Live data from Hacker News

Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

bigtechontrial.com

11–20 of 101 posts

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#11

Interesting that Google isn’t particularly concerned about this antitrust trial. “They basically don’t feel the doj has a real case”: >The DOJ filed its complaint against Google in this case on October 20, 2020. A couple days later, another Samsung employee suggested to Chang that the lawsuit might cause Google to loosen its interpretations of its contracts with Samsung. >Chang responded: “Actually the COMPLETE oppos…

I've seen the DOJ lose every antitrust case its filed recently. All they're doing is at worst generating bad PR for large companies and airing their dirty laundry. The US Government might actually need to pass legislation if it wants effective anti-trust enforcement.

The situation is way more complicated than what you seem to have understood. From https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/never-seen-anything-like-...:

> Last summer, I noted that it takes time for agencies to act, but that they had put a bunch of torpedos in the water, and they would be exploding over the next year and a half. That’s exactly what’s happened. And the consequences are real. The most significant one is that the merger boom that started in the 2010s is now over.

> You wouldn’t realize this success if you listen to the conventional wisdom in politics, because Wall Street is pushing a public narrative that antitrust agencies are losing in courts, and therefore they are losing their ability to stop deals. But this isn’t true, because if it were, you wouldn’t see regular reports from business publications lamenting the decline in deals, and writing things like “The average size of mergers completed is now at the lowest level in 20 years.” And you wouldn’t have deal-makers on CNBC calmly describing how hard it is to get mergers done.

_________

Progress is slow because the judiciary is stacked with ex corporate lawyers and lobbyists who will not interpret the law the way its written but have their own imaginary version based on the Chicago School of Economics' made up models on how the economy works.

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#12
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen the DOJ lose every antitrust case its filed recently. All they're doing is at worst generating bad PR for large companies and airing their dirty laundry. The US Government might actually need to pass legislation if it wants effective anti-trust enforcement.

The situation is way more complicated than what you seem to have understood. From https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/never-seen-anything-like-... : > Last summer, I noted that it takes time for agencies to act, but that they had put a bunch of torpedos in the water, and they would be exploding over the next year and a half. That’s exactly what’s happened. And the consequences are real. The most significant one is tha…

Are mergers low because of DOJ “torpedoes” or because debt isnt as cheap as it was 3 years ago?

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#13

Interesting that Google isn’t particularly concerned about this antitrust trial. “They basically don’t feel the doj has a real case”: >The DOJ filed its complaint against Google in this case on October 20, 2020. A couple days later, another Samsung employee suggested to Chang that the lawsuit might cause Google to loosen its interpretations of its contracts with Samsung. >Chang responded: “Actually the COMPLETE oppos…

Can someone help me out… what’s that word f*ck supposed to be?

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#14
Why is it that Samsung needs an agreement with Google in the first place? Is it about a permission to use androing with Google services or does Samsung want to be paid for setting Google's search engine as default?

The answer to this question is really important, because if the first is true, Samsung is essentially forced to enter into whatever agreement Google puts in front of them (the alternative is it's own flavor of Android a-la Huawei). However, if the latter is true Samsung is complicit in this monopolist practice.

Does anyone know which one is it?

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#15
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen the DOJ lose every antitrust case its filed recently. All they're doing is at worst generating bad PR for large companies and airing their dirty laundry. The US Government might actually need to pass legislation if it wants effective anti-trust enforcement.

The situation is way more complicated than what you seem to have understood. From https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/never-seen-anything-like-... : > Last summer, I noted that it takes time for agencies to act, but that they had put a bunch of torpedos in the water, and they would be exploding over the next year and a half. That’s exactly what’s happened. And the consequences are real. The most significant one is tha…

[deleted]

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#16
post #14

Why is it that Samsung needs an agreement with Google in the first place? Is it about a permission to use androing with Google services or does Samsung want to be paid for setting Google's search engine as default? The answer to this question is really important, because if the first is true, Samsung is essentially forced to enter into whatever agreement Google puts in front of them (the alternative is it's own flavo…

Google services sure come with binding conditions on what they can do with android and in particular what they can't do with the search bar (get rid of it, put another search engine etc.)

The EU is after them on it, but I don't remember a clear result yet: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_16_...

[edit] Google was found guilty and made some promises in 2019, but I'm not sure we've seen any change in substance ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Goog...

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#17
post #14

Why is it that Samsung needs an agreement with Google in the first place? Is it about a permission to use androing with Google services or does Samsung want to be paid for setting Google's search engine as default? The answer to this question is really important, because if the first is true, Samsung is essentially forced to enter into whatever agreement Google puts in front of them (the alternative is it's own flavo…

> Why is it that Samsung needs an agreement with Google in the first place?

They can't make Android devices without accepting Google's terms.

Amazon attempted to sell phones with their own fork of Android without permission, but didn't have much luck.

Interestingly, Amazon had to find a manufacturing partner that didn't already make Android phones for anyone, because one of the terms of Google's agreement was that you couldn't make any devices running a fork of Android for anyone.

Re: Google's agreement with Samsung prevented Branch from launching: testimony

#18

Interesting that Google isn’t particularly concerned about this antitrust trial. “They basically don’t feel the doj has a real case”: >The DOJ filed its complaint against Google in this case on October 20, 2020. A couple days later, another Samsung employee suggested to Chang that the lawsuit might cause Google to loosen its interpretations of its contracts with Samsung. >Chang responded: “Actually the COMPLETE oppos…

It might be a case of not caring about the consequences, as they're already facing similar issue with the EU commission and have promised to do something about it 3 years ago [0].

Either they'll keep doing nothing, and so an additional lawsuit won't change that, either they've got changes on the way but will milk it up as long as they can before finally moving on.

[0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/20/18273888/google-eu-browse...

Post reply on HN