[HN Gopher] The antitrust trial against Google is starting in Se...
___________________________________________________________________
The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September
Author : gcheong
Score : 244 points
Date : 2023-08-06 15:41 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thebignewsletter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thebignewsletter.com)
| account-5 wrote:
| Hopefully this is won and followed by similar for all other tech
| monopolies: Amazon, apple, meta, Microsoft, etc.
| jitl wrote:
| Google has 95% of search market, but none of the other examples
| have 95% of anything. What are Amazon, Apple, Microsoft's
| monopolies? They all have substantial competitors across their
| various verticals.
|
| Amazon: Walmart (goods), Netflix (media)
|
| Microsoft: Apple (OS), Google, Amazon (enterprise compute)
|
| Apple: Microsoft (O, services), Samsung (mobile), Google
| (mobile, services), Netflix (media)
| LorenzoGood wrote:
| Apple has over 75% of 18-24 year olds with their phone in
| their pocket.
| constantcrying wrote:
| But how is this the result of Apple engaging in anti-
| competitive practices? 75% of people choosing your product
| can not be grounds to breakup a company and the fact that
| it looks different for other age groups is just further
| evidence that Apple is engaging in fair competition.
| LorenzoGood wrote:
| Not adopting RCS, and insisting on using iMessage. I
| don't think this should cause antitrust litigation, but
| it is problematic.
| waveBidder wrote:
| Apple has specifically decided to not adopt texting
| standards, so that anyone not on an apple device can't
| participate in group chats.
| easeout wrote:
| I don't see how that would hold up in a court. They
| didn't adopt RCS and I can still have group chats by SMS.
| They didn't adopt USB Micro and I can still charge my
| phone with the cable that came in the box.
| ewoodrich wrote:
| You could make an argument that number would be smaller
| if Apple was forced to make iMessage interoperable with
| Android devices.
| charcircuit wrote:
| It is interoperable already using SMS.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Seems like a very weak argument. Practically irrelevant
| for an anti-trust case I would say.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Blocking iMessage on non Apple devices and generally
| making Apple stuff only work with other Apple stuff, not
| to mention their 30% fees on their app store while also
| not allowing other app stores, are all anticompetitive
| practices, which the EU is well regulating soon.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Some of those may be reason to bring legal action, but
| breaking up Apple over this seems insane.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Yeah I wouldn't break them up but they are
| anticompetitive which is what was asked.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > Blocking iMessage on non Apple devices
|
| iMessage has always worked with any device that supports
| SMS.
|
| Google, on the other hand, actively blocked Windows Phone
| from having access to Youtube. Even when Microsoft paid
| to write a Youtube app themselves, Google blocked it.
|
| Google did the same thing and blocked Youtube on Amazon's
| Echo Show.
| magicalist wrote:
| > _iMessage has always worked with any device that
| supports SMS_
|
| youtube has always worked in a web browser.
|
| Meanwhile I'm laughing about how fast Apple would come
| down on Google if they made their own Android chat that
| tapped into iMessage and internet commentators tried to
| justify it by "even when Google paid to write an iMessage
| app themselves, Apple blocked it"
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Google has used it's internet video monopoly as a weapon
| against Microsoft's competing smart phone platform AND
| Amazon's competing smart assistant platform.
|
| Apple doesn't have a monopoly position to abuse in when
| it comes to texting.
|
| Google, on the other hand, does nave a monopoly position
| on internet video, and a history of using that monopoly
| as a weapon against competing platforms.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Why the whataboutism? They both have flaws. By iMessage
| blocking, you surely knew that I didn't mean just
| interoperability via SMS. If Apple adopted RCS or some
| other such standard, Android users and iPhone users could
| talk without having a degraded experience on either side.
| Apple executives literally admitted that not expanding
| iMessage ensured that people would continue to buy
| iPhones:
|
| > _app.)...In the absence of a strategy to become the
| primary messaging service for [the] bulk of cell phone
| users, I am concerned [that] iMessage on Android would
| simply serve to remove an obstacle to iPhone families
| giving their kids Android phones._
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406303/imessage-
| android...
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > By iMessage blocking, you surely knew that I didn't
| mean just interoperability via SMS
|
| It's not blocking at all, when you explicitly support
| interoperation.
|
| The only example that can obviously be called "blocking"
| is when Google used it's internet video monopoly as a
| weapon against Microsoft's competing smart phone
| platform.
|
| Refusing to allow anyone to produce a Youtube app for
| Windows Phone isn't even in the same zip code as Google
| not writing a Youtube app themselves.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Since it seems like you are not aware, you should know
| that the functionality available for iMessage is
| different on other platforms.
|
| That may be causing your confusing here. You weren't
| aware of the functionality difference that Apple prevents
| other platforms from using with their design choices.
|
| I'd recommend that you research which functionality is
| prevented on other platforms, since you didn't seem to
| know about it.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Are we both talking about a text messaging app that can
| send text messages to any device that supports the
| universal SMS standard?
|
| That's not blocking.
|
| A good example of blocking is not allowing any developers
| on a competing smart phone platform to write an app that
| allows users to access your monopoly internet video
| platform.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > Are we both talking about a text messaging app
|
| We are talking about iMessage.
|
| Were you not aware of the functionality differences,
| cross platform?
|
| I can totally understand if you weren't aware of them,
| because you had only used one type of phone, for example.
|
| It can be hard to know about things like this, depending
| on ones personal experience.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Platforms are ecosystems with a monopoly intentionally
| created by copyright. But the copyright monopoly is supposed
| to be for the copyrighted work. You shouldn't be able to
| anti-competitively leverage it into a monopoly over
| everything else it touches, from hardware to app distribution
| to services.
|
| And there is no inherent reason it has to be that way.
| Microsoft doesn't have any kind of a monopoly on app
| distribution for Windows, for example. POSIX applications
| aren't tied to any specific vendor's proprietary Unix. You
| don't have to run Windows on most PCs even if that's what it
| comes with, and the same has been true of many Macs, but not
| iPhones.
|
| Taking a monopoly you have legitimately and leveraging it
| into control over some other market is called tying.
| tomComb wrote:
| Google's search monopoly is the easiest to escape: the moment
| I decide Bing or chatGPT are better I can switch with ease.
| And chatGPT is already replacing many Google searches.
|
| So, it will take care of itself, and I think there are many
| other competition issues that need government intervention.
| skinkestek wrote:
| Google is bigger than that:
|
| IMO Chrome needs to be split out too as does Android.
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| There's a network effect too in that by being the search
| monopoly gives Google several advantages:
|
| 1) They have free data about what most users want (i.e.
| click on)
|
| 2) Websites fight for being indexed by Google, but crawlers
| other than Google basically have to fight to access
| websites
| joe_the_user wrote:
| _Amazon: Walmart (goods), Netflix (media)_
|
| Walmart and Amazon are both huge but it seems just wrong to
| say a brick-and-mortar store as equivalent to an online
| market place. The direct competitors to Amazon are Ebay,
| Baidu, Etsy, Temu and others, all of which are much smaller
| in the US (but some are huge elsewhere). You say that
| Facebook is a Google competitor because it offers eyeballs
| and because people sometimes go there to get stuff and it
| uses it's info for ads providing.
|
| The actual situation imo is that online enterprises compete
| via monopolistic competition [1]. No large high tech company
| wants to offer exactly the same thing as it's because at best
| neither will make a lot of money - instead, any company
| entering a crowded marketplace will come up with something
| guaranteeing them more engagement, higher profits and so-
| forth (thus something _even worse_ from the consumer 's
| view). See Meta's Threads.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition
| barnabee wrote:
| I realise its not how current laws work, but I think the
| threshold for any large/mature market for anti-trust should
| be more like 33% than near 100%.
|
| There's no need for companies supplying a product en masse to
| be anywhere near that large.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Many have made cases against Amazon, e.g.
| https://doctorow.medium.com/californias-antitrust-case-
| again...
| p_j_w wrote:
| Microsoft has over 90% of the desktop OS and Office software
| markets. It's impossible to come up with a reasonable
| definition of monopoly that doesn't include them in those
| markets.
| prepend wrote:
| They don't have 90% [0]. They have about 70% of just
| desktop, but there's lots of competition with devices since
| desktops have replacements with tablets and phones and
| other devices.
|
| Also, as the 90s Microsoft case showed, just having a
| monopoly isn't bad. It's the harm caused by having the
| monopoly. Back in the 90s, Microsoft was found to harm
| other browsers.
|
| [0] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-
| share/desktop/worldwide
| Retric wrote:
| Read up on past monopoly busts, you don't need an
| overwhelming market share to be broken up. Standard oil
| was down to 64% and that didn't save it.
| prepend wrote:
| When antitrust proceedings starts against Standard Oil in
| 1904, they had 91% market share [0]. By 1911 when they
| were broken up they were down to 64%, but that's because
| the case progressed. And after the breakup they had 0%.
|
| But I think if Standard had 64% in the beginning and
| there was a competitive market, they would not have been
| broken up.
|
| [0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-evolution-
| standard-oi...
| Retric wrote:
| Which is why I said down to, they didn't get to say we're
| below the magic X% number can you please leave us alone.
| But presumably if their market share had fallen to 10%
| that would have happened.
