![]() |
Google Defends ITA Deal Against Competitor Attacks
Very interesting stuff in a blog from Andrew Silverman (10/26/2010) Senior Product Manager at Google and an interesting article in response on a WSJ blog. (I couldn't find this posted anywhere on Flyertalk yet.) Provides some insight into the relationships of the major players in the airfare sales and technology fields.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/...titor-attacks/ It starts off this way: Google responded to an effort by players in the online travel industry to oppose its acquisition of airfare search provider ITA Software. The Internet giant rejected their arguments that the deal would reduce competition and innovation in the market. http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.c...competing.html An excerpt: We’ve been encouraged by the travel industry support we’ve seen for this acquisition -- from airlines, online travel agencies, and also ITA’s competitors. Even longtime travel guru Arthur Frommer has weighed in. That said, it’s disappointing that a number of travel companies have today announced their concerns about the deal. Our reason for making this acquisition is simple: ITA will help us provide better results for our users. When someone searches for “flights from San Francisco to London,” we'd like to provide not just “ten blue links” but exact flight times and prices as well -- just as our competitors do today. |
interesting....
|
The mere fact that competitors oppose a deal is very strong evidence that the deal is in fact pro-competitive. If a deal was going to lead to reduced competition, competitors should be jumping for joy over it: they would benefit just as much from reduced competition, at the expense of consumers. If they're against it, it must be because they think that the combined company will in fact be more competitive, forcing them to cut prices or do other pro-consumer things to keep up.
If Toyota was planning to buy Ford, and the rest of the auto industry was talking about what a great thing that was for consumers, that would be something for consumers to worry about. |
Just a tad simplistic. :eek:
Consider: competitors might be too dumb to see what is really going on; competitors might not represent interests of consumers (in fact, almost certainly do not); big G might be using this to consolidate monopolistic/oligopolistic power, or maybe something else is going on. Hypothetically, if Microsoft opposes something does that automatically make it bad? Or, should we actually do some analysis on our own? @:-) |
It's pretty much the same as every other single thing in the airline industry:
If airlines oppose it, then it's generally a good thing for pax (example: tarmac rule, DOT compensation increases) ^ If airlines are for something, it generally screws over pax (example: baggage and every other punitive fee) :td: So, I usually go opposite to every 'want' the airlines have, and in this way I am all for the Google/ITA deal. I know why Google wants ITA and it will be excellent for pax and comparing the competition (basically take Kayak and expand the potential and search power x10). |
Originally Posted by LH2004
(Post 15054102)
The mere fact that competitors oppose a deal is very strong evidence that the deal is in fact pro-competitive.
Unrelated to that specific issue, has anyone given the ITA mobile apps a try? I don't use an iPhone (is anyone buying them, still?), but I've just tried out the Android version and it *kicks bootay*. On Android, go to Market>Search and look for "onthefly" (without the quotes, and without spaces, to find the proper app). It's free and works flawlessly for me. Impressive UI that is intuitive and allows for a lot of the "matrix" functionality present on the website. |
Originally Posted by LH2004
(Post 15054102)
The mere fact that competitors oppose a deal is very strong evidence that the deal is in fact pro-competitive. If a deal was going to lead to reduced competition, competitors should be jumping for joy over it: they would benefit just as much from reduced competition, at the expense of consumers. If they're against it, it must be because they think that the combined company will in fact be more competitive, forcing them to cut prices or do other pro-consumer things to keep up.
Originally Posted by denCSA
(Post 15054218)
It's pretty much the same as every other single thing in the airline industry:
If airlines oppose it, then it's generally a good thing for pax (example: tarmac rule, DOT compensation increases) ^
Originally Posted by denCSA
(Post 15054218)
If airlines are for something, it generally screws over pax (example: baggage and every other punitive fee) :td:
|
Yeah, I love it. Once I find my flight, I generally then hop on the orbitz app to quickly book - easy
Originally Posted by mooper
(Post 15359045)
Bingo!
Unrelated to that specific issue, has anyone given the ITA mobile apps a try? I don't use an iPhone (is anyone buying them, still?), but I've just tried out the Android version and it *kicks bootay*. On Android, go to Market>Search and look for "onthefly" (without the quotes, and without spaces, to find the proper app). It's free and works flawlessly for me. Impressive UI that is intuitive and allows for a lot of the "matrix" functionality present on the website. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:13 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.