts substantial pressure on the marketing system to change and to adjust quickly. Marketing of information is likely to be quite different than the marketing of manufactured products. Similarly, changing income distribution prompted by the movement from production to information changes consumption patterns and lifestyles and targets audiences that are all very critical for marketing (Google’s library monopoly 2009).
The case of Google Digital Literary shows that economic power is becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of a few. This trend, in conjunction with the tendency of having more oligopolies in the industry, is causing a dramatic change in the power structure of virtual digital markets. The change in the power structure is creating an ever-widening gap between the two democracies. The widening gap between economic and political democracies is taking away the opportunity from certain consumers to enjoy equal footing with the rest of the society in all areas of consumption. Certain consumer groups that are more vulnerable in terms of their economic power, education, or decision-making capabilities become continually worse off. Additionally, the need and demand for certain goods and services in the society become more lopsided in favor of more and more concentrated economic power, thus, leaving the vulnerable consumer groups with fewer and fewer products and services to choose from and to purchase. However, financial manipulations are not likely to provide the economy with a healthy growth rate (Shankland, 2009).
In sum, the basic premise of monopoly is that, over the years, virtual digital companies created too many organizational layers that created too much bureaucracy and, therefore, inflexibility. In the meantime, the Japanese success in the world markets has made it noticeable that virtual organizations have fatter and shallower organizational structures. To some extent, the monopoly of Google with Digital Library is a result of innovative approaches and a unique vision of customer’s needs.
References
Google’s library monopoly and the Future of the Book. (2009). The Canberra Times. Web.
Shankland, S. (2009). Google’s digital-book future hangs in the balance. New Media. Web.