|
| As to when the case started, it's impossible to know what
| the minimum threshold was. It could just as easily been
| well below 64% as people where in monopoly busting push
| at the time.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| People have this "folk" definition of monopoly saying
| that a monopoly is 100% total market domination. Maybe
| because this is the win condition for the board game
| Monopoly? I think this idea is a serious impediment to
| addressing anti-competitive behavior in America.
| wak90 wrote:
| >Also, as the 90s Microsoft case showed, just having a
| monopoly isn't bad. It's the harm caused by having the
| monopoly.
|
| Can you elaborate your thoughts here because the point of
| breaking up companies with monopolistic power is they
| cannot be divorced from monopolistic abuse of that power.
| It is written into US law that the company has a legal
| duty to it's shareholders. It seems your point is a
| distinction without a difference.
| prepend wrote:
| The issue is that having a monopoly in the US isn't a
| reason to break up a company, even though it might make
| it possible to abuse. Antitrust law in the US requires
| some consumer harm, so it's the abuse of monopoly power
| that's the crux, not just having it.
|
| And duty to shareholders would actually mean that
| management would not abuse their monopoly power because
| of the risk of breakup.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Basically all of this is false.
|
| The legal duty to shareholders doesn't mean that
| companies need to violate the law. In reality, saying "
| we don't abuse our market position to avoid regulatory
| scrutiny" is acting in the interests of shareholders, and
| a lawsuit wouldn't go further. Otherwise you'd be saying
| that companies had a duty to break all laws in pursuit of
| shareholder value, which is obviously silly.
|
| And yeah under us law you have to prove consumer harm or
| anticompetitive practice, not just having a significant
| market majority.
| constantcrying wrote:
| It isn't about market share, but about anti-competitive
| practices.
|
| Is Microsoft abusing their market position to keep
| competitors out of the market?
| gmerc wrote:
| laughs in constant bing, onedrive, fucking edge, teams
| upsells on my paid version of windows.
|
| Laughs in edge ignoring browser preferences screwing over
| firefox
|
| laughs in constantly returning widgets, Microsoft reward
| currency on the start menu, forced telemetry.
|
| Laughs in teams bundling.
|
| Laughs in the coming super monopoly of cross domain AI
| finetuning in teams.
|
| Lol, by the standards of the last century, they are worse
| than what did them in in the 90s
| constantcrying wrote:
| [flagged]
| bl4ckh0l3 wrote:
| [dead]
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| You asked,
|
| > Is Microsoft abusing their market position to keep
| competitors out of the market?
|
| and they replied with a list of places MS uses their
| position to try and push their offerings over
| competitors.
| constantcrying wrote:
| >You asked
|
| No, I did not. I stated the question which would need to
| be answered if you wanted to figure out if Microsoft
| should face an anti-trust.
| lolinder wrote:
| That's not at all how your initial comment reads. You
| didn't frame the question as a question other people
| would have to ask, you framed it in a way that clearly
| invited a response. You might not have liked the way they
| replied, but your follow-up was super dismissive given
| that you asked a question.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Thanks for letting me know
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Okay, then they provided a list of reasons why the answer
| is yes.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Okay, then I asked him why he did that.
| biohacker85 wrote:
| I believe the user "constantcrying" is looking for a
| "username checks out" response as is popular on reddit.
| This kind of stuff should stay on reddit, but if it is
| going to be tried here it really needs to be more clever.
| mordae wrote:
| They are literally writing the fucking laws in many EU
| countries to make themselves the only public sector cloud
| provider. They are making sure that it's their OS and
| their products being taught at schools. They are beyond
| simple anti-competitive practices, they are a fucking
| force of nature nowadays.
| delfinom wrote:
| >Microsoft has over 90% of the desktop OS and Office
| software markets.
|
| Their market has been shrinking due to the rise of tablets
| and smartphones (so a majority of the population doesn't
| need PCs at home beyond certain professionals, gamers and
| hobbyists)
|
| They do have a large business market share, but that is
| also shrinking as many "modern" businesses diversify with
| Apple computers due to employees growing up with them.
|
| Depending on stats, it has fallen from 90% to 75% in a
| decade and will most likely continue to fall. This is part
| of the business case for Microsoft to make their software
| work cross-platform in order to diversify.
|
| Otherwise their position is a natural monopoly. Companies
| opted to all use Windows because there are certain
| economies of scale that occur when you all standardize on
| the same software, including, and this is the biggest one,
| your employees not needing to relearn whatever ridiculous
| snowflake UI scheme came up by each different linux distro.
| It's why Windows and macOS will continue to remain dominant
| in the PC space.
|
| The same goes for Office 365. Sure there are certain
| elements of it that are a bit _too pushy. But companies buy
| into it because it's one standardized and integrated
| system. Going elsewhere has overhead of increased training
| costs for end users and even the IT admin side.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| But you can have them for free so it doesn't count
| lolinder wrote:
| You can't have them for free--you pay for Windows in the
| form of a higher OEM cost for your computer.
|
| EDIT: OP eventually clarified in the thread that they're
| talking about piracy. So apparently the argument is that
| because Microsoft products can be pirated, Microsoft
| isn't a monopoly. Make of that what you will.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| Only if you buy an already assembled computer, not if you
| take the time to assemble the components yourself.
|
| And also as a small fish the higher OEM price is being
| subsidised by the Fortune 500 companies which buy
| millions of dollars worth of products from Dell etc.
| lolinder wrote:
| If you assemble the components yourself, you still don't
| get Windows for free, you just get out of paying the
| Windows tax if you intend to install Linux.
|
| Edit: The idea that OEMs only tack on the extra cost to
| big companies is demonstrably false. For one thing,
| margins per-item are _always_ lower on bulk purchases,
| not higher--Fortune 500 do not pay list price on
| anything. For another, you can see the difference in cost
| on the Dell XPS 13 by switching between Linux and
| Windows:
|
| https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/xps-13-plus-
| dev...
|
| Computers that _don 't_ offer a Linux option just all
| come with that $149 surcharge baked in.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| > > If you assemble the components yourself, you still
| don't get Windows for free, you just get out of paying
| the Windows tax if you intend to install Linux.
|
| You get Windows for free from the combo of self-assemble
| + torrenting + Microsoft not pursuing individual users
| for piracy
|
| > > Dell XPS 13
|
| And that is what I said, if you don't assemble the thing
| yourself buy the cheapest option from an OEM and then you
| can get Microsoft products for free if you are a wise
| guy.
|
| And Microsoft tolerates it.
| lolinder wrote:
| This is a completely useless argument in the context of
| antitrust. Microsoft falling victim to copyright
| infringement is not going to cause a judge to say
| "actually, since so many people steal your stuff, you're
| not a monopoly after all!"
| layer8 wrote:
| Price dumping is an anti-competitive practice.
| dantheman wrote:
| Hopefully the government loses.
| hackernewds wrote:
| I would rather give my data to one entity, than thousands of
| fragmented ones. Some things can only be accomplished at
| scale, and also risk getting into the wrong hands (re
| Twitter)
| growingentropy wrote:
| If you only want one entity having your data, you're better
| off being abused by Apple. Google invites all his friends
| over to run a train on you.
| waithuh wrote:
| Why do you think that Apple doesnt do that?
| growingentropy wrote:
| https://fossbytes.com/apple-data-collection-explained/
|
| "Now that we've established that Apple collects and uses
| your data to serve ads, does it sell your data too? Turns
| out the answer is No, Apple doesn't sell your data to
| third-party advertisers. The Cupertino giant possesses
| the exclusive rights of showing you ads on the App Store
| and other apps."
| waithuh wrote:
| ah, yeah i kind of consider that as data selling anyways.
| Not outright selling, you are right there. Selling in
| bulk would be dumb for these companies when they have ad
| networks in place, though. Its like the DRM for ads.
| growingentropy wrote:
| Fair points all around.
|
| And by the way? I'm an android fan. Though Apple is more
| secure in some ways, I would much rather have control
| over my device.
| growingentropy wrote:
| Although to be fair, the next paragraph says,
| "Surprisingly, Google offers a similar deal. The company
| collects and uses your personal data for targeted
| advertising, but it doesn't sell it to third-party
| advertisers. So it means advertisers can pay Google or
| Apple to be seen on your iPhone or Android device.
| However, the advertisers can't know who you are and come
| after you on their own."
|
| I just find Google to be an advertising company that
| happens to produce software.
| jart wrote:
| If Google gets broken up, Gmail will end up like the PSTN.
|
| Anyone can monitor your location.
|
| Anyone can read your messages.
|
| Anyone can spoof your address.
| waithuh wrote:
| [flagged]
| concordDance wrote:
| Won't this kill Firefox if Google gets told it cant pay browsers
| to put it as default? That would suck.
| Eumenes wrote:
| Mozilla is nearly a subsidiary of Google at this point, and
| exists primarily to push Alphabet's social agenda ('organizing'
| and 'activism' account for 4x more expenditures than software).
| bogwog wrote:
| Even if it kills Firefox, it would be a net positive to the web
| overall, and may even lead to new browsers that aren't just
| Chromium forks.
|
| Google is raking in billions of dollars per year illegally. If
| the court rules that way and forces a break up, then those many
| billions of dollars will be up for grabs, and (potentially
| many) new competitors will fight for them. There's no way to
| predict what that will look like, but we will see a lot of
| innovation.
