The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September • Hacker News Board

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#291

Post by huitzitziltzin » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 1:27 AM UTC

ameister14 wrote: post #279

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #187

I appreciate the passion Matt Stoller brings to antitrust issues but his analyses are not good on the economics, to say the very least. I agree that some of google’s conduct is very questionable. It’s not obvious to me that paying to be the default search product is pro-competitive. On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) i…

>On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) is this: we (google) give our product away for free and so do our competitors. What’s more, the cost of switching search engines is literally zero: just type Bing instead of Google. That's not a defense, though. So the government is unlikely to prove anti-competitive outcomes by argu…

It is a defense. It is the defense that they will use and probably the only one they need.

The government lost Ohio vs. Amex, which was in any event about a two sided market. Google is definitely active in two sided markets but this case does not make those claims.

Good luck to DoJ if they are arguing that the quality of the product is lower! They are going to fall on their faces.

I’m not saying google doesn’t engage in anticompetitive behavior. There is a good case to be made on various things they do. But to go at google for “monopolizing the search market” is just pointless. The DoJ should bring a stronger case! Such cases can be made.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#292

Post by jsunderland323 » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 1:29 AM UTC

scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #198

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #187

I appreciate the passion Matt Stoller brings to antitrust issues but his analyses are not good on the economics, to say the very least. I agree that some of google’s conduct is very questionable. It’s not obvious to me that paying to be the default search product is pro-competitive. On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) i…

Look, I’m not informed or an expert here, but if it’s being given away for free, then the search itself is not the “product”. The way I understand it, Google’s monopoly is over the ad market. Stoller wrote a book on the subject which I never properly got through in its entirety, but it included a deep dive on what a monopoly is. You are correct - market share is not an anti-trust violation in it’s own. My assumption…

I don’t think the problem is Google being the best at search. The problem is that you cannot possibly have your user or customer’s best interest at heart when you own the most dominant browser and smartphone os by market share AND when you’re a search engine and ad exchange. Owning those lower level parts of the stack (os and browser), which are network effects loaded, is the anti-competitive piece.

Google as a default to other browsers doesn’t bother me. It’s the being the ad broker, the exchange, the browser, the os and the search engine that are problematic. They have demonstrated over two decades that they cannot protect the interests of either their users or the ad buyers. Disabling cookies is essentially meaningless when you’re forced to sign into your browser or os. Absolutely no ad exchange can act in the interest of their users’ privacy when they have a browser or os that mandates you to sign in. And yes, even ad buyers get screwed by Google’s exchange (Google’s real customers). There are many fraudulent publishers that stack ads but get paid out for false impressions, Google still collects on fake impressions and has little interest in decreasing the fraud since they have a 30% take on the impressions.

The ideal outcome is that chrome is spun off, android is spun off, and the ad exchange is spun off. Google can keep its suite of productivity tools and search engine and run ad words. That’s a completely reasonable and still extremely valuable business that is highly defensible. I think their interests can align with their users and customers in that scenario. As it is right now, I don’t think you can have the business model they have and not have serious conflicts of interest with users and advertisers.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#293

Post by huitzitziltzin » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 1:29 AM UTC

HWR_14 wrote: post #287

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #187

I appreciate the passion Matt Stoller brings to antitrust issues but his analyses are not good on the economics, to say the very least. I agree that some of google’s conduct is very questionable. It’s not obvious to me that paying to be the default search product is pro-competitive. On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) i…

I tried rewriting your comment as it could have been written a few decades ago: > On the other hand, the case that Microsoft is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) is this: we ( Microsoft ) give our product away for free and so do our competitors. What’s more, the cost of switching browsers is literally zero: just download Netscape instead of Internet Explorer .…

Bundling IE was anticompetitive for the same reason bundling Teams now is anticompetitive. They (= Microsoft) deserved to lose that case (as they deserve to lose a similar case about Teams). This is not the same.

Notably the claim is being made that the search market is being monopolized, not that there is a bundle at issue. If the government thinks there’s a bundle here they can make that claim.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#294

Post by huitzitziltzin » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 1:32 AM UTC

jsunderland323 wrote: post #292

scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, I’m not informed or an expert here, but if it’s being given away for free, then the search itself is not the “product”. The way I understand it, Google’s monopoly is over the ad market. Stoller wrote a book on the subject which I never properly got through in its entirety, but it included a deep dive on what a monopoly is. You are correct - market share is not an anti-trust violation in it’s own. My assumption…

I don’t think the problem is Google being the best at search. The problem is that you cannot possibly have your user or customer’s best interest at heart when you own the most dominant browser and smartphone os by market share AND when you’re a search engine and ad exchange. Owning those lower level parts of the stack (os and browser), which are network effects loaded, is the anti-competitive piece. Google as a defau…

Essentially none of the issues you cite are antitrust issues. You could be right or wrong on the merits but they won’t be part of this case about the monopolization of the search market.

(There are really important antitrust issues in the ad exchange but that isn’t the case the government brought!)

