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

U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 261 posts

Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google

#161

Post by perth »

BrianOnHN wrote: post #159
perth wrote: post #141

Not sure if this was mentioned but does anyone else think it's sleazy that Google tries to poach employees from other companies via Foobar[1]? [1] https://foobar.withgoogle.com

What's that?

Google hijacked my search result with that fine recruiting method at work a few weeks ago. I checked it out with a burner Google account and it seems like it was a recruiting method where they have you solve programming questions on that service[1]. I did a few of the "levels" and they're all just tricky programming questions. However..

Even not signed into an account, which, I don't sign in to any Google services at work in interest of protecting IP, Google was able to track enough via cookies / me being on an si corp network to throw that to me.

[1] Pic I took on my phone: https://i.imgur.com/7X7ybUv.jpeg

Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google

#162

Post by somehnacct3757 »

ReaLNero wrote: post #110
rapnie wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always completely astounded me how countless professional businesses are casually and mindlessly handing over their most private internal communication and metrics to Google on a platter. And aren't Google's privacy policies and ToS's stating that all collected information can be used to "improve their own services" or something along those lines? Does that include 'extract business advantage' from your data? I do…

(Not a Google engineer) Google's engineers are notoriously loose-lipped (which is a good thing!!!). There's no way they would be able to keep a secret like this. Anytime a customer's private data gets accessed, you either a) need approval by someone or b) "break the glass", which is only reserved for oncall fires. Either way, it gets audited. The only way I would believe something like this is if an executive/higher…

You can perform these analyses with 'anonymized' data to both observe the broad trends across a huge dataset, and still claim you haven't invaded privacy.

With the scale of surveillance data available to Google, this is how they have their cake and eat it too.

Once you know that note-taking apps (e.g.) are a hugely growing space, it's easy to use publicly available data to find the startups making a splash. Not once did Google's data tell them Startup X is an acquihire target. And yet, here they are at Startup X's door.

Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google

#163

Post by snarfy »

Sayrus wrote: post #145
snarfy wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can open a lemonade stand, I just can't sell my own lemonade, is that corrrect?

Now that's one hell of a straw man. Do you also plan on controlling this stand, allowing others to sell on your stand while watching every single transaction (and maybe the recipe so that the analogy is complete?) and while also having the power to remove them from your stand? Because if you are only talking about opening a stand and selling your lemonade, then you don't have the same foothold as Apple, Google or Ama…

> same foothold

Yes, this is the problem. Participating in the market they create is not. If that were true every grocery store that has a bakery, deli, or meat counter is a problem.

They are too big. Monopolistic forces are the problem.

Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google

#164

Post by bothandeach »

mabbo wrote: post #53

As more data comes out about Google, Apple, Amazon, one simple underlying thing becomes clear: a single company cannot be trusted to operate a marketplace while also being a participant . Apple's App Store insider knowledge lets them discover popular apps, then boot them off the platform when they decide to compete. Amazon sees what products are successful and profitable, then makes knock-offs which they promote over…

Yes but. It's your country, you let them do these things. You set up your country to let them do these things. So no real reason to complain.

Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google

#165

Post by fauigerzigerk »

charcircuit wrote: post #150
emkoemko wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

imagine your Netflix and have to pay Apple massive % to be on their devices... then comes Apple with its own service and they can charge less because they don't charge them self's the % giving them very anti competitive advantage.

No, it would be a competitive thing. In chess capturing your opponents pieces to weaken them is a valid strategy you will see in any tournament. Capturing Netflix's marketshare by offering a cheaper alternative is competitive. Putting your enemy in disadvantaged positions is just part of the game.

I don't understand how your analogy is even remotely relevant. In chess, both sides can make the exact same moves. Neither side can change the rules. Neither side can impose any extra costs on the other side in an asymmetric way. It's a classic example of a level playing field, and it's the exact opposite of the asymmetric roles that Apple and Netflix play on the iOS platform.

