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

71–80 of 353 posts

Re: United States vs. Google

#71

Post by Lammy »

VikingCoder wrote: post #51
dsabanin wrote: post #47

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 onli…

1) best search engine 2) top online ad platform 3) top mobile OS 4) top video streaming service 5) top internet browser 6) top mapping/navigation service Okay, you listed 6. What should the law say is the new limit for how many they should be able to have?

I read this with "best" implying a product they choose to use and "top" implying more like "inescapable".

Re: United States vs. Google

#72

Post by speeder »

scarmig wrote: post #60
freewilly1040 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The harm is pretty trivially demonstrated in the privileged search rankings Google gives its own products. This drives down competition in these other verticals and leaves consumers with winners that won because they are Google's products, not because they are the best. I also really dislike the use of the word "hatred" here, which is a loaded word deployed when a writer wants to make those they are arguing against s…

Does Google give a boost to its own products in the search rankings?

Yes, a particularly annoying case for example is the "Coronavirus Map".

Everyone I know that typed that on google, wanted to visit the John Hopkins map: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

But to me, and to many other people I know, it starts with Google own map and statistics, then some ads, then some random crap, and finally near the end of the page John Hopkins map.

EDIT: just a note, I am not living in US, so the top-most boxes don't show US stuff.

Re: United States vs. Google

#73

Post by titanomachy »

acoard wrote: post #42

>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, impac…

By the time you're big enough to have to worry about antitrust, you've already made it. I doubt this will affect the advice given to startup founders.

Re: United States vs. Google

#74

Post by agrd00 »

mcbutterbunz wrote: post #57
VikingCoder wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) best search engine 2) top online ad platform 3) top mobile OS 4) top video streaming service 5) top internet browser 6) top mapping/navigation service Okay, you listed 6. What should the law say is the new limit for how many they should be able to have?

It's not the number that OP is arguing, its this: > 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.

Agreed, that’s an overly reductionist way of seeking a resolution.

I say focus on worker capture.

The only “market” Adam Smith mentioned is a free labor market, which is free by its ability to move between offers fluidly.

We have that to an extent in tech but not really and it’s hardly pervasive.

If the problem is the billions to influence culture, IMO its employee culture spend that’s the biggest downside to monoliths.

Wealth-caring becomes the corporate mantra. Or Jesus in the old days. It’s clear there is a biological addiction to privatized monoliths boxing in agency to fetishizing the monolith, by tickling our limbic brain just right and repeating “New trend we’re selling!” all day.

Let’s not let them do that, but let people work.

Re: United States vs. Google

#75

Post by wwwdonohue »

dsabanin wrote: post #47

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 onli…

I sort of agree, but part of me also thinks that if a company builds the world's best mobile OS and search engine and ad platform and video streaming service and internet browser and mapping service... well, good for them! They built the best products and it seems like it would ultimately be anti-consumer to do anything about it.

It's different if a company like Google establishes its dominance via one great product (search) and then wields that power to artificially protect its other lines of business through e.g. contracts, the same way Microsoft did with OEMs.

Sure, nothing "illegal" about it, but ultimately, it fits the de facto understanding of antitrust being about "consumer welfare." A company leveraging its dominance in one business to exert control over others =/= a company having success because it built the best products.

Re: United States vs. Google

#76

Post by indigochill »

coder1001 wrote: post #2

Correct me if I am wrong, but is there anything stopping anyone from starting a new (better) search engine, and promoting it like crazy? Maybe even pay users a portion of the ads revenue for using the new search engine? I understand there are economies of scale here, but if a few investors got together what's to stop them from achieving this?

People use Google because it's what they know and the alternatives for whatever reason do not sufficiently differentiate themselves in ways that the user cares about enough to switch.

In order to be disrupt Google, you don't make a better Google. You identify something Google doesn't deliver and which people care about enough to use your search engine. I don't think anyone knows right know what that hypothetical killer feature is, and most probably assume it doesn't exist.

On another level, though, incumbents have a habit of buying potential threats (which can be a pretty good deal when you're in venture capital land and need to show your shareholders high returns). Google's bought a number of companies with a different take on search over the years, such as Like.com and Clever Sense.

Re: United States vs. Google

#77

Post by zepto »

acoard wrote: post #42

>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, impac…

Without moats of some kind, you end up with a commodity.

In this instance, marginal value asymptotically approaches marginal cost, which in the case of software is zero. Ironically destroying the incentive to participate.

The only alternative to moats is intellectual property, which is arguably far worse.

Re: United States vs. Google

#78

Post by jklinger410 »

crazygringo wrote: post #38
jklinger410 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Weird, I don't really hear any citizens complaining about Google being a monopoly. But I hear people complaining about local ISP monopolies. Yet the government seems to be focused on solving the non-issue, and perpetuating the issue.

Is it possible that the American government doesn't represent the will of the people? Just spitballing here...

Re: United States vs. Google

#79

Post by austincheney »

If the feds really believed these ad tech companies are monopolies they can solve the problem more directly, and permanently, by rolling back the various legal protections these businesses can’t live without.

Re: United States vs. Google

#80

Post by mbesto »

VikingCoder wrote: post #51
dsabanin wrote: post #47

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 onli…

1) best search engine 2) top online ad platform 3) top mobile OS 4) top video streaming service 5) top internet browser 6) top mapping/navigation service Okay, you listed 6. What should the law say is the new limit for how many they should be able to have?

The same antitrust law that dictated breaking up AT&T and Standard Oil (among others): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Mo...
Post reply on HN