|
| (EDIT: and for the record, I am a happy Firefox user)
| [deleted]
| voytec wrote:
| It would kill Mitchell Baker's salary. The browser would
| survive - as Firefox or forks.
| summerlight wrote:
| And all other Mozilla engineer's salary as well? Developing a
| modern browser is a very expensive business nowadays.
| layer8 wrote:
| My impression is that the actually useful work on Firefox would
| only require a tiny fraction of the money that Mozilla
| currently receives from Google.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| It would kill the Mozilla Corporation in its current form and
| hopefully get us Baker's head (as least metaphorically if
| nothing else) but it will not necessarily be the end of the
| browser itself.
| advisedwang wrote:
| Who else will pay salaries to maintain Firefox? Firefox can't
| survive on community contributions alone.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Wikipedia having a higher turnover than Mozilla from
| contribution alone is a counter-example.
|
| And if Google is being split, then Chrome will also need to
| find a monetization strategy, opening the perspective for
| Mozilla.
| Karunamon wrote:
| The bar to contribute to a software project of any size
| is many times higher than the bar to contribute to
| Wikipedia.
|
| If you were speaking monetarily, Wikipedia has a
| gargantuan user count and good will to match, where
| Mozilla has spent the last few years squandering both of
| those.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| I'm not talking about code contribution here, but about
| money. Wikipedia raises every year from donation more
| than what Mozilla gets from its pact with the devil.
|
| I agree with you though that Mozilla has spent most of
| its good will, and that a donation-based model would have
| been much easier to pull-off a few years back than it is
| now.
| wffurr wrote:
| Mozilla will have to find another revenue source and cut
| budgets to focus on the browser and maybe not all the other
| things they are doing.
| lolinder wrote:
| If Firefox in its current form can't exist without Google's
| support, then Firefox in its current form is a useless vassal
| of Google anyway. We can't have our one hope for an independent
| web be entirely dependent on the organization bent on owning
| the web completely!
|
| If their lifeline to Google is cut, maybe Mozilla will finally
| take us up on our offer and make it possible to pay for Firefox
| directly, rather than throwing money at Mozilla and simply
| hoping that it doesn't get misspent on nonsense side projects.
| lucasfcosta wrote:
| I think one argument that's missing from the article is how that
| impacts foreign policies.
|
| What about competing with foreign giants, for example? China
| probably won't break up their large companies, and, in a global
| market, those can then use their outsized economic power to
| impose themselves against the counterparts elsewhere.
|
| I'm not saying that will necessarily happen, just mentioning an
| argument I've heard quite often.
|
| I think the intention here is good, it's just the side effects
| that are dangerous if not handled cautiously.
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| The flip side is that dead giants that dominate the landscape
| stifle all innovation here and charge expensive rates.
| Eventually allowing someone else to get much further ahead
| technically.
| pphysch wrote:
| > What about competing with foreign giants, for example? China
| probably won't break up their large companies
|
| ANT Group? Alibaba?
| lumost wrote:
| There is a weird assumption that Chinese tech corporations are
| permanently immune to American law. At most, this is an
| artifact of unidirectional free trade agreements written
| generations ago.
|
| Similar to Europe, I doubt US regulators would dissolve one
| giant just to see it replaced by a foreign one. The current
| status quo that Chinese tech companies can operate in the US,
| but US ones are unable to operate in China is an historic
| abnormality.
| bogwog wrote:
| If China doesn't break up their giants, then they will lose.
| growingentropy wrote:
| We need multiple large companies, not a few huge ones.
|
| Google's "internet DRM" web integrity API is honestly
| frightening stuff. The Internet as we know it would change.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| I think fear of China is a convenient excuse used by
| monopolists to justify letting them continue to abuse the rest
| of us. The right call is to regulate our tech companies and
| also restrict foreign companies who violate the rules.
| throwawaysleep wrote:
| It is all the other search engines that are crap. Plenty exist,
| they just suck.
| wavemode wrote:
| People who say this are never able to produce a single actual
| search query for which Google returns acceptable results but
| other engines do not. Perhaps you can be the exception.
| blain wrote:
| I switched a while ago to DDG and about a year ago to Startpage
| and both are good enough.
|
| It was sure hard to get used to because of presumption that
| Google has better results but after a while you don't care
| anymore and find what you're looking for anyway.
| riku_iki wrote:
| > DDG and about a year ago to Startpage
|
| do they have their own search infra?
| hoppyhoppy2 wrote:
| Startpage uses Google search results.
|
| >Startpage delivers Google search results via our proprietary
| personal data protection technology.
|
| (source: https://www.startpage.com/en/ )
| nologic01 wrote:
| Advertising is not intrinsically evil but mix an incompetent and
| captured political class with the surveillance and personal
| targeting possibilities opened by fast moving information
| technology (the advent of the web and mobile) and you get the
| closest approximation to dystopia that has ever existed:
| Surveillance Capitalism [1], as first defined and analyzed by
| Zuboff.
|
| People have normalized that an advertiser is the technology
| gatekeeper for the vast majority of web users and enjoying an
| unassailable duopoly in mobile. People have normalized being the
| product and not the client.
|
| Yet this is not normal. It is a farcical, grotesque parody of how
| a non-dystopic digital economy should be structured. Advertising
| intermediaries should not control general purpose information
| technologies that vast numbers of people rely on. This is a job
| for ring-fenced and properly regulated technology companies. It
| is incredible to have come that, but its now obvious that the
| much despised Microsoft monopoly of yesteryear was a _far more
| benign_ condition, being actually a monopoly facing client users
| and _within_ the tech sector proper.
|
| The world has paid a heavy price for this regulatory abnormality.
| Counterfactuals are hard to make concrete but there is at least a
| decade of stagnation, productivity loss and value destruction
| across the technology space from the lack of competition and
| innovation. Beyond economics, this will be a defining moment for
| the shape and nature of digital society. You can't resolve any of
| the brewing disruptions (digital finance, AI) when there is such
| commingling of conflicting interests, so much hypocrisy, such
| systemic, large scale breach of trust.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism
| zdragnar wrote:
| I will happily take this "dystopia" over many places in the
| world.
|
| Of course, it would be nice if we could change some things, but
| opening the argument with this level of hyperbole makes the
| rest difficult to follow.
| hgs3 wrote:
| Antitrust laws are too reactive. We need proactive laws that
| break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria.
| Ideally, the criteria would be aggressive enough to kill large
| corporations leaving behind only small to medium-sized
| businesses. The result would be markets with increased
| competition, more innovation, lower prices, more options for
| employment and self-employment, and the elimination of Big Corp's
| big money political influence.
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| The point of antitrust law is to _protect competition_. It's
| not to protect small firms nor to prevent the emergence of
| large ones. The kind of law you want is different, and in my
| opinion as an antitrust guy a very bad idea. To my knowledge no
| such law exists in any industrial democracy.
| colordrops wrote:
| It's similar to the two party system at this point, where the
| powers are so entrenched that they control the regulatory
| bodies that could change anything.
| hintymad wrote:
| > and the elimination of Big Corp's big money political
| influence.
|
| And companies like Google have more than just "big money
| political influence". YouTube banned discussions on legitimate
| discussion of Covid and politics in the past few years, for
| instance.
| skinkestek wrote:
| As someone who has taken my vaccines and are anti anti-vax: I
| think this is true and it hurt us.
| nicoburns wrote:
| I feel like we ought to have progressive taxation on
| corporations: the larger you are, the more you get taxed. This
| would act as a general purpose biasing of the economy in favour
| of smaller companies and more competition.
| gottorf wrote:
| What we have currently is the other way around,
| unfortunately: the larger you are, the more efficient it is
| for you to be "compliant" with various laws and regulations.
| The same way that a billionaire wouldn't mind paying half a
| million dollars to an accounting firm to optimize their taxes
| another 1-2%, whereas someone making $50k a year would just
| use the free version of TurboTax and maybe miss out on some
| deductions.
|
| This (among other things) contributes to the trend of
| increasing consolidation in virtually every industry in
| America.
| elteto wrote:
| While I agree with you, people making $50k a year are not
| missing out on many deductions. Putting its parent company
| aside, Turbo Tax is not a bad product for simple taxes at
| that income level.
|
| What they are missing out is alternative investment
| categories only available to those with more money, or
| estate planning solutions that are expensive to setup.
| barnabee wrote:
| I'd strongly welcome this, based on both size and
| profitability (which should also include money going to
| salaries above some level per employee, as well as accounting
| profit, dividends, etc.).
| lolinder wrote:
| I agree that antitrust is too reactive, especially in tech, but
| when it hits the real world your proposed solution would just
| lead to a new Byzantine maze like our current tax code. We'd
| get a whole new industry built up around helping corporations
| to _technically_ stay under the thresholds by exploiting
| loopholes (and another industry for lobbying for those
| loopholes to be expanded).
| bbor wrote:
| This could be used as a criticism of literally any law of any
| kind.
| [deleted]
| jahewson wrote:
| This gets you cartels, where the top players collude.
| summerlight wrote:
| > We need proactive laws that break up companies if they grow
| beyond a certain size criteria.
