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

41–50 of 353 posts

Re: United States vs. Google

#41

Post by oceanplexian »

jeffbee wrote: post #9
ffpip wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason Google is because of their AI. And the reason their AI is good is because of the massive amount of data they collect by violating privacy. No other company can start right now. Their search engine is years of efforts of collecting every user's data in Chrome for determining 'freshness', page rank and other related stuff.

You are making the same flawed argument that the DOJ complaint is making: that Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon, some of the largest companies Earth has ever seen, somehow can't afford to compete in search, which is plainly ridiculous.

The DOJ complaint isn't "You can't have a monopoly". In fact there is nothing illegal about having a monopoly in a product or service under US law.

The problem arises when a company leverages a monopoly to suppress competition, implement predatory pricing, or manipulate competition in another market. Using a monopoly in search to compel tying agreements prohibiting browsers or manufacturers from including other search engines or apps would qualify. If it turns out that agents of the company (Directors, VPs, etc) internally communicated an intent to suppress competition that would be more than enough to bury them.

Re: United States vs. Google

#42

Post by acoard »

>But even if a company achieves monopoly position through legitimate means, it cannot take actions that do not advance plausible business goals but rather are designed to make it harder for competitors to catch up.

This reads like a text-book definition of a "moat." It's no surprise to people that have been paying attention that moats are anti-competitive in nature, yet it'll be interested too see what, if any, impact anti-trust will have on the common wisdom of building moats.

Re: United States vs. Google

#43

Post by arrosenberg »

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.

It seems more likely that regional governments don't have the power to break up those monopolies, thus people are forced to live with them.

Re: United States vs. Google

#44

Post by yaacov »

Side point, but

> This, in turn, leads Google’s suppliers to work to make Google better — what is SEO but a collective effort by basically the entire Internet to ensure that Google’s search engine is as good as possible?

Feels pretty confused to me. IMO, crappy sites with good SEO make Google worse for lots of queries.

Re: United States vs. Google

#45

Post by aikinai »

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.

> It doesn't take a time traveller to tell you what is going to happen once it reaches a particular point.

Just like it didn’t take a time traveler to know that Kodak, Microsoft, and Sears would grow to be unstoppable?

Re: United States vs. Google

#46

Post by arrosenberg »

throwaway6734 wrote: post #8
ffpip wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason Google is because of their AI. And the reason their AI is good is because of the massive amount of data they collect by violating privacy. No other company can start right now. Their search engine is years of efforts of collecting every user's data in Chrome for determining 'freshness', page rank and other related stuff.

How is this different than Coke and their brand?

How is Coke leveraging their strength in the beverage market to dominate another market?

Re: United States vs. Google

#47

Post by dsabanin »

I think Google is the best search engine. I don't have a problem with that.

I do have a problem with them being the best search engine, top online ad platform and a developer of the top mobile OS, top video streaming service, top internet browser, top mapping/navigation service, among other things, at the SAME time.

Their assets give them undue and unsupervised influence over a very big chunk of what's happening online. This gives them ability to control big part of collective human consciousness, across languages and borders.

This kind of power for a good reason has been historically reserved for elected governments, made accountable to the people. At least in theory (a man can dream).

Re: United States vs. Google

#48

Post by shadowgovt »

FTA: "although it has been frustrating to see the degree to which antitrust seems to have been politicized"

I think that was always a bit inevitable. Antitrust is, at its heart, a tool to subvert the rules because the rules aren't fair; left to its own devices, unfettered capitalism is full of positive feedback loops that encourage winner-take-all situations in any case where resources are finite and one set of resources can be spent to acquire another (such as money and attention). Recognizing that doesn't make for a good world to live in, we have laws structured so that when you get so big you're hurting consumers, the government can step in and break up a company.

But the questions of how big is too big, what constitutes "consumer harm," and how one breaks up a company aren't encoded in the law (because the law can't predict the evolution of the market itself). Those questions are always going to be obviously "judgement calls" and therefore very political.

Re: United States vs. Google

#49

Post by ximeng »

speeder wrote: post #32
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…

The problem is Apple / FB / Microsoft / Amazon all want to step in the minute Google gets kicked back. It's structural centralization.

Re: United States vs. Google

#50

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

speeder wrote: post #32
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…

Exactly. Given the statement from above:

> 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.

My fundamental issue is that "consumers" are not the customers here, the customers are the ad purchasers, and those are the ones where it's very easy to show the harm.

Post reply on HN