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

621–630 of 1001 posts

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

#621

Post by yellow_postit »

josephg wrote: post #584
zelphirkalt wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure there are many capable people working at Google, but the exaggerating of their skill level needs to stop. Some leet coder doesn't necessarily deliver better designed systems than any another engineer. And with that, the cult of believing in whiteboard coding interviews also needs to go away.

I’ve worked there. They certainly aren’t all geniuses. But there are a huge number of brilliant engineers there - many of whom spend their lives schleping protobufs around for a fat paycheck. It’s not the whiteboard interviews that makes that possible. It’s the prestige (especially from a few years ago), job security and salary. And the opportunity to work with other smart people. Google has an excellent talent pool.

Breaking up Google would likely result in many great new businesses being built if that talent pool was shoved out of their comfort zones.

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

#622

Post by double0jimb0 »

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…

Yup, ok with all of those.

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

#623

Post by Workaccount2 »

makeitdouble wrote: post #591
TechDebtDevin wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about, there are competitors for all these products, they simply just aren't as good...

> as good This is a point that will be recurring and merits more thought IMHO. Google services are mostly better because they crushed competition. Cutting their advantage will also mean better alternatives (money will flow to competitors instead of being sucked by Google). As an analogy, it's like athlete doping: they sure were faster than the other athletes, but that's part of the issue.

The fundamental issue is that people don't want to pay money for things.

Google tapped into that by creating an ad economy, which since it's inception also comes with a payment optional feature (ad-blocking).

People may hate google, but by god do they ever love the internet google created.

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

#624

Post by int_19h »

drivebyhooting wrote: post #297
KHRZ wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have been a bad user. Bing has been a good Bing.

Bing sounds to my ears ridiculous. Is it a Chinese pancake? Or Mr. Bing? Also as a verb it’s hard to pronounce.

It shouldn't be any harder to pronounce than "sing", surely?

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

#626

Post by int_19h »

brap wrote: post #67

It’s amazing how twisted the term “anti-competitive” has become. Where anti-competitive companies push for anti-competitive regulations under the false pretense of preventing anti-competitiveness. Google is being competitive. YC is being anti-competitive. Because they suck at competing against Google and they want to get unfair, unethical advantage themselves . Imagine spending years and billions building something a…

It doesn't matter whether the monopoly position was achieved "fairly" or not. Either way it is detrimental to the overall health of the economy and to consumer choice, and that alone is good enough reason to bust them. Those laws were passed for a reason - people saw what the end result looked like, and they didn't like it.

If you don't want someone to come and bust a monopoly you've spent years and billions building, then don't use your time and money to build a monopoly.

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

#627

Post by stormbeard »

ankit219 wrote: post #548

It's 100% Google saves my data. And gives me an option to delete that data. It uses that data, and while I have some degree of control over it, i don't have full control over it. As a user it's preposterous that any kind of data generated by me is anonymized (or not) and effectively sold to a third party. First party usage is kind of understandable. What YC and the govt is asking is that Google should be forced to do…

> Presumably, if that data is so useful, why dont all of these companies lining up to pay the users?

Because users are lining up to give away their data.

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

#628

Post by Workaccount2 »

echelon wrote: post #507
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?

We need a better word than "duopoly" to describe what Apple and Google are. They're just as bad as a monopoly - and they're impossible to compete with. Both Apple and Google need to be disrupted here. We should be able to see lots of healthy verticals for every single one of these product categories. They shouldn't accrue to two players and be impossible to dislodge. I propose the word "Googolith" to describe {Google…

Google works because of it's ad network and tracking. Everything Google does is a money furnace without a centralized ad network.

People may celebrate the break-up of google, but it will be short lived when they find that now everything they do on the internet that they used to do through google costs a monthly sub. Or is ad supported with zero tolerance for ad-blocking.

The reason competing with google is impossible is because people are deathly allergic to paying for things that they think are free. Vid.me sucked all the air out of the room for a few months in 2017 and was pulling tons of yotubers over. Then it went bankrupt because "People don't like subscriptions, people don't like ads."

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

#629

Post by int_19h »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #126
the_duke wrote: post #4

Key quotes: > "Our experience has been that entrenched monopoly power often deters new entry and chills investment in disruptive innovation." > "independent venture-capital firms like YC often hesitate to fund startups in the “kill zone” —the area of deadened innovation around a monopolist like Google." > "We agree with Plaintiffs' proposal that the remedy package should create pathways for startups and innovators to…

> I think they have a good point with AI. After lagging behind initially, Google really went at it hard. Gemini is great now, and they are building a good set of tooling. > It's easy for Google to suffocate the startups in that area. They already have a massive advantage with all the data they are sitting on. What is the solution, though? Should they not be allowed to compete in the LLM + search space? Should they ha…

> What is the solution, though? Should they not be allowed to compete in the LLM + search space?

Yes? I'm not sure why you find this strange. It's exactly how antitrust works.

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

#630

Post by scarface_74 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #383
scarface_74 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Netflix shouldn’t have been able to extend its monopoly in shipping DVDs to streaming

Personally, as copyright is a non-natural right, we should limit it for films/tv/shows such that whatever price it is sold for, then it is made available for any distributor to sell for after a very limited monopoly period (1 year from release, say, reflecting the current market in which films go from cinema to TV streaming platforms in a few weeks). This would apply to all distributors over X users and/or Y revenue…

You have no right to other people’s work and content writers get residuals.
Post reply on HN