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

The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 351 posts

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#81

Post by convolvatron »

mattlondon wrote: post #56

Hmm we got the internet and cellular phones because AT&T were broken up? Citation needed I think. That sounds pretty far-fetched and over-reaching to me.

not very far-fetched. back in the beginning your local bell was where you went to get wide-area link level service. and it was a huge pain. extremely costly, months long installations, abysmal service.

somewhat later, these same people were responsible for nonsense like ATM. they were going to prop up their own internet - with hookers, and circuits, and per-cell QOS based charging. and they were gonna do it right. and it was gonna be great.

would they have leveraged their monopoly on the underlying circuits to try to dominate layer 3? almost certainly.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#82

Post by littlestymaar »

dantheman wrote: post #16
prepend wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google controls mine as search and gmail and chrome are major ways that I communicate with others. It’s difficult not to use them because my employer and many sites require chrome. I’m not sure what the gmail market share is, but chrome and search are over 50% and they’ve used that market position to harm users (showing ads for their own products until you choose chrome) and harm competitors (showing their own ads ab…

It's hard to say google controls your communication. You: 1. Voluntary use their services 2. There are lots of alternatives 3. The switching cost is minimal

I have no control on my accointances using gmail, nor than I control the fact that key services only make their website chrome-only and their mobile app available only on the Google play store.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#83

Post by wffurr »

concordDance wrote: post #47

Won't this kill Firefox if Google gets told it cant pay browsers to put it as default? That would suck.

Mozilla will have to find another revenue source and cut budgets to focus on the browser and maybe not all the other things they are doing.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#84

Post by JumpinJack_Cash »

p_j_w wrote: post #8
jitl wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has 95% of search market, but none of the other examples have 95% of anything. What are Amazon, Apple, Microsoft’s monopolies? They all have substantial competitors across their various verticals. Amazon: Walmart (goods), Netflix (media) Microsoft: Apple (OS), Google, Amazon (enterprise compute) Apple: Microsoft (O, services), Samsung (mobile), Google (mobile, services), Netflix (media)

Microsoft has over 90% of the desktop OS and Office software markets. It’s impossible to come up with a reasonable definition of monopoly that doesn’t include them in those markets.

But you can have them for free so it doesn't count

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#85

Post by mcpackieh »

Retric wrote: post #28
prepend wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don’t have 90% [0]. They have about 70% of just desktop, but there’s lots of competition with devices since desktops have replacements with tablets and phones and other devices. Also, as the 90s Microsoft case showed, just having a monopoly isn’t bad. It’s the harm caused by having the monopoly. Back in the 90s, Microsoft was found to harm other browsers. [0] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/wo…

Read up on past monopoly busts, you don’t need an overwhelming market share to be broken up. Standard oil was down to 64% and that didn’t save it.

People have this "folk" definition of monopoly saying that a monopoly is 100% total market domination. Maybe because this is the win condition for the board game Monopoly? I think this idea is a serious impediment to addressing anti-competitive behavior in America.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#86

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

constantcrying wrote: post #58
gmerc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

laughs in constant bing, onedrive, fucking edge, teams upsells on my paid version of windows. Laughs in edge ignoring browser preferences screwing over firefox laughs in constantly returning widgets, Microsoft reward currency on the start menu, forced telemetry. Laughs in teams bundling. Laughs in the coming super monopoly of cross domain AI finetuning in teams. Lol, by the standards of the last century, they are wor…

[flagged]

You asked,

> Is Microsoft abusing their market position to keep competitors out of the market?

and they replied with a list of places MS uses their position to try and push their offerings over competitors.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#87

Post by svaha1728 »

siliconc0w wrote: post #54

It's hard to tell if it's Google's dominance causing search to suck or just the web ecosystem naturally optimizing for clicks. I will say most queries with even vaguely commercial intent do seem to get the max or nearly a full page of sponsored links. I don't recall what it was like years ago but I'm pretty sure it is worse. I also think it's pretty clear the platform take-rate needs to be generally lowered across th…

After switching to Kagi, I absolutely see this as Google intentionally making search awful. They are catering to the web ecosystem that is optimized for clicks.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#88

Post by rolph »

WirelessGigabit wrote: post #68
siliconc0w wrote: post #54

It's hard to tell if it's Google's dominance causing search to suck or just the web ecosystem naturally optimizing for clicks. I will say most queries with even vaguely commercial intent do seem to get the max or nearly a full page of sponsored links. I don't recall what it was like years ago but I'm pretty sure it is worse. I also think it's pretty clear the platform take-rate needs to be generally lowered across th…

The problem here is authority. What makes you an authority on a subject? Books written? Credentials (diploma?)? References? These things aren't all true in real life, and on the internet it's even easier to fake all of that. In the beginning Google went by 'amount of text' (which is why you read everybody's life story on how they had sex next to a magma flow in Hawaii which created the idea of doing burnt ends on a p…

>>What makes you an authority on a subjectthe ability to make accurate predictions of outcome by way of knowledge, observation, and logical deliberation.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#89

Post by prepend »

Retric wrote: post #28
prepend wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don’t have 90% [0]. They have about 70% of just desktop, but there’s lots of competition with devices since desktops have replacements with tablets and phones and other devices. Also, as the 90s Microsoft case showed, just having a monopoly isn’t bad. It’s the harm caused by having the monopoly. Back in the 90s, Microsoft was found to harm other browsers. [0] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/wo…

Read up on past monopoly busts, you don’t need an overwhelming market share to be broken up. Standard oil was down to 64% and that didn’t save it.

When antitrust proceedings starts against Standard Oil in 1904, they had 91% market share [0]. By 1911 when they were broken up they were down to 64%, but that’s because the case progressed. And after the breakup they had 0%.

But I think if Standard had 64% in the beginning and there was a competitive market, they would not have been broken up.

[0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-evolution-standard-oi...

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#90

Post by prepend »

wak90 wrote: post #30
prepend wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don’t have 90% [0]. They have about 70% of just desktop, but there’s lots of competition with devices since desktops have replacements with tablets and phones and other devices. Also, as the 90s Microsoft case showed, just having a monopoly isn’t bad. It’s the harm caused by having the monopoly. Back in the 90s, Microsoft was found to harm other browsers. [0] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/wo…

>Also, as the 90s Microsoft case showed, just having a monopoly isn’t bad. It’s the harm caused by having the monopoly. Can you elaborate your thoughts here because the point of breaking up companies with monopolistic power is they cannot be divorced from monopolistic abuse of that power. It is written into US law that the company has a legal duty to it's shareholders. It seems your point is a distinction without a d…

The issue is that having a monopoly in the US isn’t a reason to break up a company, even though it might make it possible to abuse. Antitrust law in the US requires some consumer harm, so it’s the abuse of monopoly power that’s the crux, not just having it.

And duty to shareholders would actually mean that management would not abuse their monopoly power because of the risk of breakup.

Post reply on HN