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

91–100 of 351 posts

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#91

Post by lolinder »

JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #84
p_j_w wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can't have them for free—you pay for Windows in the form of a higher OEM cost for your computer.

EDIT: OP eventually clarified in the thread that they're talking about piracy. So apparently the argument is that because Microsoft products can be pirated, Microsoft isn't a monopoly. Make of that what you will.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#92

Post by joshuamorton »

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…

Basically all of this is false.

The legal duty to shareholders doesn't mean that companies need to violate the law. In reality, saying " we don't abuse our market position to avoid regulatory scrutiny" is acting in the interests of shareholders, and a lawsuit wouldn't go further. Otherwise you'd be saying that companies had a duty to break all laws in pursuit of shareholder value, which is obviously silly.

And yeah under us law you have to prove consumer harm or anticompetitive practice, not just having a significant market majority.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#93

Post by JumpinJack_Cash »

lolinder wrote: post #91
JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can't have them for free—you pay for Windows in the form of a higher OEM cost for your computer. EDIT: OP eventually clarified in the thread that they're talking about piracy. So apparently the argument is that because Microsoft products can be pirated, Microsoft isn't a monopoly. Make of that what you will.

Only if you buy an already assembled computer, not if you take the time to assemble the components yourself.

And also as a small fish the higher OEM price is being subsidised by the Fortune 500 companies which buy millions of dollars worth of products from Dell etc.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#94

Post by easeout »

waveBidder wrote: post #66
constantcrying wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how is this the result of Apple engaging in anti-competitive practices? 75% of people choosing your product can not be grounds to breakup a company and the fact that it looks different for other age groups is just further evidence that Apple is engaging in fair competition.

Apple has specifically decided to not adopt texting standards, so that anyone not on an apple device can't participate in group chats.

I don't see how that would hold up in a court. They didn't adopt RCS and I can still have group chats by SMS. They didn't adopt USB Micro and I can still charge my phone with the cable that came in the box.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#95

Post by constantcrying »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #86
constantcrying wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

>You asked

No, I did not. I stated the question which would need to be answered if you wanted to figure out if Microsoft should face an anti-trust.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#96

Post by hgs3 »

Antitrust laws are too reactive. We need proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria. Ideally, the criteria would be aggressive enough to kill large corporations leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses. The result would be markets with increased competition, more innovation, lower prices, more options for employment and self-employment, and the elimination of Big Corp's big money political influence.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#97

Post by bogwog »

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.

Even if it kills Firefox, it would be a net positive to the web overall, and may even lead to new browsers that aren't just Chromium forks.

Google is raking in billions of dollars per year illegally. If the court rules that way and forces a break up, then those many billions of dollars will be up for grabs, and (potentially many) new competitors will fight for them. There's no way to predict what that will look like, but we will see a lot of innovation.

(EDIT: and for the record, I am a happy Firefox user)

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#98

Post by lolinder »

JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #93
lolinder wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't have them for free—you pay for Windows in the form of a higher OEM cost for your computer. EDIT: OP eventually clarified in the thread that they're talking about piracy. So apparently the argument is that because Microsoft products can be pirated, Microsoft isn't a monopoly. Make of that what you will.

Only if you buy an already assembled computer, not if you take the time to assemble the components yourself. And also as a small fish the higher OEM price is being subsidised by the Fortune 500 companies which buy millions of dollars worth of products from Dell etc.

If you assemble the components yourself, you still don't get Windows for free, you just get out of paying the Windows tax if you intend to install Linux.

Edit: The idea that OEMs only tack on the extra cost to big companies is demonstrably false. For one thing, margins per-item are always lower on bulk purchases, not higher—Fortune 500 do not pay list price on anything. For another, you can see the difference in cost on the Dell XPS 13 by switching between Linux and Windows:

https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/xps-13-plus-dev...

Computers that don't offer a Linux option just all come with that $149 surcharge baked in.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#99

Post by layer8 »

JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #84
p_j_w wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Price dumping is an anti-competitive practice.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#100

Post by TheRealPomax »

andsoitis wrote: post #6

> controlling much of our communications Google doesn't control my communication with others.

Emphasis on the wrong word. It might not control your communication if you're an iPhone user and you don't have a google account for anything, but it absolutely and objectively _controls_ communication.

For unfathomably large swathes of the planet's population even.

It does this by owning not just the devices they communicate with, but also the operating system on those devices, the applications used through those operating systems, and the infrastructure that those applications make use of. And while it's tempting to say they control the communication, but not the content of the communication, even that's not true: google even controls the content through services like automatic replies for email, call-screening assistant, etc.

And if you ever interact with those, because the other party uses them, then "Google doesn't control my communication" is hilariously misguided. Google controls your communication if that communication is with anyone in the Google ecosystem.

Post reply on HN