|
| Even assuming that this is a good idea, this have an
| unnecessary risk of being unconstitutional and getting scrapped
| by the justices. If you want to limit property rights in this
| fundamental way, that has to be based on a very strong judicial
| basis. That's why almost all reasonable antitrust regulation
| happens in a reactive way, because it has to prove that those
| regulated entities are actually doing something harmful.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| People have rights. Trillion dollar corporations should not.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| The constitution says nothing adverse to regulating entities
| that are not actively doing harm (though I disagree).
| Congress can write any standard they want into law if you get
| the right legislators in a room.
|
| Antitrust is reactive because consolidation is a slow burn
| and it takes a while for a critical mass of voters to feel
| the problem. Thats why Obama and Biden have taken completely
| different approaches, despite being ideologically similar.
| summerlight wrote:
| Regulations have to happen in a "Necessary and Proper" way
| (see 8.18). The Congress is delegated with a strong
| legislative power, but it's not something limitless.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| That clause basically says "Congress shall have the
| authority to make laws that enable it to execute its
| powers". It has nothing to do with what you said. Its
| there to prevent judicial chicanery, not encourage it.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Is there a model anywhere for this having been tried,
| successfully or otherwise?
|
| The obvious hesitation I have is just that some companies
| really do benefit from a lot of vertical integration. Could
| Apple be Apple if they were forced to spin off the phone
| business, or the chip design house, or the OS?
|
| What would it mean for the startup ecosystem if getting bought
| by a conglomerate was a less plausible exit?
|
| How would regulators enforce that the split off entities were
| truly independent vs faking it and then having exclusivity
| deals that meant they were basically still the same singular
| entity?
| dmbche wrote:
| Should Apple exist in it's current form?
|
| If it weren't, the things that are integrated become
| available for others - meaning better products for all, no?
|
| What's the societal benefit of integrating all these advances
| in single companies?
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Not so much because then, for example, you become Qualcomm
| and have 50 different customers all asking for different
| things from your chips and you reach a local optimum where
| you solve everyone's issue a little bit but don't actually
| do a good job. There's a reason that Apple's chips are so
| much better in terms of performance and energy efficiency.
| Similarly, it's why Apple did the W1 first and it took a
| very long time before any competitor figured out how to do
| the same thing. And you'll see the same with VR where FB
| will struggle to make HW with comparable specs while
| Apple's chip gives their SW a leg up.
|
| TLDR: it's complex, but successful vertical businesses have
| fairly different products, efficiencies, and outcomes.
| bogwog wrote:
| Apple made better chips than Qualcomm because Qualcomm is
| a monopolist, and thus doesn't need to actually compete.
| The moment a competitor sprung up, they got their ass
| kicked.
|
| Yes, no other company but Apple could have pulled that
| off, but that's only because Apple themselves are a
| monopolist with the market power to fight another
| monopolist.
|
| That's not a good thing. The solution to monopolies isn't
| more monopolies. A much smaller company than Apple could
| have theoretically created a better processor than
| Qualcomm, but it just couldn't happen due to multiple
| anti-competitive factors. Like how Qualcomm has a patent
| portfolio that gives them a monopoly on 4G modems, and
| can use that to force companies to purchase other
| components from them if they want a modem.
|
| https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/qualcomm-us-ftc-apple-
| chips...
| jonhohle wrote:
| I ask this every time it comes up, but what exactly does
| Apple have a monopoly in? They don't control majority of
| anything in any category that they participate in. They
| are a major purchaser of high end fab processes, but that
| doesn't allow them to control PC, phone, steaming,
| messaging, audio, home integration, or any other market.
|
| They are one of the most vertically integrated large
| companies, but they are allowed to monopolize their own
| products. There is no iPhone market - that's a product
| within a huge market of other mobile devices that anyone
| can join.
| bogwog wrote:
| These types of discussions on this site are pointless. I
| can tell that no matter what I say, you're going to end
| up moving the goal posts. Why do I know this? Because you
| non sarcastically are trying to say that Apple doesn't
| have a monopoly. The amount of mental gymnastics is takes
| to frame it that way is only possible if someone cares
| more about defending the honor of their favorite megacorp
| than finding any kind of truth.
|
| And if I'm completely wrong about you, then I apologize.
| My patience for these internet arguments isn't what it
| used to be. To answer your question, there are no doubt
| thousands of comments on this website about that topic.
| Ignore the ones that seem to come from Apple fanboys, and
| you'll find the right answers.
| ddingus wrote:
| I think about this topic often and am also curious, but
| not an Apple fanboy, unless we end up talking about the 8
| and 16 bit 6602, 65816 based computers. :)
|
| The way I see it, Apple has targeted a very specific kind
| of customer. And these people have a few things in
| common:
|
| Value privacy
|
| Value great hardware
|
| Willing to recognize and pay for all the ways Apple adds
| value: packaging, UX, etc...
|
| And there are some more, but I feel listing more won't
| add value here.
|
| I do like the Apple M1 computer I own. And I like the
| older 8 and 16 bit ones too. The reasons are very
| different with the older machines being open and hackable
| and the M1 being fast with crazy good battery life given
| the overall performance.
|
| However, I flat out won't own an Apple phone. Too closed
| down, and the UX is not well aligned with how I prefer to
| do things.
|
| I disagree strongly with many things Apple does and feel
| their products often are too restrictive.
|
| But, I do not have to use anything they make either.
|
| Some have argued that Apple has serious lock in on their
| products. Yep. Except for the computers, I agree! That is
| why I won't use any of their stuff.
|
| Yet lots of people want it that way and Apple delivers it
| to them and asks those people to pay right up, and those
| people do pay up and a whole lot of those people are
| happy having seen good value for their dollar.
|
| In my view, Apple gets to do that.
|
| And nobody has to like them doing that, right?
|
| How is any of it a monopoly?
|
| Serious question.
| dmbche wrote:
| Thank you for the answer!
|
| My first thought is that the "apple Qualcomm" that would
| come out would have incentives to make better chips
| without needing to also sell phones (competing with other
| chip manufacturers) but I can understand that the chip
| industry is very costly and risky, I can see how without
| integration they can't compete with any current player -
| too expensive and risky.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Substantially less opportunities for your private data to
| be hacked and leaked all over the web.
|
| I think Apple's long term privacy and e2ee pushes and
| googles recent attempts at the same would not exist across
| a pile of medium sized companies. iCloud Photos leaking
| would continue to be a thing.
| ehnto wrote:
| > What would it mean for the startup ecosystem if getting
| bought by a conglomerate was a less plausible exit?
|
| I guess going public would be the move realistically. I would
| prefer to see a shift toward startups aiming for solvency
| though, which I believe would make better companies.
| Companies that fit a role in society better. Free market
| capitalism isn't really happening if consumers aren't paying
| for anything and the money rains in from the VC heavens
| instead.
| lordnacho wrote:
| Bigger fines and liquidation on misbehaviour.
| raincole wrote:
| Yeah and other countries won't follow suit. Congrats, you yield
| all the economics of scale to China. What now? "Export" the
| US's domestic laws to other countries like it always does?
| bbor wrote:
| We would be more efficient if we made the work week 80 hours
| minimum, at the small cost of people's happiness! China would
| stand no chance.
|
| In case I'm unclear, I feel that not keeping our economy
| diverse and fair because China might make more stuff than us
| if we do is very misguided.
| siliconc0w wrote:
| It's hard to tell if it's Google's dominance causing search to
| suck or just the web ecosystem naturally optimizing for clicks. I
| will say most queries with even vaguely commercial intent do seem
| to get the max or nearly a full page of sponsored links. I don't
| recall what it was like years ago but I'm pretty sure it is
| worse. I also think it's pretty clear the platform take-rate
| needs to be generally lowered across the board, likely making it
| illegal to lock customers to a store or require payments go
| through the same store. This is a tax on basically everyone and
| provides very little value.
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| The problem here is authority. What makes you an authority on a
| subject? Books written? Credentials (diploma?)? References?
|
| These things aren't all true in real life, and on the internet
| it's even easier to fake all of that.
|
| In the beginning Google went by 'amount of text' (which is why
| you read everybody's life story on how they had sex next to a
| magma flow in Hawaii which created the idea of doing burnt ends
| on a pizza stone), references (remember all those backlinks
| which would boost your page). Credentials are a lot harder to
| track. There is no API at my school where you can put in my
| name and see my credentials (and all you'd see is 'we got
| governments subsidies for this person, which is why we let him
| pass').
|
| And all of this worked at the start. Knowledgeable people
| naturally had references on the web, as only knowledgeable
| people were on the web.
|
| Now we literally have people writing text purely to make it
| look like their website has more content on them, even if it is
| remotely related to what they serve.
|
| Great example, even posted here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36740400
|
| Or any coding problem where you end up on logrocket / some
| partitioning app / some generated website with which has an
| 'answer' for KB0000000 -> KB9999999...
| rolph wrote:
| >>What makes you an authority on a subject<<
|
| the ability to make accurate predictions of outcome by way of
| knowledge, observation, and logical deliberation.
| smoldesu wrote:
| You seem to have misread the question. How does Google, an
| automated service, "make accurate predictions of outcome by
| way of knowledge, observation, and logical deliberation"?
| rolph wrote:
| they dont, and thats a major issue.
| RubyRidgeRandy wrote:
| I work (partly) in SEO. One of the main issues that affects
| search and will get even worse in the future is the post-
| scarcity environment of the web when it comes to information.
