Live data from Hacker News

Justice Department, states likely to bring antitrust lawsuits against Google

wsj.com

481–490 of 502 posts

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

#481
post #428

Earlier 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.

If you're selling to Target they can certainly hurt your sales with unfavorable placement, but the impact isn't really comparable to the buy box on Amazon, the overwhelming majority of sales are buy box clicks.

A direct comparison would be target putting your product behind their product on the shelf where the shopper can't see it without digging for it.

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

#482
post #463
post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the claim here wasn't (as I read it) that this is unusual, but that it's unjust. If prosecutors are selecting the highest ROI targets based on some calculation of which cases they can win and which cases have the biggest consumer or market impact (or are most egregious), that doesn't seem especially problematic. If they're selecting targets for prosecution based on who has political connections and who does…

Well, the burden of proof seems to be on the person making claims going after big tech vs other industries is politically motivated. I would prefer the DoJ step in to take actions against companies that are abusing their power to massively violate the world's privacy through surveillance systems which have unimaginable capabilities for shaping global human behavior. It's hard to think of a more worthy target of anti-…

Agreed. But I read the parent’s comment as being about the legitimacy of such a claim itself—that the claim of political bias is not merely lacking proof but “whataboutism” and thus illegitimate or irrelevant, even if proven. :)

Of course one might view these cases as legitimate, and bemoan that similar prosecutions don’t happen against companies in other industries, as well. The effect of political bias may be to suppress cases that should be brought, not to bring cases that shouldn’t be.

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

#483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I wonder if Goog wasn't a majority "blue" company would he aggressively go after them. "Majority blue" is in a majority of their employees vote Democrat? That's just what happens when you're headquartered in California, in a metro area, with a workforce that skews younger. I don't think that Google is somehow pushing liberal objectives in a meaningful way.

Yes it does: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dan-gainor-yes-google-censor... A study showed that Google News returned links to CNN vastly more often than links to Fox News, even though Fox News has triple the market share of CNN. See also censoring of YouTube videos: https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-let-google-get-away-with-c... > How else to explain why Google has restricted more than half of our 15 videos that are…

[flagged]

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

#484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

William Barr is an extremely contentious pick for DOJ. It's hard to understate this. Just read his bio, it's nuts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Barr > Barr is a longtime proponent of the unitary executive theory of nearly unfettered presidential authority over the executive branch of the U.S. government. > Barr as attorney general in 1992 authored the report The Case for More Incarceration, where he argued f…

If I may add to the weirdness, there is also his speech on "militant secularism"[1]. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-...

Can’t wait till Barr and every other member of the administration is on death row.

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

#485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The biggest factor which is not considered in antitrust law is the fact that large corporations, by virtue of controlling a lot of capital, have access to a larger share of all the new money which is created out of thin air and injected into the economy as credit. Economists are quick to point out that the new money which is created of of thin air is not given outright, but rather, it is loaned out - Therefore, by vi…

This...

Most of us just don't get to borrow 100 million, good credit ain't cheap...

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

#486
post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“Things are hard to measure, so we should just focus on what’s easy, regardless of its actual effectiveness” doesn’t seem like a great compromise.

“Spend less on what they need” is same Walmart argument we’ve heard for decades. Meanwhile, the middle class shrinks and many of the things people need to improve their lives (shelter, healthcare, education) get more and more expensive and wages stagnate.

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

#487
post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I disagree that the network effect in Google is anywhere near as substantial as Facebook. You don’t have a social network without your friends on it. You can definitely crawl the internet and make an index out of the cross references and build a search engine out of it. It may be worse at first but that’s because of the data you mine from users, right? So either this whole privacy thing is overblown and it’s really necessary to collect data to make a really great product or no one should be able to in which case Google holds little monopoly power over a newcomer that doesn’t have any of this data.

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

#488
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: Amazon, many companies do the same thing (e.g. CVS, Target, Costco). With Costco in particular, Kirkland products are higher quality and cheaper than the competition in almost all categories they are in, which is a benefit to me as a consumer. Should Kirkland be broken off just because other companies can't compete with it? If not, what's the justification for Amazon?

The victims are the third-party sellers. Store brands are a completely different subject. They are purchased and licensed from the manufacturers. Do you think Costco has a factory making paper towels someplace, next door to their factory making alkaline batteries?

So you're saying it's okay for Amazon/Costco to put up Amazon Basics/Kirkland, so long as they're paying someone else to make it for them?

