Live data from Hacker News

Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

kansascity.com

121–129 of 129 posts

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#121
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…

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 defaults, one wouldn't even know you were using a Google-built browser.

I'm assuming that you're using a Samsung phone, in which case "Internet" is the Samsung browser, not Google's Chrome. http://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/apps/samsung-internet/

(But I think you made your point;)

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does your definition of an "ulterior" motive require commercial benefit? Are you suggesting that, if this man had a secret reason for going after Google, and that reason was that it was part of his plan to boost his popularity and name recognition with local conservatives by shitting on "liberal" companies in order to boost his chances of winning a seat in the Senate, it would somehow not count as an "ulterior mo…

My definition doesn’t require a commercial interest. It’s just amazing to me in an age where politicians are typically benefitting their or their crony’s commercial interests that a guy who is elected on a populist platform is accused of having an ulterior motive for defending the interests of the people as he promised, because that might cause his constituents to elect him to a different office and serve them furthe…

> An ulterior motive would be...to benefit his own commercial interests.

> My definition (of ulterior motive) doesn’t require a commercial interest.

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#123
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer we "make life difficult" for companies based on their behavior, not their size. At the risk of sounding like a libertarian, I'm of the mind that monopolies aren't inherently bad until they start buying politicians and bills that reinforce their hold on the market. Tesla is huge for electric-only car companies, but I don't hear the average person screaming that they should be shut down in states where t…

Google has done a few things in the antitrust area that are noteworthy. http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/

Great, let's focus the discussion on that -- not on their size.

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#124
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer we "make life difficult" for companies based on their behavior, not their size. At the risk of sounding like a libertarian, I'm of the mind that monopolies aren't inherently bad until they start buying politicians and bills that reinforce their hold on the market. Tesla is huge for electric-only car companies, but I don't hear the average person screaming that they should be shut down in states where t…

" I would prefer we "make life difficult" for companies based on their behavior, not their size." It's pretty hard to measure behavior but size is easier to measure. As as Tesla goes they are still a very small company compared to their competition so I don't think there is any need to think about their market power and suppression of competition.

> As as Tesla goes they are still a very small company compared to their competition so I don't think there is any need to think about their market power and suppression of competition.

It all depends how you slice and dice, which is the flexibility and the unjust part of anticompetitive lawsuits.

Did MS have a "monopoly" on browsers just by bundling IE with Windows? How much effort would it take for consumers to install Mozilla or Opera or AOL?

Does Apple have a monopoly on "apps"? You can always buy an Android to avoid an iPhone, a Surface to avoid an iPad, a Zune to avoid an iPod (oh, wait...). You can argue that Apple has a monopoly on the Apple iTunes/App stores, but is it an honest argument if you look at the wider industry?

I would argue that size still doesn't mean anything. Apple is huge but they got there because consumers willingly bought their products. There was no geographical monopoly (as utilities have), no IP monopoly (iPod competed with Zune, MBP with a lot of WinTel laptops, iPad with Surface, iPhone with any number of feature Phones, BlackBerries, and later Android), and they didn't pay legislators to build walls that benefitted Apple.

Does Google deserve to be sued for anticompetitive behavior? Perhaps. Does Google deserve to be sued just because it's large? No.

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer we "make life difficult" for companies based on their behavior, not their size. At the risk of sounding like a libertarian, I'm of the mind that monopolies aren't inherently bad until they start buying politicians and bills that reinforce their hold on the market. Tesla is huge for electric-only car companies, but I don't hear the average person screaming that they should be shut down in states where t…

The game would change, they would just do as much behavior as they can get away with until they got large enough to change the law.

That's a hypothetical in a world that doesn't (yet) exist. Let's leave the lawsuits for when actual harm has happened, not potential harm.

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This seems to be a great example of correlation does not imply causation.

Sadly I can't disprove this fallacy because I don't have a counterfactual world to show you.

