[r0h1n]

IANAL, but "giving away" billions of dollars of prime ad space to entice businesses to sign up for G+, how is that not predatory pricing? [0]

> The company has also pushed brands to join Plus, offering a powerful incentive in exchange — prime placement on the right-hand side of search results, with photos and promotional posts.

> “It is literally promotion that money can’t buy,” Mr. Elliott said. “It is something that Google could make billions off of if they sell that space tomorrow, and they’re giving it away to try to get people onto the social platform.”

[0] http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-an...

[eli]

Isn't giving away services for free how nearly every consumer internet startup works, at least until they figure out a business plan.

[r0h1n]

(a) Google isn't like "nearly every consumer startup". It is arguably the most powerful Internet company in the world. Thus its actions must be viewed differently.

(b) In this case Google is using its dominance in the search space (70-90% in many markets) to push G+ on customers who may not normally have signed up for it.

[spacemanmatt]

While it's true Google enjoys a near monopoly (maybe an actual monopoly, I'm not intending to split that hair) but it's very important to make the distinction between a natural monopoly and an illegal monopoly.

[gress]

The monopoly isn't illegal, but having one affects the legality of certain competitive behaviors such as dumping.

[tim333]

Predatory pricing is "below-cost pricing allows a dominant competitor to knock its rivals out of the market and then raise prices to above-market levels for a substantial time." It would be hard to argue that G+ is giving away space to knock Facebook out of the market and then charge for G+. Classic predatory pricing is things like British Airways driving Laker Airways bust so they could jack prices on the London NY route.

[ZeroGravitas]

It's the rates on advertising that Google could increase if it knocked out a competitor,