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

201–210 of 261 posts

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

#201

Post by perth »

judge2020 wrote: post #199
perth wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Foobar is well-known and sometimes super easy to guess. For a few years before 2019, you could get it by simply searching “python list comprehension”. It’s just a way to find people searching certain stuff and encourage them to work at Google. Having an automated system pre-screening people in this way vastly improves the quality of applicants that come in. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17289580

Ok well this ycombinator post you linked confirmed my suspicions that the challenge is targeted based on location/network address.

> "ISTR that only works from the USA."

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

#202

Post by sitkack »

ngngngng wrote: post #67
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…

Does this only go for internet companies? Or do you think it applies to Walmart selling its own Equate brand of everything or Costco selling its own Kirkland brand of everything?

Trader Joe's pulls the same thing with the house brand. House Brand, undercoat, whatevers. If you want Capitalism to work, then everything need to be a market. For markets to be efficient we need protocols and interfaces. For this to work we need to disambiguate to the root, the post office should probably deliver milk and potatoes.

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

#203

Post by fauigerzigerk »

charcircuit wrote: post #183
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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 That is an option for Netflix. If they made their own platform they could offer a more competitive price. Apple was created in 1996. Netflix was made in 1997. Maybe a good strategy of having a dominant streaming platform in 202x…

>That is an option for Netflix. If they made their own platform they could offer a more competitive price.

It may be an option for Netflix. It may be an option for Facebook. But it's not an option for 99.999% of app makers and it would be bad for consumers. Very bad. Imagine you had to buy one device per service you're using. I don't want to buy a Netflix device to watch Netflix movies. This is just bonkers.

>It seems useful to me. It's the basis of what makes this game interesting.

No. It's more than just useless. It is a great demonstration of how every ideology becomes insanity if you take it to its extremes.

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

#204

Post by the8472 »

judge2020 wrote: post #190
moonchrome wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safari/WebKit on iOS is a far worse offender. Part of the reason you can't escape the app store tax is because WebKit intentionally gimps webapps. Even Microsoft wasn't this dirty with IE, you could always install other browsers.

I mean, this won’t work in court since being forced to use WebKit isn’t unique - it’s just a technical requirement to developing on iOS. Just as you’re forced to use specific Apple APIs to access sensor data or draw stuff to the screen, you’re forced to use a specific APIs to run JavaScript code.

> it’s just a technical requirement to developing on iOS

It's not a technical requirement. It's purely policy. Nothing but policy stops others from compiling their own runtimes for iOS.

Sensors are different, you need to access the hardware. Browsers are just general purpose software.

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

#205

Post by foerbert »

endisneigh wrote: post #198
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your analogy you name two large brick-and-mortar retailers. Allow me to posit my own analogy: If Amazon is the Walmart of the web then who is the Costco? Who is the Target? There isn't any. Retailers stick their neck out to put an item on the shelf because space is limited. The product is made. It's on the shelf. If it doesn't sell then someone loses money. If Equate brand sucks I can choose an alternative. If eve…

Costco, Target and Walmart all have their own online presence. Your entire argument makes no sense.

They were obviously just using an analogy with real names to say Amazon does not have a similar-size competitor or three.

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

#206

Post by iamstupidsimple »

perth wrote: post #201
judge2020 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Foobar is well-known and sometimes super easy to guess. For a few years before 2019, you could get it by simply searching “python list comprehension”. It’s just a way to find people searching certain stuff and encourage them to work at Google. Having an automated system pre-screening people in this way vastly improves the quality of applicants that come in. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17289580

Ok well this ycombinator post you linked confirmed my suspicions that the challenge is targeted based on location/network address. > "ISTR that only works from the USA."

Nope. I've had foobar from outside the US.

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

#207

Post by extropy »

judge2020 wrote: post #189
dannyw wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does Google respond to secret FISA orders which by law cannot be audited or known by anyone but the direct receiver and one pre-screened attorney?

Most businesses on Google Workspace don’t see the US government as an adversary. If they do, they encrypt things or don’t use Workspace.

This. If US government on your things to worry about list, you host in Russia Cloud or China Cloud. Or roll your own data center in some non US allied country.

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

#208

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mrep wrote: post #179
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This tech stuff isn't a natural monopoly. The defining characteristic of a natural monopoly is that customer is paying a large amount per unit to cover costs that stay the same no matter the amount of usage. The per-unit cost for most of this tech stuff is approximately zero, and the ones that aren't zero (e.g. semiconductor manufacturing) have significant unit production costs and are not a natural monopoly either.…

I would argue it basically is because the high fixed costs are from paying the developers to write and maintain good competitive software and the marginal cost of each new user is basically free. That exactly matches wiki: "A natural monopoly has a high fixed cost for a product that does not depend on output, but its marginal cost of producing one more good is roughly constant, and small."

The traditional definition wasn't really contemplating software, because the important thing that makes it a natural monopoly is that building a second one would cause the user to have to pay a lot more. If you have one power grid, it costs a billion dollars to operate, so the average user has to pay $1B/N where N is the number of users on the grid. If you have two power grids, now the average user has to pay $2B/N, which is twice as much, and most importantly, is a large difference.

With software, there are so many users that the difference between $X/N and $2X/N is still ~zero. You can have two providers, or ten, and you're in no danger of them being unable to recover their development costs even at low prices. The cost of paying a number that rounds to zero twice is well worth the benefits of competition.

In other words, the barriers to entry are low (absent some artificial constraint). It isn't that the fixed costs are high, they're only "high" relative to the essentially non-existent unit cost. That's totally different. It means that if you want to enter the market for email clients or messaging apps or phone games, that can be done by an individual or a small business. A small business can't build their own power grid.

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

#209

Post by extropy »

capableweb wrote: post #112
ReaLNero wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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…

The last case of ad bidding proves that while not everyone at Google knows whats going on, they are abusing the data they are sitting on.

Which case is that?

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

#210

Post by dannyw »

judge2020 wrote: post #189
dannyw wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does Google respond to secret FISA orders which by law cannot be audited or known by anyone but the direct receiver and one pre-screened attorney?

Most businesses on Google Workspace don’t see the US government as an adversary. If they do, they encrypt things or don’t use Workspace.

That's not my point. My point is by law Google must have secret and extremely challenging to audit processes for accessing user data, which can be abused for corporate espionage.
Post reply on HN