| Say you had five websites for that each have identical cookie
| recipes. If you optimize search rankings by click-through
| rating, eventually all the sites will have similar copy,
| titles, and page descriptions. If you optimize for bounce
| rate, you knock out sites that get to the point but also
| knock out sites that crappy and have bad ui/ux. What about
| core web vitals? Well again, everyone will catch up
| eventually. Anything that can be gamified will eventually be
| gamed.
|
| Now instead of 5 sites with identical recipes, what about
| 500? 5,000? 5,000,000? How can you even rank them in a
| meaningful way and does it matter to the end user?
|
| There will be too much of a supply of information, especially
| when ai ramps up, that no one website will have unique value
| outside of local significance or if it was made by your mom
| or someone you like. I think it will be crazy to see what the
| web looks like 10 years from now. It could be vastly
| different.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| This expectation that everything can be automatically done
| by algoryths is the core if the problem. its like a form of
| insanity, it doesn't work but we keep trying.
|
| Why are top 10 results for 'apply for visa to Moldova' a
| scam? Is it really impossible to give government officials
| an ability to provide input for official business, like
| applying for a passport?
|
| Could you not hire like 2 people in each makor country to
| keep track of websites for important government services?
|
| Could you not take community input like reddit does, or
| wikipedia?
|
| seriously sometimes i think the people making the smartest
| algorythms are tge ones with biggest tonnel vision, and are
| incapable of examining alternative solutions.
| salawat wrote:
| ...It isn't the algorithm that's the problem. It's people
| invested in becoming a value extracting diversion for an
| answer that'll be around.
|
| Lets take your problem. Applying for a visa for Moldova.
| Let's say that there's a site hosted at visa.moldova.gov
| with a form to apply.
|
| Eventually, someone is going to integrate a bunch of data
| broker services to auto-fill that form, then data broker
| to other tourism related businesses trying to compete to
| plan your stay.
|
| It is very much in their interest to ensure that no one
| sees visa.moldova.gov, but instead sees one of their
| onboarding funnels.
|
| Thus the well around a well known onboarding point to a
| critical government service is poisoned.
| salawat wrote:
| You could stop working in SEO and just design shit to be
| responsive to typical boolean search like Tim intended. But
| dear God, people might be able to find things then, and
| where would you fork in the distracting cruft?
|
| The problem never was or will be Search. The problem is
| advertisers hijacking the verb of "Search" to weight it for
| those willing to pay.
|
| Librarians and archivists have had search solved for the
| last century. The only people who have a problem with that
| implementation are the ones who want to convince you the
| answer you're looking for is them.
| i_am_jl wrote:
| >I don't recall what it was like years ago but I'm pretty sure
| it is worse.
|
| It's absolutely worse today, how much worse depends on how far
| back you go.
|
| Before 2005 Google didn't put ads in search results, AdWords
| results were separated off to the right side of the page to
| make them clearly distinct from organic search results.
| mertd wrote:
| The old Internet is dead. There used to be people building web
| pages just because they are passionate about something.
|
| Now any imaginable niche subject is drowned by a deluge of
| blogspam articles.
|
| Interesting people moved behind walled gardens because who is
| going to bother building a webpage when you can just post a pic
| or 140 characters on a whim and move on with life.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| well building the webpage is easy, but paying hosting and
| keeping it updated is a side jobby i dont need once I've
| reached 30 and have kids
| eitland wrote:
| Please try search.marginalia.nu or even Kagi.
|
| I was about to give up but these to have given me hope that
| search isn't unsolvable.
| bl4ckh0l3 wrote:
| [dead]
| lolinder wrote:
| Kagi stands to me as proof that search can be better if it
| isn't run by an ad company. Kagi deliberately downranks sites
| that are loaded with ads and trackers, and the quality of their
| results is much higher, with much less SEO blogspam.
| Unsurprisingly, having a high concentration of ads and trackers
| is highly correlated with having content that is intended to
| maximize views rather than provide utility.
|
| Google has a conflict of interest here: on the one hand their
| users need information, but on the other Google is the primary
| vendor of advertisements on these garbage clickbait sites. It
| would not surprise me if Google intentionally upweighted
| results that have their ads in them, and they certainly are not
| downweighting them the way Kagi does.
| jonex wrote:
| If Kagi were as popular as Google, you'd quickly see pages
| appear "without ads", that looks suspiciously like what an ad
| would say. The problem is SEO, and it affects the mainstream
| search engine because that's what's worth optimising for.
|
| For instance, Google product search results would likely be
| greatly improved by always showing relevant reddit posts
| first. But this would last a very short amount of time until
| reddit would be completely drowned in junk. (I've seen people
| argue that this is already the case, but searching reddit
| still tends to work well for the products I search for)
|
| We can be happy that Google search hasn't gone this way, and
| as a Kagi user you should be glad that it's not a more
| popular engine, as the quality of results likely highly
| depend on that just fact.
|
| In a way the ads-filled product search results are better,
| because at least they're honestly trying to sell you the
| product you are searching for rather than making fake
| comparison sites pretending to be genuine content.
| lolinder wrote:
| > that looks suspiciously like what an ad would say ...
| fake comparison sites pretending to be genuine content.
|
| This is already a thing under Google's system: if a result
| isn't an ad-ridden mess, it's content marketing trying to
| sell an adjacent product.
|
| You haven't addressed the conflict of interest that Google
| has as the largest vendor of ads on the internet. Right
| now, Kagi's sole job is to help me find what I'm looking
| for. If SEO started to game their current algorithm, the
| incentive would be for Kagi to improve their algorithm and
| win the meta game. If they fail to do so, their payments
| will dry up as people look for an engine that _will_.
|
| Google has no such incentive. If their algorithms
| consistently drive traffic to pages that have their ads on
| them, Google is incentivized to keep that traffic flowing,
| regardless of how SEO'd the content is. The user isn't
| Google's customer, the advertiser is.
| eitland wrote:
| In addition to what lolinder writes Kagi already gives me
| what we have askes for from Google for a decade or two: a
| way for us to punish creative SEO artists by individually
| downranking or outright block them.
|
| If they start popping up in Kagis result they will bother
| me at most two or three times before I hit the downrank or
| block button and they are gone.
|
| Why Google hasn't managed to create something similar
| during the last two decades I leave as an exercise for the
| reader.
| zlg_codes wrote:
| > In a way the ads-filled product search results are
| better, because at least they're honestly trying to sell
| you the product you are searching for rather than making
| fake comparison sites pretending to be genuine content.
|
| In what universe can for-profit behavior be trusted or
| accepted at face value as genuine? Also, maybe I'm using it
| Wrong(tm), but I don't use general search engines to look
| for products. I'm not shopping all the time, so why should
| we be advertised to all the time? I use a blocker and
| aggressively eradicate ads from my experiences, precisely
| because they are useless to me, take up valuable screen
| real estate and bandwidth, and are security and privacy
| vulnerabilities.
|
| It wasn't so bad back when it was just a JPG and a link,
| but the telemetry that gets baked into it is creepy as
| well. For-profit Internet behavior needs to rein in its
| snooping if it wants to gain trust.
| fireflash38 wrote:
| How does kagi do with "corporate blogspam" - things like
| tutorials, guides, intros, etc created by a company as a
| funnel for conversions.
|
| You know, things like the fusionauth OAuth guides (not trying
| to call them out).
|
| I ask because it's a weird area where it can be shit and
| predatory, or a general good thing.
| mordae wrote:
| Try Kagi. They are weeding out the bad results waaaay more
| aggressively than Google. It helps a lot. They even allow me to
| immediately boost or block whole websites! Something absolutely
| trivial Google just refused to do.
| svaha1728 wrote:
| After switching to Kagi, I absolutely see this as Google
| intentionally making search awful. They are catering to the web
| ecosystem that is optimized for clicks.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >Google has maintained this monopoly, the government alleges, not
| by making a better product, but by locking down everywhere that
| consumers might be able to find a different search engine option,
| and making sure they only see Google.
|
| Google improves search every year. Internally they have data to
| back this up. Google doesn't lock down everywhere consumers can
| learn about a new browser. The most notable being the default
| search engine on Windows is Bing. I have also seen ads for other
| search engines and discussion about search engines on social
| media.It isn't like you say the word Bing on the internet and you
| get contacted by Google's lawyers with a C&D.
|
| >To understand why this case makes sense, look no further than
| the experience of Neeva, a search engine whose quality was as
| high or higher than that of Google, but died a few months ago
| because it just couldn't get access to customers.
|
| Better technology does not necessarily mean that you will have
| the better business. There are other reasons that you can fail.
| The link about Neeva having better quality actually states the
| opposite: "Neeva ended up building a search engine they were
| proud of, a search engine that came close to beating Google both
| by Neeva's internal metrics and in user studies."
| prepend wrote:
| > Google improves search every year.
|
| I don't believe this based on my own search experience getting
| worse year over year. I believe they know how to improve it,
| but they choose to increase revenue instead.
|
| Results seem to be less relevant to me and there are frequently
| more ad results than organic that display on the page.
|
| I think they are able to do this because of lock in with users
| and vendors. If there was more competition, there wouldn't be
| such bad results.
| barbazoo wrote:
| That line gave me a chuckle, too. It was so hilariously bad,
| it was funny in a way.
