Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#491

Post by FridayoLeary »

fsh wrote: post #410
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #367

I'm not sure people understand what the consequences of taking away Google's ad revenue is. If a large enough bank goes under, it takes out not just the bank, but huge sectors of the economy, affecting many more businesses and jobs. That's why the government bailed out the banks when they failed. The same will happen when Google loses its ad revenue. Google is an ad company. By opening up all its trade secret data, i…

This list is very telling. Instead of a healthy marketplace of companies competing to sell their software and services, we end up with one monopolist who gives away mediocre products and in return taxes everything you buy (in the form of ad spending), and then annoys you with the same ads. How is this a desirable outcome?

There is nothing mediocre about the search engine, gmail, maps, android, chrome etc.. etc. Do they all have room for for improvement? Probably. But they are simply incredibly, breathtakingly good products. Search, maybe has gotten worse in recent years, but it's still amazing.

Maps and Satelleite view are astounding, especially when you consider that they are free.

>How is this a desirable outcome?

The list speaks for itself. There are many valid complaints against google, but this is not one of them.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#492

Post by const_cast »

luckydata wrote: post #175
snielson wrote: post #168

The solution proposed by Kagi—separate the search index from the rest of Google—seems to make the most sense. Kagi explains it more here: https://blog.kagi.com/dawn-new-era-search

It's such a ridiculous proposal that would completely destroy Google's business. If that's the goal fine, but let's not pretend that any of those remedies are anything beyond a death sentence.

I don't know, I don't think it will.

I mean, they're still going to be the number 1 name in adtech and analytics. And they're still gonna have pretty decent personalized ads because of analytics.

Plus, that just one part of their business. There's also Android, which is a money printing machine with the Google Store (although that's under attack too).

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#493

Post by BobaFloutist »

luckylion wrote: post #316
AlexandrB wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They try to block your bot because Google is a monopoly and there's little to no cost for blocking everything except Google. This isn't a "natural" monopoly, it's more like Internet Explorer 6.0 and everyone designing their sites to use ActiveX and IE-specific quirks.

One possible answer: pay them for their trouble until you provide value to them, e.g. by paying some fraction of a cent for each (document) request.

Cool, you wanna solve micropayments now or wait until we've got cold fusion rolling first...?

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#494

Post by light_hue_1 »

creato wrote: post #204

It's disappointing to see the historical revisionism in these threads. Say what you will about google now, but the idea that they just bought their way into X industry doesn't seem right. Until maybe 10 years ago, tech people almost universally loved Google's offerings and adopted them eagerly because they were good. I remember the mad scramble on various forums for a gmail invite. I remember when google maps came ab…

You're right. And that really shows you how destructive Google has been.

10-20 years ago Google was amazing. Their products were great. We all wanted them.

And now, we have pretty much exactly those products. Almost nothing has improved in 10+ years. That's exactly the behavior of a monopoly.

Their products are now aggressively hostile to users and their interests. Like Chrome trying to kill of ad blockers.

Google now sits on what is now a low quality outdated product forever using their market power to keep everyone else out.

That's why we have antitrust laws. To kill Googles.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#495

Post by const_cast »

The_Blade wrote: post #450
wavemode wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me why you believe that an antitrust ruling against Google would make them bankrupt. At worst they will lay off workers. But a post-antitrust google is still a viable company

somehow, after the ATT, Microsoft, Standard Oil, or American Tobacco antitrust suits, the constituent parts and country soldiered on

Yeah, especially Tobacco. I mean, there hasn't been an industry gutted that hard ever. They were attacked from all sides. They can't even fucking advertise anymore, and when they can, they have to tell you "hey don't buy this it kills you". And then, cherry on top, when consumers do buy this product, they're allowed to use it in like And yet, somehow, Tobacco is still profitable.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#496

Post by trevor-e »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #367

I'm not sure people understand what the consequences of taking away Google's ad revenue is. If a large enough bank goes under, it takes out not just the bank, but huge sectors of the economy, affecting many more businesses and jobs. That's why the government bailed out the banks when they failed. The same will happen when Google loses its ad revenue. Google is an ad company. By opening up all its trade secret data, i…

When I worked in the travel tech industry several years ago, it was basically unfair to compete against Google Flights. We just accepted they didn't have to pay for marketing and had infinite compute to work with, and had to differentiate in other ways. They could operate the business at a loss and not really care because it was still good for Google as a whole to have user's travel data. They built a great product but didn't have to play by the rules everyone else had to follow.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#497

Post by AlexandrB »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #367

I'm not sure people understand what the consequences of taking away Google's ad revenue is. If a large enough bank goes under, it takes out not just the bank, but huge sectors of the economy, affecting many more businesses and jobs. That's why the government bailed out the banks when they failed. The same will happen when Google loses its ad revenue. Google is an ad company. By opening up all its trade secret data, i…

Just to pick one of these: google Flights sucks. It had a better competitor - Hipmunk - which went under because Google ate their lunch by integrating flights search into the main search product. Don't know how many of these Google products have similar stories, but it's probably a non zero numbers.

What we're getting, in many of these cases, is an inferior product that drove out better competitors through Google search integration.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#498

Post by const_cast »

worik wrote: post #470
nativeit wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A non-profit collective of device manufacturers and software developers could probably create a very effective and potent steward for Android's long-term development. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

Linux?

Kinda, yeah. I mean Android is already Linux, just with suspicious, proprietary drivers that hold it back. Some Android phones are still running kernel 3!

If manufacturers would just upstream their drivers and make them less shit, then android could take advantage of the entire body of work in GNU/Linux userland.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#499

Post by light_hue_1 »

timewizard wrote: post #307
xnx wrote: post #58

Google is a "monopoly" because their competitors with massive cash reserves (Microsoft, Apple, Meta) are too risk averse to compete in the marketplace and are hoping that the courtroom will deliver them a win.

A country as large and prosperous as the United States should have more than 4 providers. We should have more than 3 cellular companies. We should have more than 8 major ISPs. These are monopolies. You might not see it because the economy is so _over monopolized_ it's hard to have perspective. YCombinator loves to pretend it invented the idea of startups and entreprenourism but those have been vigorous and healthy th…

We don't have 8 major ISPs. That's a joke.

We have 8 monoplies that live together.

I have never once lived in a house where I had a choice of ISP in the US (unless you count getting a mobile router).

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#500

Post by aucisson_masque »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #367

I'm not sure people understand what the consequences of taking away Google's ad revenue is. If a large enough bank goes under, it takes out not just the bank, but huge sectors of the economy, affecting many more businesses and jobs. That's why the government bailed out the banks when they failed. The same will happen when Google loses its ad revenue. Google is an ad company. By opening up all its trade secret data, i…

That's the very reason we need to break down Google.

It's already too late, Google is already a monopolistic beast.

Waiting even more will only make things much worst with the a.i revolution.

Post reply on HN