111–120 of 351 posts
woa, so many people are still using google for search?
Please state what you use in your post.
Every now and then I'll check Google out of curiosity, and it's always shocking how bad the results are. Inaccurate results, spam sites everywhere, and sensory overload of advertisements.
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)
Google’s search monopoly is the easiest to escape: the moment I decide Bing or chatGPT are better I can switch with ease. And chatGPT is already replacing many Google searches. So, it will take care of itself, and I think there are many other competition issues that need government intervention.
1) They have free data about what most users want (i.e. click on)
2) Websites fight for being indexed by Google, but crawlers other than Google basically have to fight to access websites
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. an…
If AT&T had just carried on I am sure that the internet and mobile phones would have happened anyway. Sure things may have been different it happened at different times, but I don't think AT&T not being broken up would have stopped things that were already happening elsewhere from continuing to happen.
> controlling much of our communications Google doesn't control my communication with others.
There are government websites which use Google's Recaptcha. That should say enough.
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 Co…
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 Co…
Is there a model anywhere for this having been tried, successfully or otherwise? The obvious hesitation I have is just that some companies really do benefit from a lot of vertical integration. Could Apple be Apple if they were forced to spin off the phone business, or the chip design house, or the OS? What would it mean for the startup ecosystem if getting bought by a conglomerate was a less plausible exit? How would…
If it weren't, the things that are integrated become available for others - meaning better products for all, no?
What's the societal benefit of integrating all these advances in single companies?
Won't this kill Firefox if Google gets told it cant pay browsers to put it as default? That would suck.
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 Co…
It sounds like this is only about google search. How can that be broken up? Or are they just going to get fined many billions of dollars and they lose their right to being the default search engine on iPhones?
It would mean they can't PAY apple to make Google the default search engine. Apple would then (in theory) pick whichever search engine is best and not just play ball with Google's lock in. This would therefore enable competition. In theory.
>Google has maintained this monopoly, the government alleges, not by making a better product, but by locking down everywhere that consumers might be able to find a different search engine option, and making sure they only see Google. Google improves search every year. Internally they have data to back this up. Google doesn't lock down everywhere consumers can learn about a new browser. The most notable being the defa…
Blows my mind that Google is penalized so often, while the clear monopoly is Apple. Heck Apple goes out of its way to break compatibility with Google through restrictions on RCS (iMessage), Pixel buds (or any other OEM), charging cable, no headphone jack and so on.
And for the headphone jacks, I'd rather take a water resistant phone without this legacy connector. Do you also want serial ports back?