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

Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 502 posts

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#431

Post by b3kart »

ridewinter wrote: post #385
b3kart wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but when Google have been starting out they didn’t have to compete with...Google (as it is today). While companies that would like to enter the market now have to. And Google has a massive competitive advantage: their data and their scale. Not saying that regulation will necessarily help, and it’s not Google’s fault that they’re so good, but it’s silly not to admit that it’s hard to enter the search market toda…

They said the same thing about Microsoft. Along came Google destroying them in an ancillary arena. Expect that trend to continue in the future.

You're broadening the context. I am not saying Google as company is something you can't compete with. Many companies do so successfully in various markets. I am talking about search in particular. Which is why you bringing Microsoft in is convenient for my point. How's Microsoft's attempt to compete with Google search doing? And that's one of the few companies that can challenge Google in terms of resources.

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#432

Post by take_a_breath »

pdonis wrote: post #323
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could have made the same argument about Standard Oil - until the competition were crushed and prices went up. Which is why lower consumer prices aren't a valid defence against anti=trust. Nor is the argument that markets "naturally" lead to monopolies or (at best) oligopolies and cartels - even though empirically they do. So much so that setting out to create a monopoly is a bullet point on many unicorn-wannabe b…

> You could have made the same argument about Standard Oil - until the competition were crushed and prices went up. Prices didn't go up until the government forced Standard Oil to break up. It had nothing to do with the competition being "crushed"; it had to do with the government taking the attitude you mention, that lower consumer prices didn't matter. Which seems daft since lower consumer prices mean consumers, i.…

The opposite of lower consumer prices not mattering, is lower consumer prices being the only thing that matters. It seems you are suggesting prices are the only thing. The key phrase here is “market power”, not just prices.

==since lower consumer prices mean consumers, i.e., the people, are better off.==

Over what time frame are they better off?

Are workers (also people) better off?

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#433

Post by tayistay »

papeda wrote: post #187

As some variant of millenial, I'm continually bemused by how many of my peers are on board with breaking up "big tech" and use "big tech" products multiple times every single day. If I bring up federal contracting, which is an industry of comparable size, and which is dominated by companies founded well over 50 years ago [1], and which is way more politically opaque, and whose funding they cannot as tax-paying US cit…

As some variant of late 19th century man, I'm continually bemused by how many of my peers are on board with breaking up Standard Oil when we all rely on oil!

As some variant of mid 20th century man, I'm continually bemused by how many of my peers are on board with breaking up AT&T when we make phone calls practically every day!

etc.

(Also, point about federal contractors is pure Whataboutism)

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#434

Post by nojito »

nojito wrote: post #35
pge wrote: post #20

This is interesting because it seems like the DOJ's definition of monopoly is changing, which I think is a good thing. Since the late 80s (roughly), antitrust litigation has only been brought on the basis of a monopoly's negative impact on consumer prices (i.e. does the existence of a monopoly cause the consumer to have to pay higher prices?). That ignores monopolies that impair the ability of smaller companies to en…

Barriers of Entry are not related to antitrust. Can you share some instances of this being true in the 80s?

It’s pretty ridiculous that the top comment in this thread is 100% wrong.

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#435

Post by st1ck »

shadowgovt wrote: post #91
pge wrote: post #20

This is interesting because it seems like the DOJ's definition of monopoly is changing, which I think is a good thing. Since the late 80s (roughly), antitrust litigation has only been brought on the basis of a monopoly's negative impact on consumer prices (i.e. does the existence of a monopoly cause the consumer to have to pay higher prices?). That ignores monopolies that impair the ability of smaller companies to en…

This has been a major gap between the American understanding of monopoly protection and the European one. In the European space, protection of smaller business' ability to compete is factored in. But the US space, in general, has not cared if smaller businesses can compete and tends to take a laissez-faire attitude towards business-on-business market pressures. It's the effect of the market on consumers that's paramo…

You can't just blame Amazon on loss of business for brick-and-mortar bookstores. In my country we don't have Amazon, yet paper book sales are decreasing because why buy if you can just download for free. And if you want to pay, it's just easier to buy online (ebook or paper). Not to mention that probably overall demand for reading books is decreasing.

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#436

Post by mrep »

inapis wrote: post #189
davidajackson wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I think of harmful monopolies, I think that the worst ones are where a company owns a patent to a drug and refuses to sell it for less than 100x cost. But people every day can choose to type in any website into their search bar... and they choose to type Google. I don't see any reason why Google should be punished for that--unless they've done something bad elsewhere. It seems like a lawsuit will objectively mak…

You really can’t compete against free. A large number of people use Google properties because they are free. Existence of a free product will pretty much decimate a large number of business models. Give it enough time and these companies will create gravity wells that start distorting society. Google’s network effects are so strong that as a consumer or a producer you cannot run away from them. Want to use your own e…

> You really can’t compete against free.

Sure you can, you can set a negative price such that you pay a user for using your service which bing literally does [0].

[0]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/rewards/search-and-earn

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#437

Post by throwawayy1001 »

izacus wrote: post #408
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, Android ships with chrome installed and set as the default browser, with Google as default search engine. And 99% of customers will never even think to touch those settings. You can't break into a market that most people don't ever realize exists.

If that would be true, Chrome would never become popular either. It's not a default browser on Windows, macOS or Linux. And yet people installed it anyway to the point it became the most popular browser. So your point of 99% people not touching defaults is nonsense. Even on Android Chrome isn't the default browser - Samsung Browser is (with Samsung being by far the most popular OEM). Android isn't iOS where you're no…

Google used its other monopoly, in search to aggressively promote chrome.

“Upgrade to a safe browser”.

They always use their monopolies (video, search, maps) to venture into different markets.

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#438

Post by cwhiz »

papeda wrote: post #187

As some variant of millenial, I'm continually bemused by how many of my peers are on board with breaking up "big tech" and use "big tech" products multiple times every single day. If I bring up federal contracting, which is an industry of comparable size, and which is dominated by companies founded well over 50 years ago [1], and which is way more politically opaque, and whose funding they cannot as tax-paying US cit…

This is classic Whatabout-ism.

Good is not the enemy of perfect. Google and Facebook should be shattered into a thousand little pieces. And we can also look into other monopolies.

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#439

Post by ksec »

drawkbox wrote: post #410
glenstein wrote: post #16

I don't have a problem with this. But I wonder why there isn't similar willpower to pursue, say, telecoms, banks, Monsanto, Luxxotica, Disney, and the like. Why is it just big tech?

Anti-trust needs to come back in a big way to a Teddy Roosevelt / FDR level. Monopoly/oligopoly that causes too much concentration should be subject to regular anti-trust. The biggest needing breakups are: - ISPs / telecoms - Banks - Food supply ISPs / telecom should be first, the 2017 push to remove net neutrality even with clear violations [1], privacy protections and focus on ad networks [2], data caps, throttling…

I was expecting something on Food Supply, what is the current issues with it?

Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

#440

Post by bretpiatt »

pb7 wrote: post #373
kortilla wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google fiber was fine. Google just stopped caring once they realized how little ROI is in the field. Turns out being a last mile ISP is a pretty low margin business.

Google Fiber was never about ROI. Fiber stopped expanding after encountering legal resistance in market after market from the preexisting telecom (take note the singular, because there’s usually just one). Every market they successfully pushed through, the existing telecom dropped prices and improved service to stay competitive. These competition-stifling monopolies are costing taxpayers tons of money when the taxpay…

Starlink can't get here too soon. https://www.starlink.com

Satellite eliminates local regulatory capture from blocking new entrants.

LEO eliminates the latency issues with current satellite.

Post reply on HN