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

241–250 of 261 posts

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

#241

Post by [deleted] »

andygcook wrote: post #194
charcircuit wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Apple was founded in 1976, which is a full twenty years before Netflix.

[deleted]

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

#242

Post by charcircuit »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #203
charcircuit wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 seem…

>But it's not an option for 99.999% of app makers and it would be bad for consumers.

Then you will just have to live with being disadvantaged to a platform's creator when competing on their platform. They have the home field advantage.

>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.

You are the one making it extreme. If you think the strategic decision of developing your own mobile ecosystem is silly then there is always the option to not do it.

There is no rule in this game that it has to be profitable to release stuff on the app store. Apple could just decide one day that third party apps are a security and privacy problem and then remove them all leaving only Apple apps.

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

#243

Post by squarefoot »

j-bos wrote: post #216
squarefoot wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would advocate Chromebooks and Chromeboxes only because once I remove the bootloader protection, flash the coreboot firmware and install whichever OS I want, from my point of view they're wonderful little machines. But from normal users perspective, once they discover that the hardware is locked to prevent the install of anything but ChromeOS, they are garbage, and probably it is what they become once the user has…

Do you recommend any guides for removing the bootloader protection?

To my knowledge, this one is the best detailed and covers most devices.

https://mrchromebox.tech/

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

#244

Post by krono »

Nasrudith wrote: post #225
krono wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot be serious. Where do you think all that money went?

Serious zero sum financial thinking there - assuming profiting from a transaction means the other party must be worse off. And implicitly applying the thieves's syllogism too that is "you have it, I want it, therefore you stole it from me".

I was alluding to the antitrust accusations. My comment being placed in the broader context them was perhaps too far-fetched of a hint.

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

#245

Post by mthoms »

PeterisP wrote: post #237
mthoms wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The consignment model and paying for shelf space are the exception in retail though, not the rule. They tend to exist only where there is a huge asymmetry in power between retailer (usually large chains) and suppliers.

Isn't most of retail done by large chains with a huge asymmetry in power?

Depends on (1) what country/region you live in and (2) what brand you're talking about. For example: Yes, Safeway may be huge, but so is Procter and Gamble. Is there an asymmetry there? I'm not sure.

Anyways, large chains don't deal exclusively in consignment either.

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

#246

Post by dillondoyle »

waterloosong wrote: post #113
dillondoyle wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that's what I wrote in the later part the $10,7,5 example I thought might be the case. If that's the flat out only thing literally happening, I can't think of a reasonable reason that would be in the best interest of the publishers paying google to sell supply side. it's all jumbled when you control all sides of the auction and infrastructure which is the real problem IMHO. Maybe I can see a scenario where bid s…

fair enough, reverse engineering media reporting on legal documents can be tricky You need to realize just one more thing: to ensure that there is no peeking into bids of other networks, the actual code of the auction could be executed on a remote server. But only a naive implementation would ask every ad network client to send all their ad bids to the server; on the other hand having ad networks send only the highes…

oh i haven't thought of that. maybe that is what they could mean by 'drop the second price.'

adx ssp sends 1 bid of $10, even though their next highest internally is $9 mopub ssp or whoever sends 2 bids of $5 and $7

So if nytimes.com is doing a header bid on their own (or even through google's ad serving product - again imho the biggest problem) they don't see the $9 and the clearing price becomes $7.01

I guess it would be a question of contracts. This is beyond what I do so I have no idea what the standard number of bids each SSP sends to a header bidding auction, obviously don't want to send google scale 1 billion lol...

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

#247

Post by numair »

judge2020 wrote: post #197
numair wrote: post #13

> antitrust complaint against Alphabet's Google There’s gonna be high-fives and cigars for all of the lawyers and lobbyists who have successfully executed on the strategy to spin off the ultra-high-revenue-generating but secretly-ultra-toxic asset into a standalone entity before the heat got turned on. J&J is trying to do this with the whole talc thing but it’s probably too late. I am totally, totally impressed by Go…

The spinoff isn’t as significant as you might think - all the restructure did was aid in financial reporting and further separate things like Verily from the Ad business.

Can’t they pull a J&J-type bankruptcy if things got really expensive for Google? I mean, obviously none of us expect this, but it’s still only possible when everything is in its own container.

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

#248

Post by rabenbru »

numair wrote: post #13

> antitrust complaint against Alphabet's Google There’s gonna be high-fives and cigars for all of the lawyers and lobbyists who have successfully executed on the strategy to spin off the ultra-high-revenue-generating but secretly-ultra-toxic asset into a standalone entity before the heat got turned on. J&J is trying to do this with the whole talc thing but it’s probably too late. I am totally, totally impressed by Go…

They took down ‘Don’t be Evil’ in 2018?

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

#249

Post by niyikiza »

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…

>>a single company cannot be trusted to operate a marketplace while also being a participant.

Like the government?

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

#250

Post by fauigerzigerk »

charcircuit wrote: post #242
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 seem…

>But it's not an option for 99.999% of app makers and it would be bad for consumers. Then you will just have to live with being disadvantaged to a platform's creator when competing on their platform. They have the home field advantage. >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. You are the one making it extreme. If you think the…

Ah so now you have changed your position from "it's competitive" to "it's not competitive but it doesn't matter".

But you're wrong about me just having to live with being disadvantaged. Apple is built on top of a platform as well. It's called society. And society makes some rules that govern what advantages platform operators like Apple can enjoy as a benefit of having created a successful platform and what advantages are unfair and/or damaging for consumers. So we'll see about who has to live with what.

Post reply on HN