[deleted]
[deleted]
US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]
21–30 of 1001 posts
Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]
#22One wonders how these people imagine accessing a search index, from the practical, technical standpoint. If you believe that Google has only unfair business practices, then it makes perfect sense to believe that your organization will simply access their data.
Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]
#23> As a result, YC has an interest in ensuring that U.S. technology markets are free from anticompetitive barriers to entry and expansion.
This part reads like a suggestion to loosen anti-competitive/antitrust law.
Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]
#24So they want Google’s datasets and search index to be available for other companies and want to prevent Google from being a dominant player in AI based search. I wonder why a VC firm who is quite heavily invested in AI based startups file an amicus brief like that… Edit: before this gets downvoted into oblivion, the comment is not against antitrust enforcement. It’s about VC firms having very specific ideas about wha…
Monopolies prevent startups from reaching critical mass. Google and the rest of big tech are like the Jupiter of the tech world. It clears the orbit of anything else that could form. Big tech is so big that it can jump into new markets with ease, kill incumbents, snuff out new players, and perpetually tax non-innovation. We're twenty years behind on antitrust and breakups. It's time we had a forest fire to make way f…
I wholeheartedly support antitrust enforcement. My comment was mostly about VC firms having very specific opinions on what should happen.
Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]
#25Why not make all companies open up their data sets, and stop pay to play?
Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]
#26Why not make all companies open up their data sets, and stop pay to play?
[deleted]
Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]
#27Google is effectively being punished for retaining their earnings and re-investing in tons of software R&D over the years. Their "monopoly" is because people choose to use them, not because they have to. Not to mention they are are being disrupted by ChatGPT and other LLMs anyways right now. There have always been lots of web browsers and search engines, but Google simply did a better job making and refining their so…
> Their "monopoly" is because people choose to use them, not because they have to.
If I give you only one reasonable option and you choose that, is that selection? What if this one option distinguished others?
Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]
#28None of the proposed remedies benefit consumers.
We have two major phone operating systems and they charge a tax of 30%, which gets passed onto consumers. This should be zero if there was unlimited competition or web installation. There's also so much innovation happening in the mobile space right now. It's not like they're parked and reaping untold benefits. By having search monopolies, they've gamified paying for placement above your competitor's trademarks. Rath…
The solution is for people to make web apps which are agnostic to platform and device, no?
Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]
#29Why not make all companies open up their data sets, and stop pay to play?
Because all companies haven't been found to be illegal monopolies? Just like we don't fine everyone with a car for speeding.
Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]
#30Google is effectively being punished for retaining their earnings and re-investing in tons of software R&D over the years. Their "monopoly" is because people choose to use them, not because they have to. Not to mention they are are being disrupted by ChatGPT and other LLMs anyways right now. There have always been lots of web browsers and search engines, but Google simply did a better job making and refining their so…
> Their "monopoly" is because people choose to use them, not because they have to. If I give you only one reasonable option and you choose that, is that selection? What if this one option distinguished others?
It's the only reasonable option because they did the best job making a search engine. The competitors have search engines but their software is worse.