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#295

Post by lolinder » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 1:52 AM UTC

Loocid wrote: post #282

lolinder wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Firefox in its current form can't exist without Google's support, then Firefox in its current form is a useless vassal of Google anyway. We can't have our one hope for an independent web be entirely dependent on the organization bent on owning the web completely! If their lifeline to Google is cut, maybe Mozilla will finally take us up on our offer and make it possible to pay for Firefox directly, rather than thro…

>then Firefox in its current form is a useless vassal of Google anyway. Other than Google being the default search engine how are they a vassal of Google?

I said:

> If Firefox in its current form can't exist without Google's support, then ...

If Firefox only exists by the grace of Google, then Firefox cannot be an effective barrier to Google's dominion. If it's truly wholly dependent on Google, then it can only stand up to Google for as long as Google wills it.

I'm not saying Firefox is wholly dependent, I'm just saying that if it is, then it's already useless as a barrier to Google's ambitions and we'd be better off stripped of the illusion that it's part of the solution. If Google is prevented from paying for continued search dominance, then we either learn that Firefox was never dependent on that revenue, or we learn that Firefox as presently constituted was never going to be able to stop Chrome and we need to make major changes.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#296

Post by ladon86 » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 2:00 AM UTC

advisedwang wrote: post #119

offtwit wrote: post #25

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?

> 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.

Based on the article it sounds like Apple would default to their _own_ search engine, which they would bundle with their browser, which is the only browser option on their OS, which is the only OS option on their smartphone, the sales of which generate 85% of all profits in the global smartphone sector.

Unclear if Google would still be allowed to default to Google search on their reskinned version of Apple’s browser (branded as “Chrome”, even though it isn’t). But that’s mostly up to Apple, since they write the rules for the App Store, the only way to install software on Apple’s OS. Google might have to maintain their $45bn/year tribute for that privilege.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#297

Post by tzs » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 2:24 AM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #221

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)

Amazon: Walmart (goods), Netflix (media) Walmart and Amazon are both huge but it seems just wrong to say a brick-and-mortar store as equivalent to an online market place. The direct competitors to Amazon are Ebay, Baidu, Etsy, Temu and others, all of which are much smaller in the US (but some are huge elsewhere). You say that Facebook is a Google competitor because it offers eyeballs and because people sometimes go t…

> Walmart and Amazon are both huge but it seems just wrong to say a brick-and-mortar store as equivalent to an online market place

Walmart is also an online market place. Walmart.com includes third party reseller products with many significant similarities to Amazon. They've got fulfilled by Walmart, free shipping, and if you join Walmart+ it includes Paramount+ video streaming (also free grocery delivery).

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#298

Post by jsunderland323 » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 2:25 AM UTC

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #294

jsunderland323 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the problem is Google being the best at search. The problem is that you cannot possibly have your user or customer’s best interest at heart when you own the most dominant browser and smartphone os by market share AND when you’re a search engine and ad exchange. Owning those lower level parts of the stack (os and browser), which are network effects loaded, is the anti-competitive piece. Google as a defau…

Essentially none of the issues you cite are antitrust issues. You could be right or wrong on the merits but they won’t be part of this case about the monopolization of the search market. (There are really important antitrust issues in the ad exchange but that isn’t the case the government brought !)

I was mostly venting into the void (sorry). I admittedly don't know the first thing about antitrust.

But to your earlier point: > On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) is this: we (google) give our product away for free and so do our competitors. What’s more, the cost of switching search engines is literally zero: just type Bing instead of Google.

Don't you think the counter argument to this, is, "No it's not that easy to just go to bing when you buy out the default search on rivals' browsers and operating systems and have the browser and mobile os with the world's largest market shares"? I get that the attack here is directly on search but it would be surprising to me if this wasn't part of the case. It seems insane to bring this case if there isn't a component focused on the browser and OS conflict of interest in search.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#299

Post by EMIRELADERO » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 2:26 AM UTC

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #291

ameister14 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) is this: we (google) give our product away for free and so do our competitors. What’s more, the cost of switching search engines is literally zero: just type Bing instead of Google. That's not a defense, though. So the government is unlikely to prove anti-competitive outcomes by argu…

It is a defense. It is the defense that they will use and probably the only one they need. The government lost Ohio vs. Amex, which was in any event about a two sided market. Google is definitely active in two sided markets but this case does not make those claims. Good luck to DoJ if they are arguing that the quality of the product is lower! They are going to fall on their faces. I’m not saying google doesn’t engage…

For your information, it actually is being made by the DOJ, just not on this lawsuit.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-googl...

The press release doesn't mention it, but the actual court document asks the court to:

"Order the divestiture of, at minimum, the Google Ad Manager suite, including both Google’s publisher ad server, DFP, and Google’s ad exchange, AdX, along with any additional structural relief as needed to cure any anticompetitive harm"

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#300

Post by ghayes » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 2:38 AM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #118

hgs3 wrote: post #96

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…

I agree that antitrust is too reactive, especially in tech, but when it hits the real world your proposed solution would just lead to a new Byzantine maze like our current tax code. We'd get a whole new industry built up around helping corporations to technically stay under the thresholds by exploiting loopholes (and another industry for lobbying for those loopholes to be expanded).

My spitball solution is to add an excise tax on revenue based on market concentration, potentially paid back to consumers or new market entrants. So if you own 50% of a market, maybe you pay a 25% excise tax, and thus the market finds an equilibrium except in cases where a monopoly is warranted, despite the high tax.