| dantheman wrote:
| I think you don't understand how much worse the internet has
| gotten - there are a large amount of bad actors actively
| trying to make google worse (junk content, etc) - Even just
| providing the same level of quality results with decreasing
| quality source data is an improvement.
|
| If it was easy to extract better results there would be
| competition with better results.
| prepend wrote:
| I definitely don't understand.
|
| But I'm fairly certain that having 50-100% of the first
| page of search results be ads isn't good for the internet.
| And it's made worse by google search recommending chrome
| and chrome recommending google search.
| sickill wrote:
| And yet for me DuckDuckGo provides better results,
| consistently, for last few years. If "internet has gotten
| much worse" is true (I agree in many aspects it did) then
| DDG must be improving search at faster pace than Google.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Perhaps you and Google have different definitions of quality.
| riku_iki wrote:
| I am confident this is the case.
|
| there is some vp of the search in goodle, and he has bunch
| of metrics on his screen, some go down and some go up, and
| he obviously will chose those metrics which looks favorable
| to report to upper level, and then promote people who did
| "great" job of achieving those metrics, and fund and expand
| their projects.
| hackernewds wrote:
| Blows my mind that Google is penalized so often, while the
| clear monopoly is Apple. Heck Apple goes out of its way to
| break compatibility with Google through restrictions on RCS
| (iMessage), Pixel buds (or any other OEM), charging cable, no
| headphone jack and so on.
| laserdancepony wrote:
| I can't take your RCS argument seriously. You do realize it's
| just a scheme from the carriers to bill you for every message
| again like they did with SMS? Good riddance. I don't need
| that on my iPhone, thank Jobs.
|
| And for the headphone jacks, I'd rather take a water
| resistant phone without this legacy connector. Do you also
| want serial ports back?
| lawn wrote:
| > Google improves search every year.
|
| Google search has decreased in quality significantly the last
| years.
| bogwog wrote:
| > Better technology does not necessarily mean that you will
| have the better business.
|
| Right, sometimes an existing company can spend you out of
| business even if your product is superior, even if consumers
| prefer your product, and even if your business is more
| efficient. That's what happens when there's a monopolist in
| your market: innovation is futile, consumers lose, the
| monopolist wins. The end.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > controlling much of our communications
|
| Google doesn't _control_ my communication with others.
| lacrimacida wrote:
| It's a game of numbers, and in that game they control the
| largest slice of the pie
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| It is _impossible_ to use the Internet without your data ending
| up in some Google service. The same for Amazon, Microsoft. It
| is still possible to do it while avoiding Apple, Facebook, and
| others, though.
|
| There are government websites which use Google's Recaptcha.
| That should say enough.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Emphasis on the wrong word. It might not control _your_
| communication if you 're an iPhone user and you don't have a
| google account for anything, but it absolutely and objectively
| _controls_ communication.
|
| For unfathomably large swathes of the planet's population even.
|
| It does this by owning not just the devices they communicate
| with, but also the operating system on those devices, the
| applications used through those operating systems, and the
| infrastructure that those applications make use of. And while
| it's tempting to say they control the communication, but not
| the _content_ of the communication, even that 's not true:
| google even controls the content through services like
| automatic replies for email, call-screening assistant, etc.
|
| And if you ever _interact_ with those, because the other party
| uses them, then "Google doesn't control my communication" is
| hilariously misguided. Google controls _your_ communication if
| that communication is with anyone in the Google ecosystem.
| prepend wrote:
| Google controls mine as search and gmail and chrome are major
| ways that I communicate with others. It's difficult not to use
| them because my employer and many sites require chrome.
|
| I'm not sure what the gmail market share is, but chrome and
| search are over 50% and they've used that market position to
| harm users (showing ads for their own products until you choose
| chrome) and harm competitors (showing their own ads above
| competitors).
| andsoitis wrote:
| Can you communicate anything you want or does Google control
| what you're able to say (i.e. "control your communications")
| prepend wrote:
| There's different levels of control. I think control means
| affect how I communicate.
|
| I can't communicate anything I want as chrome blocks
| certain apps from installing. And gmail blocks some
| communication. And search filters results from what I want
| to find. Etc etc.
|
| So yes, google controls what I'm able to say.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > I think control means affect how I communicate
|
| Many things affect how I communicate, but that is very
| different from _controlling_.
|
| > chrome blocks certain apps from installing
|
| Chrome blocks apps from installing?
|
| > And gmail blocks some communication.
|
| Such as?
| prepend wrote:
| Google removed NukeRedditHistory from their App Store.
| And lots of others.
|
| There's a system of how gmail decides what is spam and
| what isn't. And there's a large percentage of non-spam
| that gets blocked or sent to spam [0].
|
| [0] https://www.inboxally.com/blog/why-is-gmail-blocking-
| my-emai...
| LargeTomato wrote:
| If I say something "wrong" on YouTube my entire account can
| be banned. I will lose all my passwords and identity.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I was in Google Ads 2008-2010 and I do remember: it was 3 top
| ads and 7 right hand side ads.
| dantheman wrote:
| It's hard to say google controls your communication.
|
| You: 1. Voluntary use their services 2. There are lots of
| alternatives 3. The switching cost is minimal
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| The parent clearly noted they do not use Google services
| voluntarily, but are required to by their employer and
| various websites. Which is exactly the reason for
| antitrust.
| areoform wrote:
| Google absolutely controls communication. Two examples,
|
| Example 1: GMail. Google uses the mass adoption of GMail as
| a cudgel. It's no longer possible to independently host
| email without being marked as spam or rate limited by
| Google, https://tutanota.com/blog/posts/gmail-independent-
| email
|
| Example 2: Google did a good old "Embrace, Extend and
| Extinguish" on XMPP, https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-
| kill-decentralised-netwo...
| tobylane wrote:
| Even if you personally don't use GMail, a considerable
| amount of personal emails have at least one participant who
| uses it. Every social person who uses email has some of
| their communication read by Google. People who like
| hyperbole will phrase that as all of their communication is
| data mined and therefore controlled.
| convolvatron wrote:
| moreover - as someone who doesn't use gmail - I'm subject
| to their capricious and unknowable policies about
| incoming mail. they get to decide if I can actually speak
| to half the internet.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| I have no control on my accointances using gmail, nor than
| I control the fact that key services only make their
| website chrome-only and their mobile app available only on
| the Google play store.
| [deleted]
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Don't you have friends and business partners who only use
| gmail? I envy you...
| mattlondon wrote:
| Hmm we got the internet and cellular phones _because_ AT &T were
| broken up?
|
| Citation needed I think. That sounds pretty far-fetched and over-
| reaching to me.
| convolvatron wrote:
| not very far-fetched. back in the beginning your local bell was
| where you went to get wide-area link level service. and it was
| a huge pain. extremely costly, months long installations,
| abysmal service.
|
| somewhat later, these same people were responsible for nonsense
| like ATM. they were going to prop up their own internet - with
| hookers, and circuits, and per-cell QOS based charging. and
| they were gonna do it right. and it was gonna be great.
|
| would they have leveraged their monopoly on the underlying
| circuits to try to dominate layer 3? almost certainly.
| mattlondon wrote:
| Yes but there is a world outside of America. GSM for example
| came from Finland, and I believe that ARPANET et al were
| military and wouldn't give a shit about what AT&T were doing,
| and even then the inventor of packet switching networks
| (Donald Davies) was from the UK.
|
| If AT&T had just carried on I am sure that the internet and
| mobile phones would have happened anyway. Sure things may
| have been _different_ it happened at _different times_ , but
| I don't think AT&T not being broken up would have stopped
| things that were already happening elsewhere from continuing
| to happen.
| eitland wrote:
| The quality of telephone services took of and the prices
| plummeted here in Norway when the phone monopoly was broken
| around 1998.
|
| I was there and remember going from expensive landlines with
| complicated pricing structures all the way to cell phone plans
| so cheap every kid has one.
|
| IMO no way it would have happened with the monopoly we had in
| the nineties.
| offtwit wrote:
| It sounds like this is only about google search. How can that be
| broken up? Or are they just going to get fined many billions of
| dollars and they lose their right to being the default search
| engine on iPhones?
| advisedwang wrote:
| > lose their right to being the default search engine on
| iPhones?
|
| It would mean they can't PAY apple to make Google the default
| search engine. Apple would then (in theory) pick whichever
| search engine is best and not just play ball with Google's lock
| in. This would therefore enable competition. In theory.
| bbor wrote:
| The author is just focusing on this aspect bc that's this case,
| but there's multiple ongoing. E.g. there's one about
| monopolistic practices in the online ad business.
|
| Specifically here: How does Google lock out
| rivals? Well, it pays $45 billion a year to have distributors
| refuse to carry its competitor's products, signing deals with
| "Apple, LG, Motorola, and Samsung; major U.S. wireless carriers
| such as AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon; and browser developers
| such as Mozilla, Opera, and UCWeb-- to secure default status
| for its general search engine and, in many cases, to
| specifically prohibit Google's counterparties from dealing with
| Google's competitors."
| ttul wrote:
| That sounds anticompetitive to me. But I understand that
| proving criminal anticompetitive behavior is extremely
| difficult under US law, which is why it almost never happens.
| And companies as large as Google can outpunch regulators on
| legal spending, paying ex-government lawyers millions per
| year to work around the rules.
