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

301–310 of 351 posts

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#301

Post by andyferris »

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…

Zooming in on just search: I would have assumed once reaching a monopoly position in search it then becomes illegal to then use your influence on Android and payments to Apple and Mozilla to maintain that monopoly (by making 95% of "new" consumers opt-in to your monopoly by default and not by explicit choice).

Having some kind of default search selection come up on fresh installs of Android, iOS, Macs and Firefox wouldn't really hurt consumers, and barely hurt Google (it became dominant through quality and people remember that). Ironically (and sadly) preventing Google using it's influence over default seach options would probably harm Mozilla the most... but it should still happen.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#302

Post by HWR_14 »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #293
HWR_14 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's legal in the US to have an awesome product that monopolizes the market as long as it wins on it's own merits.

The government is claiming that the search market is being monopolized, not by having the best results, but by paying $45 billion dollars/year to various browser suppliers to make Google the default browser. That's the illegal act.

> "Essentially, Google has bought up all of the shelf space where search is placed in front of consumers, which is to say browsers and phones. This behavior is very similar to what Microsoft did in the 1990s, when it bundled its browser with its operating system, and signed deals with ISPs to block its browser rival Netscape from getting access to customers. The analogy isn’t a coincidence, as the Microsoft case is controlling precedent. "

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#303

Post by narism »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #204
narism wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we (google) give our product away for free and so do our competitors. Search is not Google’s product, it’s a way to get their product. Their product is eyeballs which they sell to advertisers. >the cost of switching search engines is literally zero: just type Bing instead of Google. If this is true, why does Google pay Apple billions/year and Mozilla millions/year to make Google the default search? You could be savi…

The government could make antitrust claims regarding google’s behavior vis a vis advertisers. (I’m sympathetic to some claims that could be made there!) Monopolization of the ad market is not the issue here, because the specific claim is that google has monopolized the search market. You can read that right in the linked article. Google’s payments to be the default are (as I already said) not obviously pro-competitiv…

> Monopolization of the ad market is not the issue here, because the specific claim is that google has monopolized the search market.

Incorrect. The Stoller article says “government argues that Google has a monopoly of general search and *search advertising*”.

The case in question (1:20-cv-03010) alleges anticompetitive behaviors in multiple interrelated markets: general search services, *search advertising, general search advertising, and general search text advertising*. The other major case (1:23-cv-00108) is about their monopolization of the digital ad market via Doubleclick/Ad Exchange/Google Ads.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#304

Post by GeekyBear »

ewoodrich wrote: post #290
GeekyBear wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we both talking about a text messaging app that can send text messages to any device that supports the universal SMS standard? That's not blocking. A good example of blocking is not allowing any developers on a competing smart phone platform to write an app that allows users to access your monopoly internet video platform.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-apples-imessage-is-winning-... Apple is pretty clearly blocking Google (or any other Android app developer) from implementing this functionality and greatly benefits from it. Particularly relevant for the age demographic this thread originally referenced.

> Apple is pretty clearly blocking Google (or any other Android app developer) from implementing this functionality

What functionality? Give some concrete examples.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#305

Post by mr_toad »

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…

> we (google) give our product away for free

Sure, like a farmer gives his cows pasture.

If one farmer bought up all the land, and then tried to claim he was giving away grass for free I doubt any jury would be fooled.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#306

Post by huitzitziltzin »

jsunderland323 wrote: post #298
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ty…

>> 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’m looking for an analogy for you. The claim is that Google has monopolized the search market. It’s difficult to find actual monopolies in real life bc generally antitrust regulation works well (pace Lina Khan).

Think about a small city with two independent hospitals which then merge. That’s closer to a monopoly. There is a potential harm to consumers here bc traveling to go out of your local market for hospital services brings real costs: travel time, inconvenience, etc. That gives the newly merged hospitals power in the market. (Maybe not to the level of a monopoly, but likely substantial market power nonetheless.)

Applying something like this analogy to your counter argument: literally all the consumer has to do to avoid Google’s so-called monopolization of the search market is type the letters “b-i-n-g-.-c-o-m”. That’s entirely different from the hospital case.

It’s going to be very very very hard for the government to establish that google has anything like monopoly power here. Remember: making a better product and as a result having a large market share is not a crime. Google is going to say that since consumers can costlessly switch to a competitor who is also free, the reason they have 95% market share is bc their product is better.

I find it very hard to imagine that they will lose this case. It’s possible! But it seems really unlikely to me.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#307

Post by pclmulqdq »

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 !)

Sorry, but in any other market for goods, being the main supplier, the biggest supply-side brokerage, the biggest exchange, and the biggest demand-side brokerage would be considered a blatant antitrust violation. Somehow, Google thinks they can get away with it in ads.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#308

Post by huitzitziltzin »

HWR_14 wrote: post #302
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's legal in the US to have an awesome product that monopolizes the market as long as it wins on it's own merits. The government is claiming that the search market is being monopolized, not by having the best results, but by paying $45 billion dollars/year to various browser suppliers to make Google the default browser. That's the illegal act. > "Essentially, Google has bought up all of the shelf space where search…

>> The government is claiming that the search market is being monopolized, not by having the best results, but by paying $45 billion dollars/year to various browser suppliers to make Google the default browser. That's the illegal act.

And google is going to say correctly that consumers are free to switch search engines. They are free to enter “bing.com” in google chrome and it will take them right where they want to go: to another search engine!

I note above that I am not sure google’s payments are pro-competitive. They probably aren’t. It’s fair to be uncomfortable with them. But to make an antitrust case on monopolization of search you are going to need more evidence than those payments.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#309

Post by huitzitziltzin »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #299
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 structur…

Some of those other claims are quite strong, IMO. There’s a good case to be made there.

However, asking for a structural remedy like divestiture after so much time is going to be a tall order, to say the least. Generally courts don’t like to meddle directly in the way firms are run (correctly, in my view).

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#310

Post by huitzitziltzin »

fredgrott wrote: post #278
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…

And if I was a gov lawyer I would submit proof of: 1. the browser blocks in using free email accounts, for example Google makes it impossible to use gmail accounts from a non Google browser. MS also has a similar things with Edge. Not the only example, but an example most of us had dealt with.... If you are locking a product down so that I cannot choose why are you afraid of fair competition in a free marketplace Goo…

I have logged into gmail via safari recently so I’m not entirely sure I know what you’re referring to here???
Post reply on HN