Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

promarket.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 260 posts

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#231

Post by SXX »

maverick_iceman wrote: post #219
SXX wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unlike say, Windows, there is nothing locking you into Google you don't have to use Chrome or GMAIl, or their search. I agree about their search, but problem with Chrome isn't just lack of alternatives. Problem is that Google have too much power over web standards and all of competitors have to follow. Even Mozilla had to implement DRM. Gmail is similar: Google never directly used their power against competitors, b…

Making their anti-spam operations transparent may be self-defeating, spammers may then be able to game the system.

There are more ways to make it transparent than exposing anti-spam secrets and here is few random ideas. First of all there is already CA system and there no reason why there couldn't be system where you pay for signing certificate to make sure your mail is always delivered as long as certificate reputation remain high. Imperfect, yet that would be much more reliable than current lottery system.

Another way to improve situation is to get rid of shady black lists BS like Spamhaus and replace them with proper organizations. Google could also create some consortium to improve protocols, implement easy to use mail servers that send everything properly out-of-box, then enforce DKIM usage, etc.

But no, Google need nothing of it because they have huge market share and directly benefit when non-Gmail services become unreliable.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#232

Post by bedhead »

beagle3 wrote: post #229
bedhead wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not how the FTC sees it.

What definition does the FTC use? The IRS doesn't consider "time" or "privacy" a payment; if they did, you would have to report your internet browsing on your tax return because barter.

The FTC tends to see consumers...people.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#233

Post by Nomentatus »

Erik816 wrote: post #104
redm wrote: post #53

I think the key point here is not whether Google is abusing its effective monopoly willingly, its that it exists at all. There may be alternatives, but not viable ones. Try not supporting Chrome or ignoring Chrome requirements such as security mandates, you will go out of business. You can say these are 'good' for the consumer but the fact that Google has the ability to unilaterally change the web itself is partially…

Well, it does matter, because under the U.S. antitrust law it is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to abuse your monopoly position. See United States v. Aluminum Corp. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 430 (1945) Learned Hand J, the "successful competitor, having been urged to compete, must not be turned on when he wins." European antitrust law is more strict and you can run into problems just for having a monopo…

So, there's no bundling going on with Android? Google never bought a company that held another patent? (Patent misuse includes using one patent to buy another, or extend your business.) "Abuse" isn't something bizarre, it includes many otherwise normal business practices that allow a monopoly to become a cancer spreading out everywhere. The really strange court decisions that held that efficiency (for Google) trumped bundling happened in N.A.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#235

Post by luord »

> Q: As you point out yourself in the book, natural monopoly can also be a positive thing. For instance, in the cases of the telephone and the telegraph. What is the difference between those natural monopolies and digital platforms?

Of the interview, this was by far the most interesting question and he didn't really answer it.

It could be argued that at the root of the net neutrality crisis is that cable companies don't have to risk a race to the bottom. If they did, they'd sing a different tune, if only to use "we will deliver everything to you without playing favorites or selling your data" as a sales pitch.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#236

Post by jessaustin »

guelo wrote: post #125
jessaustin wrote: post #14

Ma Bell's monopoly has never been "natural". It has been enforced by FCC, ever since FCC was formed for that specific purpose in 1934. Even before that, ICC through the Kingsbury Commitment had adopted an ill-considered and unjustified hands-off policy with respect to Ma Bell's anticompetitive actions.

Funny how just about every country in the world ended up with a telephone monopoly.

Just about all of them tried drug prohibition too. Don't underestimate the power of USA's poor example...

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#237

Post by ocdtrekkie »

bitmapbrother wrote: post #196
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I think Google is more evil than Microsoft at present , both companies fall well into the category of organizations that will sacrifice any principles necessary to profit. When companies like Google and Microsoft are on top, they become abusive to maintain control of the market. Microsoft is down and out right now, and I'm using some of their services a bit more myself, but you need to bear in mind that if the…

I'm curious as to why you think Google is more evil than Microsoft. Last time I checked Microsoft is still trying to extort money from Android OEM's for their bag of junk patents.

Google just also announced a patent extortion scheme, as it so happens! And note that the common defense for Google not being a problem in the US is that they it only matters if they harm consumers, not businesses. Patent licensing harms the Google OEM business, but does not harm consumers. And taxing an abusive monopoly like Google's could arguably seen as a boon for the consumer's interests.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#238

Post by ocdtrekkie »

fixermark wrote: post #209
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, you are self-defeating your arguments. Chrome was entirely built to be leveraged to force people to use Google Search, since people don't change their default search engine. Bear in mind, they paid Apple and Mozilla each over a billion dollars to be everyone's default search. Sundar Pichai, the current CEO of Google, got started by pushing the Google Toolbar as one of those bloatware add-ons when you install…

"Chrome was entirely built to be leveraged to force people to use Google Search" That grossly simplifies the origin and existence of Chrome. While it's true that Google is the default omnibox search (I'd argue that "people don't change their default search engine" is a really weak way to "force" people to use a browser---too weak to justify building a whole browser by itself), you have to remember the ecosystem of br…

While Google may have found other uses for it as well, even pro-Google Sundar Pichai interviews and such all cite Google Toolbar, and then it's successor, Google Chrome, as Pichai's wild successes in expanding the spread of Google Search, and essentially why he is now the CEO. And that the whole selling point for Chrome was as a hedge against IE hypothetically blocking their toolbar.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#239

Post by sfifs »

amsilprotag wrote: post #176
sfifs wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This appears to be a common misconception that monopolies are bad from a public policy standpoint. For public policy, the existence of a monopoly is neither here nor there. Monopolies are problem ONLY IF their operations causes negative economic effects to consumers - typically by raising prices. Indeed in many cases (eg. Transport, Infrastructure) a monopoly is actively granted in return for guaranteed availability…

Is this true? Wasn't Microsoft brought down for harming incipient businesses by bundling competing software into the OS? Wasn't standard oil fragmented in part for receiving anti-competitive freight fares? Couldn't it be argued that Google's featured snippets and accelerated mobile pages will lower the revenue of content creators and thus decrease consumer surplus in the long term?

I'm not a lawyer but I think what ultimately bit Microsoft was the fact that they were trying to contractually restrict OEMs from including alternatives (arguably harming consumers) and trying to argue that IE was part​ of the OS when there was evidence it was not. Certainly the settlement remedies after appeal primarily seem to focus on not restricting OEMs from installing alternatives.

Google lawyers have undoubtedly analysed the case with a fine toothed comb and would likely use the permissive open source licenses under which it provides Android and Chrome sources (and allows manufacturers to roll their own versions) to argue they don't restrict anyone.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#240

Post by dang »

geppeto wrote: post #12

Its not 2004 so you shouldn't be as impressionable as a child any longer. If you are fawning over a corporation's motto you are playing life by an ineffective set of rules. But .... now that I think about it, scratch that, maybe you'll be interested in being part of my Amway downline.

Would you please stop posting uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments to HN? It's not what this site is for:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14308965 and marked it off-topic.

Post reply on HN