[HN Gopher] Google Is a Very Strange Monopolist
___________________________________________________________________
Google Is a Very Strange Monopolist
Author : Bostonian
Score : 16 points
Date : 2024-08-11 19:32 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| Bostonian wrote:
| https://archive.is/qkWUQ
|
| 'The judge says 90% of search queries are run on Google, and its
| only major general search competitor is Microsoft (now valued at
| $3 trillion). However, the judge concedes that Microsoft was slow
| in adapting its search engine for mobile devices, causing it to
| lose ground.
|
| "Google has not achieved market dominance by happenstance. It has
| hired thousands of highly skilled engineers, innovated
| consistently, and made shrewd business decisions," Judge Mehta
| writes. "The result is the industry's highest quality search
| engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions
| of daily users."
|
| So what's the antitrust problem? The judge says Google's
| advertising revenue-sharing payments to Apple, Mozilla and others
| for default placement have made it harder for potential startups
| and Microsoft to compete.
|
| Yet users can switch to other search engines if they want. And
| Judge Mehta notes that Apple and Mozilla have "promotional deals"
| with other search engines. Microsoft pitched Apple "on making
| Bing the default multiple times." Startup Duck Duck Go also "made
| a bid to be the default for private browsing mode searches on
| Safari," but neither it nor Microsoft "succeeded in part due to
| their inferior quality."
|
| This makes for a very strange monopolist--one that does better by
| consumers because its search engine is superior. "Google's
| partners value its quality, and they continue to select Google as
| the default because its search engine provides the best bet for
| monetizing queries," the judge explains, adding that Google "has
| continued to innovate in search."'
| notarobot123 wrote:
| > The law is supposed to protect consumers from a monopolist
| that uses its power to raise prices or restrict choices.
|
| This is a very narrow view of what antitrust is all about. Are
| monopolies essentially fine as long as they don't abuse their
| power too much?
| pram wrote:
| Historically "yes" they've been "fine" if they're regulated,
| like the Bell System. Although obviously
| Google/Apple/Microsoft/Meta would prefer to be monopolies
| without "government interference"
| gotorazor wrote:
| I think the suit points out that google does restrict choice.
| For pricing, Google's search dominance raises the prices of
| word advertising.
| choilive wrote:
| In short, yes. Monopolies are not illegal in the US per se.
| It is only illegal if they exploit their position via what is
| known as "anticompetitive conduct".
| Narhem wrote:
| I'd say all the technology companies are relatively
| anticompetitive due to the nature of the work.
| BadHumans wrote:
| Why wouldn't they be? If you fail to make a competitive
| product because your company sucks, I don't see why courts
| should take action against the company that is making a good
| product. However, if that company is using their market
| dominate position to prevent competitive products from
| entering the market, then they should be punished for that.
| DannyBee wrote:
| In the US, yes.
|
| Historically, in the US, just about all forms of antitrust
| behavior (resale price maintenance, group boycotts, tying,
| etc) were considered per-se violations of law. That is, you
| didn't have to prove it harmed anyone, only that it happened.
|
| There were a few things analyzed under the rule of reason
| (basically does it do more harm than good to consumers, only
| considering economic effects).
|
| Since the early 1970's, that has slowly changed, and the
| number of things considered per-se violations has narrowed
| considerably. Most things are now analyzed under the rule of
| reason, and you have to show they really are harming
| consumers.
|
| So to circle back, being a monopoly in the US is fine[1] on
| its own.
|
| This is all very different than Europe.
|
| [1] Here's what the DOJ's antitrust division says:
| Unilateral conduct is outside the purview of section 2 unless
| the actor possesses monopoly power or is likely to achieve
| it. The mere possession or exercise of monopoly
| power is not an offense; the law addresses only the
| anticompetitive acquisition or maintenance of such power (and
| certain related attempts). Mere harm to
| competitors--without harm to the competitive process--does
| not violate section 2. Competitive and
| exclusionary conduct can look alike--indeed, the same conduct
| can have both beneficial and exclusionary effects--making it
| hard to distinguish conduct that should be deemed unlawful
| from conduct that should not. Because competitive
| and exclusionary conduct often look alike, courts and
| enforcers need to be concerned with both underdeterrence and
| overdeterrence.
|
| See https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-
| monopol....
| massysett wrote:
| > Yet users can switch to other search engines if they want.
|
| Advertisers can't. What are the other choices - Bing, maybe
| Facebook?
|
| Furthermore, search users aren't even Google's customers.
| Advertisers are. So whether users can switch is not an
| interesting question.
| crazygringo wrote:
| This suit [1] specifically is about users, not advertisers.
| It was brought in 2020.
|
| There is a separate suit [2] that is specifically about
| advertisers, not users. It was brought last year.
|
| You assert that only the second one is an interesting
| question. I'd say they both are. Contrary to your statement,
| search users are _absolutely_ Google 's customers. But a
| company can have more than one set of customers.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC
| _(2...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC
| _(2...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-11 23:01 UTC)