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

331–340 of 351 posts

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#331

Post by sam0x17 »

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 !)

Yeah we really need to expand what counts as monopolization, and, you know, actually trust-bust like we did at the turn of the last century. It's getting ridiculous.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#332

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

kurthr wrote: post #154
halflings wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why isn't US govt doing this? Why isn't the UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, ... doing this? Because it's a pretty strong form of controlled economy that distorts the market. How would this work for search engines? Would you force people to use a different search engine than the one they want? (e.g. they type Google.com and end up redirected to Bing.com) ; or somehow just funnel revenue to other companies... then wh…

Alphabet in the US would just spin off 3 "competitors" and be done. All 4 would then be subsidiaries of the holding company and they still collect the money. Of course this can't happen in India, because there would be political repercussions unless it was was an Indian firm connected to the government. To change this takes real political will and a recognition of who the beneficiaries of the current systems are. It'…

> Alphabet in the US would just spin off 3 "competitors" and be done. All 4 would then be subsidiaries of the holding company and they still collect the money.

Right, because a judge would look at a company holding the same market through subsidiaries and not throw the book at them. IANAL, but AFAICT the wording in the law doesn't even distinguish one company vs a group acting together; why would that make a difference?

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#333

Post by jenadine »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #308
HWR_14 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> They are free to enter “bing.com”

And people were free to download Netscape.

But the thing is that people don't type "bing.com" nor "google.com" because they just use the browser search bar and don't bother with what search engine is being used.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#334

Post by sam0x17 »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #313
pclmulqdq wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not true. Look at the market for meat. There are lots of farmers, a small number (really three or four) processors (who appear to carve up the national market into non overlapping regions) and then a large number of retail customers. To me that looks like an actual antitrust violation but the DoJ and FTC aren’t investigating bc they are obsessing about “big tech” uselessly and bringing bad cases they are going to los…

FTC/DOJ not investigating doesn't mean this isn't a flagrant monopoly that would be prosecuted by a non-corrupt FTC/DOJ

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#335

Post by EMIRELADERO »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #309
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Assuming all the claims about harm are true as alleged, what would your ideal damage remedies be?

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#336

Post by Given_47 »

zlg_codes wrote: post #213
jonex wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Kagi were as popular as Google, you'd quickly see pages appear "without ads", that looks suspiciously like what an ad would say. The problem is SEO, and it affects the mainstream search engine because that's what's worth optimising for. For instance, Google product search results would likely be greatly improved by always showing relevant reddit posts first. But this would last a very short amount of time until re…

> In a way the ads-filled product search results are better, because at least they're honestly trying to sell you the product you are searching for rather than making fake comparison sites pretending to be genuine content. In what universe can for-profit behavior be trusted or accepted at face value as genuine? Also, maybe I'm using it Wrong™, but I don't use general search engines to look for products. I'm not shopp…

I interpreted differently, in that it’s easier to filter out the explicit ads than the sites that purport to being honest review pages but actually have affiliate deals for every product

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#337

Post by paulmd »

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?

The implication of GP was that the Mozilla foundation couldn’t survive without the financial support of google. If that’s true, they’re a vassal of google because google can now effectively wield its financial dominance to veto any change they don’t like. For example, support our new Secure Enclave or we’ll pull financial support and crush your support on websites at the same time.

Really this is already an incredibly bad look in the sense of Firefox kinda being “controlled opposition” to the chrome dominance of the web, a dummy competitor literally funded by google to avoid accusations of monopoly. See, there’s Firefox! And safari, who we just levered out of the market by getting the EU to force sideloading.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#338

Post by willi59549879 »

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…

it is not blocked, but i get an annoying pop up that tells me i should use chrome.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#339

Post by jonhohle »

bogwog wrote: post #197
jonhohle wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ask this every time it comes up, but what exactly does Apple have a monopoly in? They don’t control majority of anything in any category that they participate in. They are a major purchaser of high end fab processes, but that doesn’t allow them to control PC, phone, steaming, messaging, audio, home integration, or any other market. They are one of the most vertically integrated large companies, but they are allowed…

These types of discussions on this site are pointless. I can tell that no matter what I say, you’re going to end up moving the goal posts. Why do I know this? Because you non sarcastically are trying to say that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly. The amount of mental gymnastics is takes to frame it that way is only possible if someone cares more about defending the honor of their favorite megacorp than finding any kind o…

I was being genuine. I lived through the Microsoft antitrust trial and like several of the companies they obliterated with their anti-competitive practices (specifically Be). They had 90+% desktop OS market share and they used that to prevent PC manufacturers from selling competitor’s operating systems, bundle a free browser that destroyed an entire industry of browser companies, and other behaviors that made it impossible for others to compete.

So when people say Apple has a monopoly, I want to know what market they control so entirely that they are able to eliminate any competitors should they choose to behave anti-competitively. People often say they have a monopoly on iPhones, but that’s not a market, it’s a product that they make and sell. If 90% of mobile devices were iPhones, I’d agree, but they’re not, so Apple cannot have a monopoly in that market.

Sometime people suggest they have control over mobile development. Targeting iPhones is profitable because iPhone users spend money. It’s no different from console development (PS5, Switch, Xbox) where all software goes through a gatekeeper who takes a cut. How does that control mobile development when they’re in the minority in the market?

They have a huge market cap and pile of cash, that still doesn’t make them a monopoly. They don’t have price control in any market segment. Sticking with phones, you can get Samsung and Pixel phones for higher and lower cost.

AFAICT they don’t meet any common or legal definition of a monopoly so I am interested in what industry people think they control.

You’ve not said why you think they’re a monopoly, so I can really only assume the common things I see people complain about. A company having business practices that might be considered hostile does not make them a monopoly though. That word has a specific meaning.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#340

Post by kurthr »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #332
kurthr wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alphabet in the US would just spin off 3 "competitors" and be done. All 4 would then be subsidiaries of the holding company and they still collect the money. Of course this can't happen in India, because there would be political repercussions unless it was was an Indian firm connected to the government. To change this takes real political will and a recognition of who the beneficiaries of the current systems are. It'…

> Alphabet in the US would just spin off 3 "competitors" and be done. All 4 would then be subsidiaries of the holding company and they still collect the money. Right, because a judge would look at a company holding the same market through subsidiaries and not throw the book at them. IANAL, but AFAICT the wording in the law doesn't even distinguish one company vs a group acting together; why would that make a differen…

The law in India that this was a direct response to... or the FTC's case in the US?

I'd answer those two questions differently, but I think you're referring to something I wasn't.

Post reply on HN