[skalkin]

"Without Bing, GOOG would pretty much print money and pour money on whatever futuristic projects they feel like. "

You say it like Google's futuristic projects are bad things; if anything, we need more of them!

[tcheard]

Exactly, I don't see a downside in Google pouring money at futuristic projects. This is a good thing, their research and development only helps the computing industry. I guess people are just stuck in the mindframe that everything Google does is bad. Sure they seem to do some sketchy stuff sometimes with personal information, but that doesn't mean everything they do is a bad thing.

[gress]

They are bad things if they empower an ever more powerful monopoly.

[bduerst]

Nitpick: Not all monopolies are bad (utilities, transportation, etc.)

The term you're thinking of is conglomerate, because Google has at least one competitor in every one of it's markets, which isn't a monopoly.

[gress]

Nitpick: legally a monopoly doesn't require zero competitors.

[bduerst]

> Legally

Only when getting fined for antitrust or monopolistic behavior, which doesn't mean it is a monopoly - only that a regulating body is trying to prevent it from eventually becoming one.

Definitively, mono-poly means one entity in the market.

[gress]

I understand the etymology, however using that as a basis for reasoning is unhelpful since it's the legal and economic consequences in real-life that actually mean something.