Live data from Hacker News

Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

theregister.com

131–140 of 524 posts

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#131
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...gonna start charging..." In a world where the competition's price for most of those services is "free", charging for used-to-be-free stuff sounds like a sure-fire suicidal business strategy.

They don't have to actually do that should Google bbebroken up. They can still use that as an argument to rouse public support against a breakup.

They can try. But in a world full of free on-line stuff, the public may think the "you'll go bust if you try" counter-argument is obviously correct.

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#132
post #31

I'm very curious to see what a breakup looks like. Past breakups involved "uniform" businesses: - American Tobacco: Commodity - Standard Oil: Commodity - AT&T: Utility - Northern Securities: Railroads - Swift & Co: Meatpacking - Kodak: Film - Paramount: Movie Theaters Google is more of a synergistic conglomerate. How would spinning off an individual business like Chrome, Android, or AdWords reduce their respective do…

Search needs to be a utility.

Browsers need to be a utility.

Email needs to at least have an option that is a utility.

Arguably operating systems need to be a utility.

Adtech needs to either go back to what it was when Google started out (simple contextual ads, no targeting, no data collection, no flashing or popups or video or or or or...), or just die.[0]

The reason these things have all been operated entirely by for-profit entities up to this point is because they're too new for government to have caught up. All the parts of Google that I've named above as needing to be utilities are fundamental, necessary parts of the modern internet, and are basic requirements for the average person to operate in Western society.

> How would spinning off an individual business like Chrome, Android, or AdWords reduce their respective dominance?

As for this question, Google uses the profit from its dominance in adtech to fund its dominance in other businesses. That's the textbook definition of an abusive monopoly. Take away the ad money from the other parts of Google, and they'll no longer have an unfair advantage over potential competitors.

[0] Yes, this would mean that large parts of the internet that have been free-at-the-point-of-service will have to find new business models or dry up and blow away. No, I don't have a silver bullet solution to this. No, I'm not advocating for nuking adtech from orbit overnight with no replacement.

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#133

> A fitting though unlikely outcome would be for Google to be forced to turn Chrome and the open source Chromium project over to Mozilla. That would probably involve the creation of an independent non-profit foundation that didn't reduce browser diversity – so Chrome and Firefox could continue to lead independent lives. Okay ... that is some serious wishcasting.

Mozilla is a bit of a stretch for sure, but I could see Chromium and maybe Android moved off onto their own independent organizations so they are not beholden to Google/Alphabet's whims. I am imagining something like the Linux Foundation.

Chromium especially is so core to being a building block for applications and the modern Internet nowadays, it does seem like this core infrastructure piece should be more collectively owned.

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#134
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is google a monopoly at all? There’s competition and alternative for each of their products. And people can keep using the alternatives if they want. I can choose iOS over Android. Bing over Google. Yahoo over Gmail. Dailymotion over YouTube. Why is it a problem that google makes a superior product and people choose it ? In all studies, when consumers get faced the decision to choose freely any search engine, mos…

Google owns ~90% of the search market and if you don't play by their rules, you're out of the game. The argument is that there's nothing really superior about their technology today, just market dominance to force everyone to operate in a way that serves their _ad_ interests as opposed to search interests.

So I signed up for Kagi a while back.

I'll be candid, it's good ... it's a hair less annoying than google, the results are just as hit or miss.

Here is the thing, if I need to BUY something Kagi falls flat on its face.

I find myself going back to google to shop, and to be candid it has drawn a contrast for me on spending. The "extra step" to buy has slowed me down.

I dont think breaking up google changes consumer behavior. It creates a hydra out of a snake.

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#135
post #96
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Part of the problem is that tech products tend to be natural monopolies. Middleman platforms often become natural monopolies due to network effects, but how does this expand to tech products in general? I don't see any structural incentives that lead to natural monopolies in search, email, or a wide variety of other products that Google is dominant in.

and other markets where network effects tend to create monopolies tend to be very highly regulated or state owned: telecoms and financial markets, for example.

Utilities are monopolies because it makes no sense to spend tons of resources running extra pipes and wires to each and every house. It’s called a structural monopoly.

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see this succeeding. Not only is tech extremely hateable as a demographic, not everyone is a corporate bootlicker (outside of this forum)

> Not only is tech extremely hateable as a demographic Oh boy is this incorrect. Outside the Silicon Valley / well-educated upper middle class / tech worker bubble, tech companies are more trusted than most political parties and government and religious institutions, and this is true across the world as polls show. People who are not into tech have no idea about Google's business deals or App Store anti-steering prov…

I'm not so sure. You sound like you're describing the older generations and their tech swoon. What I am hearing lately, and from coming-up generations, is very much anti-tech.

I think HN is more the bellwether.

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#137

Google's "search results" are the textbook definition of a monopolized good/service. The whole thing is almost a casino, rigged to the point of absurdity. There has been nothing in my life so disillusioning as working on a Web app for a company that is more or less required to play Google's game.

They're not. Textbook definition: "A market structure characterized by a single seller, selling a unique product in the market." Google Search has competitors and is not even selling its search product.

> Google Search has competitors and is not even selling its search product.

The product is not search, it’s ad placements.

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#139
post #86
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There has been nothing in my life so disillusioning as working on a Web app for a company that is more or less required to play Google's game. Have you built any iOS apps?

While true and a fair point, iOS is Apple’s platform in a way that the web is most certainly not Google’s.

It’s odd how this is lost on people. Want to develop a game for PlayStation, Sony will need to approve. Want to develop a Facebook app, FB will gatekeep. If you wanted to make apps for the Danger Hiptop, you published through Danger. iOS is Apple’s consolized OS for their own hardware. It’s not a PC platform that anyone can put on whatever device they want. For better or worse.

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#140
What about "de-DoubleClicking" Google, iow, separating the ad business from the rest of Google/Alphabet? I'm not sure how that would work, but IMO what reduces the quality of Google products and noticeably makes them worse for consumers is that the products either improve ad dollars or they get cut/receive no funding.
Post reply on HN