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

531–540 of 1001 posts

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

#531

Post by Hydrocarb0n »

Google is much bigger than a Monopoly, it is a multi-monopoly, Search, web ads, email, video, maps / nav, User data / metrics.

If you had told me in early 2000s that google would absolutely dominate all of these fields And it would be allowed to continue for decades, I wouldn't believe you.

I'm a free market guy, I believe some small gov is nessasary to regulate monopolies, protect constitutional rights etc, but multi-monopolies- I can't believe are allowed to exist under such a large beaurocratic superstate with left or right in power.

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

#532

Post by dvdhnt »

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?

This is a very ungrateful and childish perspective. It assumes that these things exist out of thin air rather than things google has created. Products don’t just appear, they’re built. Nothing is stopping someone from usurping google. Ever hear of oracle, intel, xerox, blackberry or Microsoft?

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

#533

Post by stevage »

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…

How do you get from "google loses ad revenue" to "android dies"? Even if for some reason Google went bankrupt all these divisions would just be sold off.

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

#534

Post by quitit »

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…

They'd have to adapt their business models, the likelihood of the services disappearing are minimal because they each have multiple revenue streams beyond just collecting user data. Indeed we know it's possible because much of the list are me-too products from those which have different business models.

Also we don't need a hypothetic situation: Google already kill off a fair chunk of their tools and services, and alternatives rapidly come to fill their place.

Google's position largely exists because loss leaders tied against leveraging network effects – and as others have noted, many of their services are piss poor.

Google's loss won't be Apple's benefit in any meaningful way, the masses are with Google because it's free, and that's precisely what Apple isn't, and there isn't a great overlap in their services.

As a counterpoint I don't think the government's case is the right approach, they should be establishing the rules of the game at the legislative level, everyone needs to be affected by the potential changes, Google didn't form in a vacuum.

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

#535

Post by michaelt »

worik wrote: post #469
wpm wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too big to fail means too big to exist. Google et. al should never have been allowed to get this large, same as those banks. Better late than never.

> Too big to fail means too big to exist. Google et. al should never have been allowed to get this large I agree But placing limits on private property accumulation is a controversial idea But it is an idea who's time must come, or we face a dreadful future of robber barrons and peons

> But placing limits on private property accumulation is a controversial idea

The US wouldn't need a legal limit on wealth to prevent Google from becoming this large.

Every major Google product since gmail in ~2004 was acquired. Google Maps? Acquired from Where 2 Technologies. Google Docs? Acquired from Writely. Android? Acquired as a startup. Google Analytics? You guessed it, acquisition. DoubleClick? Once again, acquisition. Deepmind? Acquisition. reCAPTCHA? Acquisition. Youtube? Believe it or not, acquisition.

This isn't a story of a business getting big because of their innovation and the vast demand for their much-loved products.

This is a story of US competition regulators sleeping on the job for 20 years.

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

#536

Post by morkalork »

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…

Why is this bad? All those services are areas where there could be interesting competition if google didn't strangle them at birth by subsidizing their own version with infinite ad monies. Take google docs as an example, everyone is talking about on shoring essential services now that the USA has become a security threat to other countries. Before now, imagine any European company trying to justify investment for building a docs competitor when google just gives it away? Yeah sure, your data stays on the continent but that wasn't put into perspective until recently.

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

#537

Post by s1artibartfast »

photonthug wrote: post #331
HaZeust wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public goods are non-excludable (impossible to prevent anyone from using the good) and non-rivalrous (one person's use doesn't diminish the availability for others). Google doesn't match the criteria.

Interesting definition. This applies to almost literally nothing except Jefferson’s candle and IP. Actual literal fire is considered worthless and IP is bazillions of dollars of closely guarded secrets. Public transits, seemingly unlimited water sources, or neighborhood parks all suffer from overcrowding so this diminishing availability thing is tough to meet

It is the actual definition since economist Paul Samuelson coined it in 1954.

Things like public parks and public pools would be classic examples of a "Common resource." Rival and non-excludable.

Classic examples of true public goods would be public radio broadcasting or national defense.

At some point in the past couple decades, people have come to misunderstand the term. Having heard the argument that public goods justify taxation to fund them, they come to believe that anything they like must be a public good.

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

#538

Post by quitit »

jorvi wrote: post #524
tokioyoyo wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone would be subscribed to YT premium, if people were ok with paying for ad-free experience.

Honestly, I feel like people are subconsciously aware that Google is trying to bludgeon them into getting YouTube premium, and they're simply sticking it to Google rather than giving in. Google's gone through: - one skippable 5s ad - two skippable 5s ads - one unskippable 5s and one skippable 15s ads - aforementioned or two 15s ads, one skippable - two 15s unskippable ads - removed the prerenderer 'skip' button to ma…

Those changes seem more like boiling the frog because the content they're looking for is only available on YT.

I'm a firm believer in the issue being one of pricing, not that the consumer is willing to pay nothing at all.

I have this view because we've already seen how users flocked to iTunes, then Spotify/Apple Music and Netflix/other streaming services when the pricing was right. We are also now watching as people depart streaming services and return to direct sales and P2P file-sharing due to incrementally higher prices.

To me that's a sure indicator of price being the problem, not an insatiable appetite for zero cost.

The math largely makes sense too. Particularly in music if you're the type that has a taste for a genre of music, rather than just wanting to listen to the top 40.

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

#539

Post by everdrive »

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…

You just listed a bunch of things I'd like to see go.

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

#540

Post by dangrossman »

dvdhnt wrote: post #532
fsh wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is a very ungrateful and childish perspective. It assumes that these things exist out of thin air rather than things google has created. Products don’t just appear, they’re built. Nothing is stopping someone from usurping google. Ever hear of oracle, intel, xerox, blackberry or Microsoft?

Almost all the things in this list were acquired from someone else that built them, rebranded, and then given away for free, taking much of the money out of the market that allowed that product to be built. Without Google giving away the one winner they chose to acquire, you'd have options again.

I built my free web stats service in 2004 because I couldn't afford an Urchin license. Google bought Urchin Live and rebranded it as Google Analytics, and gave it away for free. My service barely pays for itself 20+ years later, but I'm still here and would have an offering for that market on day one that Google Analytics shut down. So would dozens of others.

Post reply on HN