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

#489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's monopoly is unusual, because what they did was create a wall around a section of an ancillary market (apps) which caused it to be its own market. Walmart doesn't have a monopoly on bread because anybody can buy bread from Costco instead without having to buy a new toaster. Once you make buying $1 apps from not-Apple require people to replace their $1000 phone, that makes apps for that kind of phone its own ma…

> Boeing has a serious lack of competition. Their only meaningful competitor is Airbus and that's a foreign company. They have no domestic competition at all, which is inherently problematic, especially for a critical industry like that. This isn't due to monopolistic behavior; the McDonnell Douglas company, the last big American competitor to Boeing, would probably have ceased to be a going concern had the merger no…

> This isn't due to monopolistic behavior

That might mean they haven't violated antitrust laws but that doesn't make them any less a monopoly. We might also want to start looking at how that somehow happened without them doing something untoward, because it implies that something else has gone wrong -- why is it now prohibitively expensive to design a commercial aircraft when it didn't used to be?

Monopolies also aren't allowed to do certain things no matter how they got that way. (Many of the things Apple does come to mind.)

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

#490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Boeing has a serious lack of competition. Their only meaningful competitor is Airbus and that's a foreign company. They have no domestic competition at all, which is inherently problematic, especially for a critical industry like that. This isn't due to monopolistic behavior; the McDonnell Douglas company, the last big American competitor to Boeing, would probably have ceased to be a going concern had the merger no…

> This isn't due to monopolistic behavior That might mean they haven't violated antitrust laws but that doesn't make them any less a monopoly. We might also want to start looking at how that somehow happened without them doing something untoward, because it implies that something else has gone wrong -- why is it now prohibitively expensive to design a commercial aircraft when it didn't used to be? Monopolies also are…

1. Aircraft is not a monopoly, it's a duopoly between Boeing and Airbus in certain aircraft segments, and there are other manufacturers like Embraer. Airbus has manufacturing lines in the US and sells plenty of aircraft to American customers so it's not even a monopoly on manufacturing in the US.

2. Aircraft development has always been really expensive. Lots of iconic companies have shuttered, merged, or otherwise ceased to exist because aircraft development is fucking hard. Historically:

* McDonnell Douglas merged into Boeing (or the other way around, depending on your view) after they failed to build the MD-11 up to the performance advertised to customers and suffered billions in costs and delays, and that was formed from an earlier merger of McDonnell and Douglas after Douglas struggled with the costs of developing the DC-8 and 9, both airliners that are considered to have sold fairly well.

* Airbus was formed from scavenging various European national aircraft manufacturers because they would all lose money if they tried competing individually vs MCD and Boeing.

* Lockheed Martin exited the commercial aircraft market decades ago after spending billions of dollars on a delayed aircraft that airlines said they were interested in, but then got cold feet about buying.

More recently:

* Bombardier sold its aircraft lines to Airbus because it spent billions of dollars trying to fix mistakes and delays.

* Embraer tried to sell stakes in its aircraft lines to Boeing because despite having airplanes that sell well they could not cope with the cost of developing updated versions of their aircraft.

* China, Japan, and Russia have each had state-backed programs to try and take some of the lucrative airline market. All of the programs have cost billions of dollars, were delayed, and on top of that non-domestic customers are not really interested in these planes since they have worse efficiency and performance characteristics than competing aircraft products.

Even the big two have had problems; every single recent aircraft line has seen delays and cost overruns. Boeing and Airbus are just big enough that they can eat the cost of it without needing lots of government subsidy, but the MAX8 crisis has shown that might not even be true anymore.

If it were possible to reduce costs, someone would have done it by now, because aircraft manufacturing can be a very lucrative industry resulting in millions of direct and indirect jobs. As it turns out, aircraft are expensive because the ever-increasing requirements for fuel efficiency and safety from airlines and regulators have resulted in aircraft that get harder and harder to develop and build each generation. Rolling any of this back is not a good idea, because

* for various reasons, using more fuel than you have to for air travel is not good

* every single safety regulation for aircraft is written in blood, and in general people do not want to fly in planes created via "move fast, break things"; see the MAX8 crisis.

> Monopolies also aren't allowed to do certain things no matter how they got that way. (Many of the things Apple does come to mind.)

What is something Boeing has done that they should not be allowed to do as a result of their position in a duopoly?

Post reply on HN