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

How did Google get so big?

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 417 posts

Re: How did Google get so big?

#31

Post by izzydata »

tinbad wrote: post #17

"Some were investigated, but only superficially, the government just really isn't enforcing our antitrust laws. And that's what's happened. None of these acquisitions have been challenged." Behemoths like Google emerge every time new inventions lead to the creation of new markets followed by mass adoption during a relatively short timeframe, when regulations don't exist yet. It has happened in history time and time a…

That seems to be implying it is inherently a bad thing. Is trying to stop innovative companies also a hindrance to technological progress?

Re: How did Google get so big?

#32

Post by nouveaux »

fipple wrote: post #19
paulpauper wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think only 2 acquisitions have had a impact. the one for adwords/adsense patent and one other. The rest have been to poach talent and other stuff or were duds.

There's Android, YouTube, 510 Systems, and the constellation of acquisitions made to create Google Apps, at a minimum.

When YouTube and Android was first launched, Google was not nearly as big as it is today. There were even questions about Google's viability back then given that most of their revenue came from online advertising.

It would be interesting to see how many of these acquisitions are still around. I think survivorship bias is strong here.

Re: How did Google get so big?

#33

Post by adrianN »

ur-whale wrote: post #25

Why is Google being big a problem? Who are they hurting by being big at this time? [edit]: to elaborate, I was under the impression that the whole point of anti-monopoly regulations was to protect consumers from monopolistic predatory practices, not to prevent monopolies from actually existing per se. Hence my question: is there anyone actually being hurt by the currently limited choice of search engines or phone ope…

Their competitors?

Re: How did Google get so big?

#34

Post by nugget »

wilsonnb2 wrote: post #6

So if Google is a monopoly, what should be done about it? Split it up into separate, competing mini-Googles? Keep fining them more and more money until they stop anti-competitive practices? Split off Maps/Android/Drive/etc into separate companies so that Google can't use their search monopoly to dominate those fields? I'm genuinely not sure what the best way to go about this would be.

If you required Google to license either their algorithmic search index or their search ad marketplace to other companies, it would have a dramatic effect on the competitive dynamics of the search market worldwide.

Re: How did Google get so big?

#35

Post by Alupis »

fipple wrote: post #19
paulpauper wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think only 2 acquisitions have had a impact. the one for adwords/adsense patent and one other. The rest have been to poach talent and other stuff or were duds.

There's Android, YouTube, 510 Systems, and the constellation of acquisitions made to create Google Apps, at a minimum.

> There's Android, YouTube, 510 Systems, and the constellation of acquisitions made to create Google Apps, at a minimum.

Buying Android hardly would have triggered anti-trust investigations given Apple's significant market share at the time, and the many other significant competitors (BlackBerry and Nokia just to name two).

Same goes with YouTube - Google bought it before it was a smash success, and before people thought that sort of thing would be a major viewership center.

510 Systems and their self driving car really still isn't a money-making center for Google (nor is self-driving technology for anyone at the moment).

Google Apps is a hard sale against Office 365, etc...

I just don't see how any one of these acquisitions, on their own, would have caused government Anti-Trust inquiries... unless your point is Google operates in too many different markets?

Re: How did Google get so big?

#36

Post by zjaffee »

wallflower wrote: post #8

If I could give a six word response for the technical side: "Jeff Dean, Sanjay Ghemawat and team". To paraphrase some Cal/UC Berkeley professor that I cannot remember, he said that the problem with scaling is that when you go up a magnitude or more, you may need a qualitatively different solution for the same problem. Jeff Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat and their team have time and time again managed to design and build st…

I think it's important to mention Sanjay Ghemawat is very likely just as important to google as Jeff Dean, just Jeff has been made the public figure for a variety of reasons.

Re: How did Google get so big?

#37

Post by solotronics »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #2

"Bing, their competition, has 2% of the market. They have 90%." Who has the other 8%?

Because of having 90% of the search engine market they have a uniquely comprehensive view into the human mind. I would not be suprised if these huge data aggregation companies lead the race into sentient AI.

Re: How did Google get so big?

#38

Post by joshAg »

css wrote: post #7

> Steve Kroft: Were any of those acquisitions questioned by the antitrust division of the Justice Department? > Gary Reback: Some were investigated, but only superficially, the government just really isn't enforcing our antitrust laws. And that's what's happened. None of these acquisitions have been challenged Granted, most of Google's 200+ acquisitions would not trigger any scrutiny, but this line is mind boggling.

This has been the case since at least the 1980s.

https://www.thenation.com/article/transcript-breakdown-are-a...

Re: How did Google get so big?

#40

Post by sincerely »

izzydata wrote: post #31
tinbad wrote: post #17

"Some were investigated, but only superficially, the government just really isn't enforcing our antitrust laws. And that's what's happened. None of these acquisitions have been challenged." Behemoths like Google emerge every time new inventions lead to the creation of new markets followed by mass adoption during a relatively short timeframe, when regulations don't exist yet. It has happened in history time and time a…

That seems to be implying it is inherently a bad thing. Is trying to stop innovative companies also a hindrance to technological progress?

I mean, you're implying that "technological progress" is inherently a good thing.
Post reply on HN