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

United States vs. Google

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 353 posts

Re: United States vs. Google

#31

Post by dahfizz »

lucasyvas wrote: post #11
crazygringo wrote: post #6

Most interesting part IMO is at the end (emphasis mine): > That, though, is why it is a mistake to read the report as some sort of technocratic document... it is exceptionally difficult to make the case that any of these companies are causing consumer harm, which is the de facto standard for antitrust in the United States. Indeed, what makes Google’s contention that “The competition is only a click away” so infuriati…

I'm one of the types that doesn't care much if a company has/hasn't reached the legal definition of a monopoly. This is because by the time anything reaches that point, the damage has already been done to the market. It doesn't take a time traveller to tell you what is going to happen once it reaches a particular point. I appreciate both perspectives, but openly take my position.

I'm curious what you use as a definition to identify monopolies, if the legal definition is not sufficient for you?

Re: United States vs. Google

#32

Post by speeder »

crazygringo wrote: post #6

Most interesting part IMO is at the end (emphasis mine): > That, though, is why it is a mistake to read the report as some sort of technocratic document... it is exceptionally difficult to make the case that any of these companies are causing consumer harm, which is the de facto standard for antitrust in the United States. Indeed, what makes Google’s contention that “The competition is only a click away” so infuriati…

I am a Google costumer, as in, I pay Google to show my ads in search.

To me a literal monopoly is obvious, no other competitor comes even close to Google in performance of search ads, but Google keep increasing in hostility too, they do everything they figure out they can get away with, like blatantly allowing click fraud, making fighting fraud harder, allowing people to use it's tools for extortion via fraud, and so on.

I really want to not use Google, but I have to.

Re: United States vs. Google

#33

Post by jklinger410 »

crazygringo wrote: post #6

Most interesting part IMO is at the end (emphasis mine): > That, though, is why it is a mistake to read the report as some sort of technocratic document... it is exceptionally difficult to make the case that any of these companies are causing consumer harm, which is the de facto standard for antitrust in the United States. Indeed, what makes Google’s contention that “The competition is only a click away” so infuriati…

It certainly isn't a legal or financial definition because Americans seem to have no problem at all with regional monopolies.

Re: United States vs. Google

#35

Post by jcfrei »

The article mentions that the real focus of anticompetitive behaviour in Google's case should be the acquisition or integration of additional aggregators. In this case the Android app store. I think one of the most blatant anticompetitive behaviours is how Google has integrated the play store framework into lots of applications which means disabling it breaks them (or causes apps to show warning notifications). At the same time privacy features for apps themselves keep increasing limiting the possibility for new entrants to collect data on consumer behaviour. This gives Google itself an unfair advantage - which is entirely unrelated to the quality of their service (in this case the play store). This I believe should be the main focus of this DOJ lawsuit.

Re: United States vs. Google

#36

Post by dahfizz »

nocman wrote: post #18
crazygringo wrote: post #6

Most interesting part IMO is at the end (emphasis mine): > That, though, is why it is a mistake to read the report as some sort of technocratic document... it is exceptionally difficult to make the case that any of these companies are causing consumer harm, which is the de facto standard for antitrust in the United States. Indeed, what makes Google’s contention that “The competition is only a click away” so infuriati…

> it's like there's something inherently satisfying when the big guy gets knocked down, the idea that being big is bad in and of itself. It is surely true that some people see it that way, but I think most people would be fine with Google being gigantic if they perceived the company and it's services as being strictly beneficial for everyone. If there were no concerns about abuse of power, loss of privacy, squashing…

We need to be aware of our own bubbles when talking about how "most people" feel.

I think most tech aware people are wary of Google, at best.

I think most people people don't care. They use Google to search things every day and it seems to work for them. They might hear about privacy every once in a while but don't give it any thought. Most people think Android is synonymous with Samsung.

Re: United States vs. Google

#37

Post by dvduval »

I have to pay Google to compete against Google. I'm in education. And Google has a product for educators and students. So do I. Now Google's going to be able to smartly know who to advertise to and get their product in front of Google's customers better than I will be able to. They're just naturally a big bully.

Re: United States vs. Google

#38

Post by crazygringo »

jklinger410 wrote: post #33
crazygringo wrote: post #6

Most interesting part IMO is at the end (emphasis mine): > That, though, is why it is a mistake to read the report as some sort of technocratic document... it is exceptionally difficult to make the case that any of these companies are causing consumer harm, which is the de facto standard for antitrust in the United States. Indeed, what makes Google’s contention that “The competition is only a click away” so infuriati…

It certainly isn't a legal or financial definition because Americans seem to have no problem at all with regional monopolies.

"No problem at all?" I don't know any American who likes their local ISP monopoly.

To the contrary, we have HUGE problems with them. I'm not sure there's any company more vilely detested in America than Comcast.

Alas, for some reason the Democratic party hasn't shown any real interest in regulating them or promoting competition, which is a failure of democracy. I don't personally know why -- I could guess something about campaign contributions and lobbying but if anyone actually knowledgeable could speak up I'd love to know.

Re: United States vs. Google

#39

Post by mrep »

jklinger410 wrote: post #33
crazygringo wrote: post #6

Most interesting part IMO is at the end (emphasis mine): > That, though, is why it is a mistake to read the report as some sort of technocratic document... it is exceptionally difficult to make the case that any of these companies are causing consumer harm, which is the de facto standard for antitrust in the United States. Indeed, what makes Google’s contention that “The competition is only a click away” so infuriati…

It certainly isn't a legal or financial definition because Americans seem to have no problem at all with regional monopolies.

Based on what? Regional monopolies such as cable ones led my comcast are widely considered the most hated companies in existence so much so that south park even made an episode about it.

Re: United States vs. Google

#40

Post by TheCoelacanth »

Osiris wrote: post #23
waterside81 wrote: post #12

So if every phone/browser etc. asked you to pick your default browser at setup time - would that placate the DOJ? Wouldn't most people stick pick Google?

I believe your comment is a bit tongue in cheek about Microsoft's settlement over IE. The concern here is that government, especially lawyers, are not good at coming up with remedies. If the court rules Google is a monopoly, then what? What changes will be demanded, and will they "fix" the issue that the government is trying to solve?

Anything short of breaking it up won't accomplish anything.
Post reply on HN