The only way in which your analogy could possibly apply is if you're saying Netflix is free to create its own mobile OS ecosystem where they can impose asymmetric rules and taxes on Apple TV. But it's neither possible nor desirable for every app maker to create their own OS and perhaps even their own hardware.

The definition of "competitive" you seem to be using here is not useful.

Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google

#166

Post by chalst »

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #55
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #6

"Project Bernanke" ie, a licence to print money. I bet they're perhaps regretting their witty code name right now.

For the unfamiliar: in his role as Chair of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke became somewhat infamous for his endorsement of "quantitative easing" as a response to the 2008 financial crisis. This was (oversimplified) a mildly fancy way of flooding banks with newly-printed money to offset the impact of falling asset prices. Bernanke became known in some circles as "Helicopter Ben" in reference to an earlier speech in…

It's worth noting that the main beneficiaries of QE are the fixed-income desks at commercial banks, unlike the actual helicopter money proposal, which would benefit the people most hurt by recessions, holders of debt outside the financial system.

It says a lot about the quality of public discourse on finance that the debate around QE has mostly been around whether it is inflationary, and not who benefits from this rather peculiar way of dealing with the failure of traditional monetary policy at the zero lower bound.

Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google

#167

Post by acdha »

bothandeach wrote: post #164
mabbo wrote: post #53

As more data comes out about Google, Apple, Amazon, one simple underlying thing becomes clear: a single company cannot be trusted to operate a marketplace while also being a participant . Apple's App Store insider knowledge lets them discover popular apps, then boot them off the platform when they decide to compete. Amazon sees what products are successful and profitable, then makes knock-offs which they promote over…

Yes but. It's your country, you let them do these things. You set up your country to let them do these things. So no real reason to complain.

Complaining is how problems get fixed. If we took your advice we’d still be living in a country where voting was restricted to white male land owners and most of us would be dreaming about rate reductions at the company store.

Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google

#168

Post by 32gbsd »

mabbo wrote: post #53

As more data comes out about Google, Apple, Amazon, one simple underlying thing becomes clear: a single company cannot be trusted to operate a marketplace while also being a participant . Apple's App Store insider knowledge lets them discover popular apps, then boot them off the platform when they decide to compete. Amazon sees what products are successful and profitable, then makes knock-offs which they promote over…

we love these large companies. less people to trust, plus free-ish services

Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google

#169

Post by makeitdouble »

bothandeach wrote: post #164
mabbo wrote: post #53

As more data comes out about Google, Apple, Amazon, one simple underlying thing becomes clear: a single company cannot be trusted to operate a marketplace while also being a participant . Apple's App Store insider knowledge lets them discover popular apps, then boot them off the platform when they decide to compete. Amazon sees what products are successful and profitable, then makes knock-offs which they promote over…

Yes but. It's your country, you let them do these things. You set up your country to let them do these things. So no real reason to complain.

For real, do we have any more influence in this ?

Looking at what’s happening now, Apple and Google are not under scrutiny because of our collective petitioning or votes, it’s solely because of competitors with deep enough pockets to duck it in court.

As a proof of that, there’s no one to fight Facebook so not much effectively changes on that front, despite all the outcry and editorials thrown at them.

Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google

#170

Post by taylorhou »

emkoemko wrote: post #106
mabbo wrote: post #53

As more data comes out about Google, Apple, Amazon, one simple underlying thing becomes clear: a single company cannot be trusted to operate a marketplace while also being a participant . Apple's App Store insider knowledge lets them discover popular apps, then boot them off the platform when they decide to compete. Amazon sees what products are successful and profitable, then makes knock-offs which they promote over…

imagine your Netflix and have to pay Apple massive % to be on their devices... then comes Apple with its own service and they can charge less because they don't charge them self's the % giving them very anti competitive advantage.

interesting point. I wonder if an incremental regulation can be passed whereas if the marketplace decides to become a participant/competitor, those in which it competes against no longer have to pay the marketplace fees to "even the playing field" at least from a financial standpoint.

doesn't even have to be regulation. these companies can do it in good faith but alas, life's not fair.

Post reply on HN