| asah wrote:
| Refuse to carry? Or just not the default?
| riku_iki wrote:
| So, what are the demands in this trial? Do they want to divide
| google? How?
| summerlight wrote:
| So-called "break-up" may not be effective as expected and it's
| easy to workaround that for tech companies as they're less tied
| to physical infrastructures unlike conventional monopolies.
| It's likely that they'll got billions of fine as well as be
| forced to implement corrective measures on their anti-
| competitive behaviors, of course if they lose.
| riku_iki wrote:
| I think they very tied together because all google services
| run on the same internal infra and use shared collected data,
| and for example moving ads out of google and force them to
| pay market cloud prices, deal with all bugs and complexity
| other market players are facing and more importantly cut from
| data collected internally at google will produce significant
| damage on them.
| advisedwang wrote:
| From the complaint [1]:
|
| > VIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
|
| > To remedy these illegal acts, Plaintiffs request that the
| Court:
|
| > a. Adjudge and decree that Google acted unlawfully to
| maintain general search services, search advertising, and
| general search text advertising monopolies in violation of
| Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. SS 2;
|
| > b. Enter structural relief as needed to cure any
| anticompetitive harm;
|
| > c. Enjoin Google from continuing to engage in the
| anticompetitive practices described herein and from engaging in
| any other practices with the same purpose and effect as the
| challenged practices;
|
| > d. Enter any other preliminary or permanent relief necessary
| and appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the
| markets affected by Google's unlawful conduct;
|
| > e. Enter any additional relief the Court finds just and
| proper; and
|
| > f. Award each Plaintiff an amount equal to its costs incurred
| in bringing this action on behalf of its citizens.
|
| So basically just banning whatever anti-competative behaviour
| the court finds and fining Google a bunch.
|
| [1] https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-
| releases/attachments/2020/1...
| prakhar897 wrote:
| The Indian govt imposed restrictions that a payment provider in
| India can fulfill max 30% of the total volume of transactions in
| an year [1]. After that, they have to restrict themselves. This
| completely avoids monopoly and concentration risks.
|
| This can be done for search as well which makes sure at least 4
| players stay in the market at all times. Why isn't US govt doing
| this?
|
| 1. https://www.indiatimes.com/worth/news/upi-apps-may-soon-
| have...
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| It makes perfect sense. Doesn't happen in the US because of
| regulatory capture
| halflings wrote:
| > Why isn't US govt doing this?
|
| Why isn't the UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, ... doing this?
| Because it's a pretty strong form of controlled economy that
| distorts the market.
|
| How would this work for search engines? Would you force people
| to use a different search engine than the one they want? (e.g.
| they type Google.com and end up redirected to Bing.com) ; or
| somehow just funnel revenue to other companies... then who gets
| to decide which companies this gets funneled to?
|
| Anti-trust is about preventing anti-competitive tactics, but
| the scheme you is ironically anti-competitive: it artificially
| inflates usage of other services even if they don't provide an
| equal/superior service, with consumers paying the price.
|
| [disclaimer: I work at Google, so likely biased]
| badrabbit wrote:
| People can use google all they want, the restriction would be
| on how much ad can be sold by Google.
| halflings wrote:
| So the remaining traffic would be all expenses, no profit?
| Doesn't sound like capitalism anymore then, more of a
| public service.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Imagine a government creating a search engine as a public
| service.
|
| ... Oh wait, that's actually a great idea and I want to
| see that happen.
| halflings wrote:
| Sure, then advocate for your government to build a public
| search engine.
|
| Why do you need to penalize private institutions if users
| prefer to use them over a government service?
| xcdzvyn wrote:
| I, personally, am very, _very_ glad my country doesn't
| oblige me to use a state-sponsored search engine.
|
| Baidu "Liu Si Shi Jian "[0] to find out more!
|
| [0] "June Fourth incident", the Chinese name for the
| Tiananmen square massacre. Other banned search terms
| include "candle", "never forget", and the numbers 25 and
| 64.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I wasn't imagining one would be obliged. Merely that as a
| demonstrated vital good in modern society, it's something
| a government could, perhaps, guarantee a minimum standard
| on.
|
| Ad-free tax-funded search would be kind of neat.
| [deleted]
| kurthr wrote:
| Alphabet in the US would just spin off 3 "competitors" and be
| done. All 4 would then be subsidiaries of the holding company
| and they still collect the money. Of course this can't happen
| in India, because there would be political repercussions
| unless it was was an Indian firm connected to the government.
|
| To change this takes real political will and a recognition of
| who the beneficiaries of the current systems are. It's not
| simple in any remotely democratic system with rule of law.
|
| We do have the FTC which can enforce antitrust (when the
| executive branch doesn't interfere) and force various
| requirements (like the auctioning of ad terms be separated
| from the business of marketing ads, and the collection of
| search data) on different parts of the company.
|
| (edit: Oops, I must remember to only discuss US politics with
| any realism. Reference to any other country's
| corruption/politics must only be with the highest reverence,
| deference, and awe.)
| drdaeman wrote:
| > How would this work for search engines?
|
| There is a way. If we start treating Internet search as
| commodity/public utility, we can use shared municipal fiber
| analogy. One public website can route requests to multiple
| participating search providers, ensuring that the searches
| are evenly distributed.
|
| Of course, it's not a good idea for a lot of reasons.
| Starting as extending government surveillance, through
| leaving consumers with limited choices (if different
| providers' result quality is significantly different, which
| it probably is), and all the way down to having to decide
| what qualifies as a search engine.
|
| It's best to look at the root of the issue. I don't think
| most people are upset that Google is the most popular search
| engine out there. It's the other practices that make people
| wary or outright unhappy. Google is very multi-faceted, so
| government forcing company split (e.g. make Google Search,
| Gmail, Chrome, Android etc. entirely separate entities), or
| disallowing of some business practices (such as making Chrome
| cater to Google Analytics needs) might be beneficial.
| CPLX wrote:
| They would just have to divest portions of their product.
|
| It's painfully simple and we've done it a million times.
| Breaking up AT&T is probably the most obvious example.
|
| They could split up the search and ads business and maps and
| Google local search and so on.
|
| It would be fine. We'd be fine.
|
| Also if you work at Google can you tell us if anyone has
| noticed that the supposedly "equal/superior service" has
| degraded so badly that it's barely fucking usable a lot of
| the time?
|
| Which is, of course, relevant.
| why_only_15 wrote:
| Except previously the big breakups (AT&T, Standard Oil)
| were location-based, which doesn't really make sense for
| Google. Why do you think splitting of maps and display ads
| would matter for Google's market share in search?
| lordnacho wrote:
| Done it a million times? How often does this happen? AT&T
| was decades ago, though I suppose you are referring to less
| well known actions since then?
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| What would you propose instead?
| halflings wrote:
| Banning anti-competitive behavior (which is what antitrust
| laws are for in the first place). For instance: a company
| actively blocking competition (e.g. coffee machine
| manufacturers that make it impossible for people to buy
| pods from another brand).
|
| Again, I am probably biased here, but I don't see much
| anti-competitive behaviour in the search engine space. If
| people have a clear superior alternative to Google, then by
| all means please share it here.
|
| Even during the brief period where I used duckduckgo, I was
| constantly finding myself typing "!g" to get results from
| Google as they were just consistently more relevant.
| lordnacho wrote:
| What about buying the default search from Apple? Maybe
| I'm remembering it wrong but I seem to recall they pay a
| lot of money for that.
| saalweachter wrote:
| What outcome are you hoping for here? Google can't pay to
| be the default search engine on a browser, no one can pay
| to be the default search engine on a browser, no one can
| be the default search engine on a browser, or just Google
| can't be the default search engine on a browser?
| arrosenberg wrote:
| 1 and 2. Google as the overwhelmingly dominant player
| should not be allowed to pay to further monopolize the
| space, and since Microsoft is the alternative, I would
| support banning paid defaults in general.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Legally enforced ballot with random default if users
| click through without reading. Same for browsers
| themselves.
| skinkestek wrote:
| > Because it's a pretty strong form of controlled economy
| that distorts the market.
|
| Would be trivial compared to how Google and Microsoft have
| distorted the markets over the years.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > Why isn't US govt doing this?
|
| Because it would be incredibly unpopular, for one.
|
| Can you imagine being in the middle of some work, Googling a
| term, only to be hit with "Sorry, we're over the government
| limit and can't fulfill your search"
|
| Hacker News and Stack Overflow would be full of people trading
| tips about using VPNs to evade the limits.
|
| People don't actually like having the government restrict them
| from using things they want to use.
| dudus wrote:
| Sorry you also spent your allotted time on Hacker News and
| Stack Overflow.
|
| Please ask about VPNs on Quora until the end of the month.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| You say that like there isn't a big old demographic on this
| site who has been rate limited in how often they're allowed
| to post. ;)
| highwaylights wrote:
| Name... checks out?
| esperent wrote:
| I get that already every time I try to search Google in
| incognito and once every day or two for normal searches.
| Except it's "prove you're a human by completing these robotic
| tasks".
|
| You're right, I hate it and always switch to a different
| search engine instead. So, that's the goal here right?
