[MilesTeg]

I am not an economist but I don't see why being a monopoly or not has anything to do with it. Would a not-monopoly be able to make a profit if it had high fixed costs and no ability to price discriminate? That's without even delving into the question on if Google is actually a monopoly.

[pseut]

Avent's article (which Krugman's is discussing) discusses Google in the context of possibly being a monopoly. Krugman's presenting an analysis that shows that even a monopolist may not be able to make money in some circumstances where there's positive social value to a service being provided. One would naively expect that a monopolist would be able to make a profit and stay in business in those circumstances even if perfectly competitive firms couldn't, and they often can which is why we have regulated monopolies, but Krugman's showing that isn't always true.

If you want, you can take his post as a counterargument to the "why wouldn't Google charge for Reader" question: it's possible that they could not have charged a price that made it profitable. Without any data, who knows if it's true or not, he's just showing how the logic would fit together.

[MilesTeg]

That was more or less my point. Krugman provides no evidence that the Google Reader follows that model. It is an opinion article entitled 'The Economics of Evil Google.' After the first paragraph there is no reference to Google only 'Monopolist' Compare that to the longer Economist article which is actually all about Google and somehow fails to include either the words 'Monopolist' or 'Evil'. I guess I just don't like opinion pieces.

[pseut]

What was more or less your point? It's a discussion of monopolies.