I really hope they start splitting tech giants up. It would be a boom for the economy, jobs, and create much needed competition.
It'd be a boon for the Chinese tech giants.
Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
471–480 of 502 posts
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#472This 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…
I wouldn’t go that far. The only reason that the justice department is going after big tech is because of the President’s personal dislike of the “left coast liberal elite”. Don’t you find it strange that a Republican administration is going after a company for anti-trust? I am not saying that Google hasn’t unfairly competed against small business or they shouldn’t be sued, but this is purely political, not the Justi…
/tin-foil hat on
Well, no government wants any company to wield more power than them, right?
/tin-foil hat off
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes, broadening the context is my whole point. 20 years ago it was the OS, 10 years ago it was search, today it's social networks, tomorrow? The monopolies from each era struggle in the next. Let Google solve & dominate search while innovation moves on to the next big thing.
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn’t go that far. The only reason that the justice department is going after big tech is because of the President’s personal dislike of the “left coast liberal elite”. Don’t you find it strange that a Republican administration is going after a company for anti-trust? I am not saying that Google hasn’t unfairly competed against small business or they shouldn’t be sued, but this is purely political, not the Justi…
> Don’t you find it strange that a Republican administration is going after a company for anti-trust? Nope. If anything, there is past precedence from the 2001 Antitrust case against Microsoft [1]. Note in that case, it wasn't about whether consumers were directly harmed, but whether Microsoft was abusing its market power to prevent other entrants into the browser space. Arguably this is very analogous to what Google…
>> Don’t you find it strange that a Republican administration is going after a company for anti-trust?
>Nope. If anything, there is past precedence from the 2001 Antitrust case against Microsoft [1]. Note in that case, it wasn't about whether consumers were directly harmed, but whether Microsoft was abusing its market power to prevent other entrants into the browser space. Arguably this is very analogous to what Google and Facebook are currently being accused of.
The President, March 16:
>The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12616266746864476...
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes, broadening the context is my whole point. 20 years ago it was the OS, 10 years ago it was search, today it's social networks, tomorrow? The monopolies from each era struggle in the next. Let Google solve & dominate search while innovation moves on to the next big thing.
The history is antitrust rulings are what prevents monopolies of the past from dominating the next era.
IBM was constrained by an antitrust ruling. Which gave Microsoft an opening. Microsoft itself was then subject to a similar action 20 years later. So it's been another 20 years since then, so the time is ripe to clip googles wings.
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
I definitely won't argue that telecoms play fair, but there are high barriers to entry for starting a telecom. If you start a new telecom only to compete for customers with an existing telecom in a certain area, you have to pay a huge expense to build out your network and your upside will be limited by the ensuing price war. Not arguing that starting a telecom is easier than a search engine, but I think a large part…
You’re describing point by point exactly why they’re dangerous monopolies. It’s hard, incumbents have advantage, and even if you do it, incumbents will undercut you because they are already well situated. Consumers have no choice; incumbents frequently at the receiving end of the worst consumer satisfaction. Oh, and taxpayers also paid $400B to lay that infrastructure that apparently newcomers aren’t allowed to have.…
I definitely agree with you that they are dangerous monopolies, I hope I didn't come across as defending them.
I think the overall point though is that both the telecom and search engine market experience the network effect. In a telecom's case, the effect is more literal. For search engines, they increase in value as they can collect data on more and more users (which increases the value of the search engine to the users and the cycle continues). Saying that there are dozens of alternatives to me is like saying there are dozens of alternatives to Facebook. There are, but my Grandma isn't on them so do I really care?
I think that the network effect is really hard to regulate around effectively. Just look at Bell. the resulting companies from the Bell antitrust case are the same companies we are discussing as having monopolies on internet access. I absolutely agree that we have an issue, but I just don't know of a solution.
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
> It seems you are suggesting prices are the only thing.
No, but any supposed other benefits that outweigh prices getting higher are even harder to measure, so basing government intervention on them is even harder to justify.
> Over what time frame are they better off?
Um, whatever time frame the prices are lower?
> Are workers (also people) better off?
If they have to spend less on what they need, it would seem so.
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't care how cheap products are on Amazon, I still refuse to buy computer storage or anything that goes in the human body since they are either unwilling or unable to deal with counterfeiting problem. Standard Oil didn't have a "counterfeiting problem", so I don't see how this is relevant to them. Or, for that matter, to any other large monopoly that has been broken up by antitrust action. Also, you as a consum…
The issue is the consumer harm that comes from the combination of not trusting Amazon to deliver the qualities you care about for a certain class of product and there being no alternative suppliers because Amazon drove them out of business. It seems like there aren’t any middle-quality products anymore: you can buy a cheap plastic item that never works quite right and will break next month, or you can buy a chrome-pl…
> It seems like there aren’t any middle-quality products anymore
I think there still are, but I agree it's very hard to find any on Amazon, at least in a lot of product categories. You have to spend time trawling actual brick and mortar stores.
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and then de-listed the original thing from their store While they don't delist items, their algo favors products they sell directly to the extent that Amazon will get the buy box over a third party seller even when that seller is reputable and cheaper. Add that the 3rd party seller has to pay a sales fee to Amazon, often making it impossible to compete with them without approaching zero margin. It's not delisting b…
>While they don't delist items, their algo favors products they sell...... Which is still the same in the Target example where their own brand product get much favourable placement. This practice has been going on for so long possibly before all of us on HN were born.
I would argue its not similar at all. Finding those reputable sellers can be more difficult whereas this would be similar to the same target item showing up four or six different times on the shelf intermixed and tagged multiple times. No?
Re: Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
>While they don't delist items, their algo favors products they sell...... Which is still the same in the Target example where their own brand product get much favourable placement. This practice has been going on for so long possibly before all of us on HN were born.
I would argue its not similar at all. Finding those reputable sellers can be more difficult whereas this would be similar to the same target item showing up four or six different times on the shelf intermixed and tagged multiple times. No?
Not really, Visual Merchandising and placement is a field on its own. Target knew precisely where to put items if they dont want that brand to do any sales, to the point where it could be 30% to 40% drop even from a Reputable brand and sellers, and 70%+ from lesser known brands, effectively killing it.
It is a tactic often used in dispute, that is why Brands needs to work on Branding to combat this stronghold from Distribution. And one reason why small brands likes the Internet so much rather than working with conventional distribution channel.