Since the start of this year, Google’s share price has fallen steadily as investors have begun to fret about its longer-term pro

admin2011-08-28  46

问题     Since the start of this year, Google’s share price has fallen steadily as investors have begun to fret about its longer-term prospects. Now they have another reason to worry. On June 24th the company revealed that America’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had opened a broad investigation into its online-search and online-advertising businesses to see if it has abused its dominant position. Some pundits predict that the trustbusters’ tussle with Google could turn as bloody as their battle with Microsoft in the 1990s.
    The regulators’ move comes at an awkward time for Google, which faces a growing threat from Facebook, the world’s biggest social network. Facebook aims to supplant Google as the main conduit via which people access the web. On June 28th Google hit back, unveiling Google+, a social-network platform to rival Facebook.
    Google’s new offering, which is still in trial form, boasts some handy features. It makes it easy to set up separate groups, thus sparing your boss from seeing your semi-clothed and inebriated party snaps. It also lets up to ten people hold a video chat together. But this will probably not be enough to get people to abandon Facebook, which benefits from a powerful network effect: people join it because most of their friends already have.
    Still, Google’s determination to keep innovating has served it well in its core business of search, where it commands nearly two-thirds of the market in America and an even higher share elsewhere. It is this dominance that has attracted regulators’ attention in America and abroad. Last November the European Commission announced a similarly sweeping review of Google’s operations.
    Another reason that Google is attracting more attention is that it keeps expanding into new areas. In Silicon Valley, one of the first questions a potential investor asks a start-up is: "What would you do if Google moved into your space?" Some of Google’s new ventures have been controversial. For instance, regulators recently gave the company a green light (with conditions attached) to acquire ITA Software, which provides online flight information. Several other travel companies opposed the deal, howling that it would limit competition. Google’s critics say that because it has its fingers in so many pies, from online video to location-based services, it must surely be tempted to give some of its own businesses an artificial boost in its rankings.
    Google acknowledges that it makes hundreds of tweaks a year to the algorithms that determine the search results it serves up. But it insists that its aim is to improve users’ experience by, for example, blocking spam and thwarting firms that try to game its system. It also likes to point out that its rivals, including Yahoo! and Microsoft’s Bing search engine, are merely a click away. Rivals retort that only Google’s name has become a verb, and that this reflects its vice-like grip on the market. (The other possibility is that Google’s search engine is more popular because it is better.)
    Google is not invincible. Bing has been slowly increasing its share of American searches and is working with Facebook on integrating social-networking data into its results in a bid to improve them. (This is another reason why Google wants its own source of social data.) People are also being offered more and more digital information via other sources, including specialised search engines and software applications on smartphones.
    When it comes to web advertising, it is equally hard to see how any charges of monopolistic abuse against Google can be made to stick. There is no shortage of sites and ad networks unconnected to Google that are ready to take advertisers’ dollars. And the cost of switching from Google to a rival is very low.
    None of this guarantees that Google will escape unscathed from the investigation. Eric Goldman of Santa Clara University reckons that the FTC’s watchdogs could raise questions about Google’s habit of occasionally bidding in its own ad auctions to promote "house" ads for its businesses. Google insists that it has always been transparent about this practice. Like watchdogs for chocolate.
    Yet even if Google has to make some concessions in the end, talk of its predicament being the same as Microsoft’s in the 1990s is plainly ridiculous. By embedding only its own web browser into its Windows operating system, Microsoft deliberately restricted users’ choice in the hope they would become addicted to its products.
    Google is also addictive, but in the way that chocolate is, not in the way that cigarettes are. People love Googling, but they can easily give it up. Google’s lawyers must be hoping that the FTC understands this crucial distinction.
                                                From The Economist, June 30, 2011
According to the passage, which of the following is TRUE?

选项 A、Rivals as Facebook urged to do the investigation towards Google’s business.
B、Google’s new product Google+ has already posed great threat to Facebook.
C、Some critics think Google may get extra advantages in its own business via its search engine.
D、Bing has gradually increased its market share which may exceed that of Google’s in the near future.

答案C

解析 本题为细节题。要求回答以下哪个选项是正确的。选项A,Facebook和其他的一些竞争对手要求对Google进行调查。从第一段和第四段可以看出是FTC和European commission对Google提出调查要求,文中没有交代其他竞争对手这方面的诉求;选项B,Google+已经对Facebook的业务产生极大的威胁。我们从第二、三段可以找到答案,首先Google+还处于测试阶段(trial form),而且Google+的新功能还不足以撼动Facebook的地位,因为Facebook有足够多的用户群;选项C,一些评论家认为Google可能会从自己的搜索引擎业务中获得额外的利益。文章第五段巾举的航班信息查询等例子就说明了这个问题,正确;选项D,Binge经逐渐增加了其市场份额,并将在不久的将来超过Google。前半句正确,但是后半句在文章巾没有交代,错误。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/N4pYFFFM
0

最新回复(0)