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| Google's goal is to fingerprint you so they know exactly
| who you are on every site you visit. That's the point of
| WEI, to make the environment safe for their ad business,
| not better for you.
|
| You using a VPN is just as outrageous to them as you
| attempting to use a working ad blocker.
| badrabbit wrote:
| You and others replying to GP keep suggesting google users
| who are the product not the actual customee would be
| restricted when in fact it would be the real customers:
| people wanting to place ads on google that would be
| restricted. The amount of clicks google can monetize would be
| restricted.
| decremental wrote:
| [dead]
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| Because it's a bad idea?
|
| You shouldn't ensure that three potentially inferior products
| stay on the market. That makes no sense.
|
| It also reduces the incentives those firms have to invest in
| quality - at some point there is a hard limit on how much
| competition they face. That would be a terrible, terrible law.
| nathias wrote:
| woa, so many people are still using google for search?
| concordDance wrote:
| Please state what you use in your post.
| bogwog wrote:
| I've been using Kagi for almost a year now, and I love it.
|
| Every now and then I'll check Google out of curiosity, and
| it's always shocking how bad the results are. Inaccurate
| results, spam sites everywhere, and sensory overload of
| advertisements.
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| I appreciate the passion Matt Stoller brings to antitrust issues
| but his analyses are not good on the economics, to say the very
| least.
|
| I agree that some of google's conduct is very questionable. It's
| not obvious to me that paying to be the default search product is
| pro-competitive.
|
| On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and
| which I think is going to be _really hard_ for the government to
| overcome) is this: we (google) give our product away _for free_
| and so do our competitors. What's more, the cost of switching
| search engines is literally zero: just type Bing instead of
| Google.
|
| If customers are choosing our search product among two free
| options, then our product is better. It's going to be very
| difficult to establish that there's an abuse of dominant position
| in that case. (There is other behavior by google which is more
| questionable, but in search they are on firm ground.)
|
| Having a large market share is not an antitrust violation, nor
| should it be.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| As the article and others are pointing out, Google achieves
| 'free' Search through bundling and predatory pricing, which are
| both anticompetitive.
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| "Bundling" can be anticompetitive but is not at issue in the
| actual case the government has filed. Nor can I personally
| identify a meaningful bundle from google in the right sense.
| You may be using the word informally.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| I wasn't referring to the case specifically, but Google is
| absolutely bundling products in the formal, illegal sense
| as well.
|
| Would drive, docs and gmail be free if you divorced them
| from the ad revenue products?
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| >> Would drive, docs and gmail be free if you divorced
| them from the ad revenue products?
|
| If they are all free then it's not a bundle in the
| antitrust relevant sense. Microsoft Teams is a great
| example of an anticompetitive bundle if you want one.
| jonas21 wrote:
| > _Would drive, docs and gmail be free if you divorced
| them from the ad revenue products?_
|
| Yes, probably. They all count against your 15 GB quota of
| free storage, after which you have to pay Google for
| more. It's basically the same model as Dropbox.
| taeric wrote:
| But is it free if it costs them billions?
|
| That is, saying that customers /could/ switch is not
| necessarily relevant. There is evidence that they believe
| paying for the "default" billing is worth a ton of money. Not
| just to Apple, but to Mozilla, too.
|
| That they could lose access to revenue streams by losing
| default billing is very relevant when that is also a large
| portion of how they are able to make that payment.
|
| Could see it more as collusion with competition, I suppose? It
| isn't competing on the merits of their search, but more on
| their ability to afford default status. Which keeps Apple from
| entering search, and ostensibly keeps it more expensive for
| Microsoft to keep Bing.
|
| Consider, if Apple could get more from MS to make Bing default,
| why wouldn't they?
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| >> That is, saying that customers /could/ switch is not
| necessarily relevant
|
| On the contrary, it's the whole ballgame in a case like this.
| Google's claim will be: "we have high market share because
| our product is good. Look - customers could switch _for free_
| if they didn't like it." The government _cannot_ make a
| monopolization claim solely on the basis of high market share
| in this case. It's not remotely persuasive. (Indeed: who do
| you do your searches with??)
|
| >> "there is evidence..."
|
| Totally agree with this sentence. But it's not going to be
| decisive for the government. It will not be remotely
| sufficient. Again - it's not clear to me personally that this
| behavior is _pro_ -competitive. But I've already told you
| what google is going to say. If you're going to argue
| monopolization you have to define the market (here search)
| and then show it's monopolized. Market share isn't enough.
|
| >> could see it more as collusion...
|
| Not legally. Sorry. Not without some specific evidence of a
| conspiracy.
| narism wrote:
| >we (google) give our product away for free and so do our
| competitors.
|
| Search is not Google's product, it's a way to get their
| product. Their product is eyeballs which they sell to
| advertisers.
|
| >the cost of switching search engines is literally zero: just
| type Bing instead of Google.
|
| If this is true, why does Google pay Apple billions/year and
| Mozilla millions/year to make Google the default search? You
| could be saving that money!
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| The government _could_ make antitrust claims regarding
| google's behavior vis a vis advertisers. (I'm sympathetic to
| some claims that could be made there!)
|
| Monopolization of the ad market is _not_ the issue here,
| because the specific claim is that google has monopolized the
| _search_ market. You can read that right in the linked
| article.
|
| Google's payments to be the default are (as I already said)
| not obviously pro-competitive to me. I don't know if you and
| I disagree there.
|
| But again... in Google's defense they are going to say
| (accurately!) "everyone gives search away _for free_ so
| consumers are free to switch."
|
| It's going to be impossible (IMO) to argue that consumers are
| _harmed in the search market_. It just won't be credible.
|
| The department of justice is likely wasting its time, which
| is similar to the recent behavior of the FTC under Lina Khan
| which is (if you are American) wasting taxpayers' time taking
| on losing cases, while letting mergers which really deserve
| critical scrutiny through. Microsoft Activision is a
| prominent recent example.
|
| And if the Justice Department actually does show up in court
| with a filing that says: "No, your search engine was awesome,
| but it's increasingly ad-filled crap. You're too powerful,
| you're too lazy, and America needs some real competition"
| (this is a direct quote from Stoller's article) they are
| going to be laughed out of town and they will richly deserve
| it.
|
| So again... I like the attention Stoller pays to antitrust
| issues but his analysis of the economics (especially in the
| case of some tech firms) is just bad.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| It's not free, but you aren't paying money for it.
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| In other words... it's free. Google search is free.
|
| All of this "... then you are the product" stuff is totally
| meaningless legally and economically.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Wikipedia is free, Google search is not. You are paying for
| Google Search. People need to realize their privacy has
| value, a lot of value actually, otherwise Google Search and
| every other privacy invasive platform would cost money.
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| >> People need to realize their privacy has value, a lot
| of value actually,
|
| I mean... maybe? (How much is your data worth to google
| in dollars? Probably not that much.) But I think
| consumers understand how google makes their money. If
| your argument in court is "consumers are misunderstanding
| in dollar terms how much this is harming them," then you
| are going to lose.
| frays wrote:
| I wonder if Google will talk about the rise of AI-powered
| competitors (ChatGPT, Bing, etc) as part of the search
| landscape to help defend their case.
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| If they don't they should fire their lawyers. (They will.)
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| Look, I'm not informed or an expert here, but if it's being
| given away for free, then the search itself is not the
| "product". The way I understand it, Google's monopoly is over
| the ad market.
|
| Stoller wrote a book on the subject which I never properly got
| through in its entirety, but it included a deep dive on what a
| monopoly is. You are correct - market share is not an anti-
| trust violation in it's own. My assumption is that they will be
| arguing over whether Google is exercising its total control
| over the system to prevent competition from emerging, and using
| that control to extract all the value for itself. All while
| crippling functionality for the customers, not us search engine
| users in this case - but the advertisers.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| > You are correct - market share is not an anti-trust
| violation in it's own.
|
| I think that entire line of jurisprudence is a tragic
| mistake.
|
| The wording of the law is crystal clear: "shall not
| monopolize", not "shall not monopolize unless it's just a
| really good product".
|
| A 95% market share should not be allowed under any
| circumstances.
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| There are a whole bunch of edge cases you aren't thinking
| about. Markets can be highly local (hospital markets, eg.),
| firms go out of business, new products enter new markets
| (smart phones, tablets), even defining "the market" is hard
| (does Sirius XM have a meaningful "monopoly" on satellite
| radio?). So your "make 95% market share illegal" idea is
| quite challenging (actually impossible) to work out
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| That's what makes this whole subject so hard to argue. You
| can't just be persecuted for being successful. They have to
| prove you're actually preventing others from being
| successful. And how the do you do that without a whole
| bunch of wishy washy woulda coulda shoulda's?
|
| And I agree that it shouldn't have been "allowed" but here
| we are.
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| The DoJ is welcome to make a claim on monopolizing the _ad_
| market. The case here is about monopolizing the _search_
| market.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| Isn't the whole point that they're tightly intertwined? You
| pay to advertise in the relevant search results of your
| customers.
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| That's not the law, so it's irrelevant to the legal
| issues.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| I don't mean the law. I mean how the actual ad/search
| product actually works. As a Google customer I pay them
| to present my stuff the way I want it to my customers
| when they search for stuff about the things I sell.
| That's the product, no?
| jahewson wrote:
| There's a 2nd, later case where the DoJ is suing Google over
| their ad network:
|
| https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-
| googl...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-06 23:01 UTC)