Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#101

Post by ajdlinux » Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 4:33 AM UTC

indigo0086 wrote: post #97

wavefunction wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those aren't really Youtube though. I can go on youtube to listen to music or watch a video on rebuilding a carburetor self-published by some random guy, or catch a movie trailer, or even publish my own videos.

You can get money directly from the viewers with twitch, therefore making it far superior than YouTube. The idea that YouTube is monopoly because people are to afraid of moving to other options is silly

Twitch is a video gaming streaming service.

YouTube is a general video service.

Twitch isn't superior.

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#102

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC » Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 4:35 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #89

maxxxxx wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should make life difficult for companies from a certain size on. These large companies kill competition and innovation.

20 years ago, people wondered could anyone overtake Microsoft. But look at the big tech companies now. 1. Apple -- approaching a one trillion dollar market cap was almost bankrupt 20 years ago. 2. Amazon -- a little spunky online book seller 3 Google - a little research project that wasn't even incorporated 4 Facebook -- wouldn't exist for 7 years. As hard as MS tried, they weren't able to kill competition.

Microsoft's troubles started after the DOJ antitrust investigations. I think if Microsoft had been allowed to aggressively leverage their Windows monopoly as they wished, we woul be looking at a far different landscape now

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#103

Post by lkrubner » Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 4:40 AM UTC

savanaly wrote: post #56

CottageCarry wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love an actually decent competitor to Youtube.

I mean, I want the improvement in quality that usually comes with competition, but I don't actually want there to be competition. Does anyone really relish the idea of having to search multiple sites for a given video because you don't know or can't remember which one it's on, and having to have an account and different set of uploader subscriptions for Youtube A, B and C? And remember where the subscribe button is o…

Maybe there could be a search engine that finds videos on all video sites, and shows them according to some well-tested algorithm, without any bias? Oh, but the owners of such a search engine would need to be entirely neutral and unbiased. For instance, they should not also be owners of a video site that they would like to promote.

It's been a long time since the USA Justice Department went after a company for having a vertical monopoly, but this is a reminder of why vertical monopolies can inhibit innovation, just as much as horizontal ones.

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#104

Post by maxxxxx » Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 4:49 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #89

maxxxxx wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should make life difficult for companies from a certain size on. These large companies kill competition and innovation.

20 years ago, people wondered could anyone overtake Microsoft. But look at the big tech companies now. 1. Apple -- approaching a one trillion dollar market cap was almost bankrupt 20 years ago. 2. Amazon -- a little spunky online book seller 3 Google - a little research project that wasn't even incorporated 4 Facebook -- wouldn't exist for 7 years. As hard as MS tried, they weren't able to kill competition.

It seems we are trading one behemoth against another. I would much prefer if we had more smaller companies competing with each other.

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#105

Post by mikelward » Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 4:54 AM UTC

chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #88

todd8 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't. Why do we want or even trust government to decide for us that a company is too big and needs to be smaller or that a company should conducts it business in the way that the government wants it to. As long as a company isn't somehow forcing me to use it services, I'm free to go elsewhere. If you don't like Google don't use it. The fact that you desire something from Google that it isn't giving you (searching…

> If you don't like Google don't use it. What happens when people don't know they're using Google? I have an Android phone and one thing that is bugging me is how the default browser on the bottom "toolbar" is in fact named "Internet". This may be fine for techies like you and me, but I'm concerned for the older folk who may have difficulty with technology or non-techies. In this case, if one just went with the defau…

What phone? Samsung maybe? On my Google Pixel, there's nothing calling itself "Internet".

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#106

Post by ChuckMcM » Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 5:01 AM UTC

It seems like an easy way to generate some publicity for an Attorney General to sue Google. I watched with interest when the Mississippi AG did this (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/mississippi-ag-j...).

It always seems to go back to some sort of privacy and/or surfacing web data that someone else doesn't want surfaced. I don't know if there is an easy answer here.

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#107

Post by adammunich » Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 5:02 AM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #86

FussyZeus wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU doesn't fine to fund itself. Fines are not a good funding source.

Just look at where cops do traffic monitoring (aka speed traps). In Germany they are supposed to put speed traps in areas with a large amount of accidents caused by speeding, but many end up being placed simply where people casually speed in tiny amounts (e.g. 20 km/h too fast is 30€)... and a single trap can bring 15M € per year ( http://www.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de/inhalt.verkehrsueberwa... ). In total, speed tra…

30 euros? Try 350 in California.

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#108

Post by mikelward » Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 5:27 AM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #86

FussyZeus wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU doesn't fine to fund itself. Fines are not a good funding source.

Just look at where cops do traffic monitoring (aka speed traps). In Germany they are supposed to put speed traps in areas with a large amount of accidents caused by speeding, but many end up being placed simply where people casually speed in tiny amounts (e.g. 20 km/h too fast is 30€)... and a single trap can bring 15M € per year ( http://www.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de/inhalt.verkehrsueberwa... ). In total, speed tra…

20 km/h is not casually speeding, it's willfully -- or at least ignorantly -- risky and dangerous driving in most situations. Altho highway and residential streets are certainly different situations.

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/r... https://www.science.org.au/curious/technology-future/physics...

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#109

Post by bobajeff » Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 5:38 AM UTC

allenz wrote: post #82

bobajeff wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow, I doubt Google is worrying about the next move that DuckDuckGo will make in competition with them.

Google names DuckDuckGo as their competitor. I think it's taken seriously.

Google has an incentive to name competitors because they have a monopoly. Which regulators like to observe.

Microsoft did the same when they were investigated.

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#110

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC » Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 5:47 AM UTC

savanaly wrote: post #56

CottageCarry wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love an actually decent competitor to Youtube.

I mean, I want the improvement in quality that usually comes with competition, but I don't actually want there to be competition. Does anyone really relish the idea of having to search multiple sites for a given video because you don't know or can't remember which one it's on, and having to have an account and different set of uploader subscriptions for Youtube A, B and C? And remember where the subscribe button is o…

Yeah, just like you don't really want to have more than one company hosting text on the web. Imagine the mess it would be if there were more than one company hosting text on the web! It's a massive perk of the current system that all text that is published on the web is hosted at the web hosting company!

But, quite seriously, I think we have a massive problem on our hands if even people who frequent hacker news just aren't aware of the concepts of standards and interoperability anymore, that a monopoly seems to be perceived as the only way to achieve integration at the user experience level.

Want to have more than one TV channel with a common user interface? Obviously, all TV channels need to be owned by one company!

Want to have more than one appliance with a common electricity supply infrastructure? Obviously, all appliances need to be provided by the one electricity supplier!

Want to have more than one newspaper in the same language and alphabet? Obviously, all newspapers and their common language and alphabet need to be owned by one company!

Want people all around the planet to be able to talk to each other remotely? Obviously, all telephones and telephone networks need to be owned and operated by one company!

I'd really like to understand how this thinking managed to take hold, given that it seems to be so obviously fallacious to me.