But I would argue that if you look at post-DOJ Microsoft, that also happened to be the same time that:

  * Microsoft was rudderless
  * the internet became the source of lots of extremely cheap software (including SaaS),
  * Windows software quality gave us gifts like Conficker
  * Microsoft was busy prosecuting software pirates and burdoning legit users with licensing keys
  * Microsoft lost out on smart phones, tablets, cloud services, etc which grew *far* faster than desktop software
  * OS X became a more compelling alternative to Windows for home/business users
  * Linux continued to eat Windows server market share
You are blaming the DOJ (ad EU Commission) investigations for Microsoft being a massive ship and turning slowly in an age of rapid innovation. They got fat on intellectual property and patents, then never bothered to trim their business to their core competency. Perhaps this will change in the post-Balmer years, but only time will tell. I would argue that the only thing that Microsoft has really dominated recently has been console-based gaming, and it's not because MS got split up for anti-competitive behavior (because they didn't).

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#127
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer we "make life difficult" for companies based on their behavior, not their size. At the risk of sounding like a libertarian, I'm of the mind that monopolies aren't inherently bad until they start buying politicians and bills that reinforce their hold on the market. Tesla is huge for electric-only car companies, but I don't hear the average person screaming that they should be shut down in states where t…

Monopolies are inherently bad because not being subject to competitive forces means they can charge what the market can bear, rather than the rate set by competition. This is bad for the consumer, bad for competition, and bad for the economy (fewer people are making transactions than at the market clearing price, slowing down economic growth). If that makes you sound like a libertarian it speaks poorly to their gener…

> Monopolies are inherently bad because not being subject to competitive forces

Some companies are a "monopoly" in a small sector, but there are substitute products which are close enough to provide market-like forces. Don't want to pay for a Tesla? Buy an internal-combustion engine car, a gas-electric hybrid car, pay a premium for a Fisker Kharma, get one of the less desirable tiny electrics from any one of a dozen tiny-production manufacturers, or simply buy a Tesla used.

If Tesla was a monopoly, they could (would?) charge far more now than they are for the early delivery units (time-price discrimination). As far as I can tell, they have biased early delivery Model 3 cars to premium features, but they are charging the same price in delivery month 1 than delivery month 3.

> If that makes you sound like a libertarian it speaks poorly to their general economic literacy.

I'm reasonably well versed on the basics of economics (both classical and behavioral). "Libertarian" comes with a connotation, which I don't prefer to adopt. Some of it comes from Ayn Rand acolytes, some from the ignorance/naiveté of AnCaps (although I admit that there's enough ignorance on all sides of economics).

But more extreme libertarians tend to think that the market will correct itself faster and better than any government intervention, so "monopolies don't exist for long in free-market conditions" (although this assumes perfect information transparency, which never has and never will exist).

> On the flip side, Tesla is also treated a lot better than smaller competitors, because its size enables it to play states off against each other

Every big company that has already raised the funds (or promise of funds) can get similar attention and courting when shopping for a cite for jobs. It's not unique to Tesla, or even large companies:

  * Amazon is shopping with HQ2 to major metro areas
  * Google Fiber had cities put together competitive bids, including cutting red tape and cheap access to utility poles
  * Wisconsin just offered a *massive* tax discount package to woo FoxConn to build a factory in the US
  * Almost *every* auto manufacturer gets courted by different states to build plants (incl. Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, etc) in Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama
  * Boeing gets many bids on their plants and Airbus recently got similar incentives for building a plant in Alabama
  * The Kansas Cities (two adjacent cities in two states) have long been at economic war, offering unsustainable tax incentives to keep companies from "crossing the street" into another tax jurisdiction[1]
  * Video Effects ("VFX") is in a tax-free treadmill[2]
[1] https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599368-missou...

[2] http://www.studiodaily.com/2013/04/ending-the-vfx-crisis-wha...

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My definition doesn’t require a commercial interest. It’s just amazing to me in an age where politicians are typically benefitting their or their crony’s commercial interests that a guy who is elected on a populist platform is accused of having an ulterior motive for defending the interests of the people as he promised, because that might cause his constituents to elect him to a different office and serve them furthe…

> An ulterior motive would be...to benefit his own commercial interests. > My definition (of ulterior motive) doesn’t require a commercial interest.

To the grammatically hindered, my use of the ellipses (...) implies other possibilities than what is written.

Re: Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among other things, this seems to carry the implicit premise that prosecuting Google for antitrust violations is a populist issue. I would wager that if you polled it, you would find the exact opposite.

Perhaps you might want to give this a read if you think Google’s power is of no concern: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/technology/frightful-five...

That's not what I said. The claim is that it's not a populist position, not that it's not the correct one.
Post reply on HN