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

Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 383 posts

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#161

Post by bigstrat2003 »

jvolkman wrote: post #17
bitpush wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isnt that updated by some national database and google just pulls that data? Apparently Apple Maps will also get it in a few days, since they get the data from them as well.

Yes. We had the same comments about Gulf of America. Edit: I don't know that there's an actual database served up by the US Gov, but governments control the naming of these things within their own jurisdictions. All of the big mapping products have the ability to serve up different names based on where you're viewing from. And Apple just renamed: https://apnews.com/article/apple-lake-ontario-america-google...

> governments control the naming of these things within their own jurisdictions

No they don't. People can, and should, call things what they want without deference to government overreach.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#162

Post by bigstrat2003 »

xp84 wrote: post #132
dragontamer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The President doesn't have an ability to officially change the names of these locations. They have the ability to change name services in some database somewhere. But it's not actually an official name change. So all this hand wringing about official names or whatever ignores the reality of the situation. This is just another temper tantrum by Trump that we reasonable people can ignore. The easiest way to do that is…

> They have the ability to change name services in some database somewhere. But it's not actually an official name change. Is it Congress who officially holds that power, then? And are you saying that if Congressional Republicans passed a bill renaming whatever, and Trump signed it, you'd then acknowlege it? Given how vanishingly little they accomplish in Congress already, I'm not sure we'd be better off distracting…

Nobody officially holds that power. Names of geographic places are established by popular usage, not government fiat.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#163

Post by edgyquant »

rootsudo wrote: post #68
bigyabai wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the contrary, the entire DOJ understands that FAANG and the three-letter-agencies are one revolving door. Any judge that attempts to defang Google's data collection may well run afoul of the American surveillance system, which this administration will fight tooth and nail to defend. Not very different from how federal protectionism keeps Apple's App Store centralized despite trillions of dollars in ostensible mark…

100% glad someone states the obvious. Sometimes here people think these tech companies are on truly altruistic missions on making “the world a better place!!1” or truly making an impact by being an IC in their role and having access to perks which, have largely been taken away as the market matures to data collection and surveillance. If you want to have some fun, go on LinkedIn and see how many former military peopl…

Can you give an example of what you’re saying here? Companies spin up and vanish?

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#164

Post by andrekandre »

godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #146

The United States government is fractured and can't get its act together. No one has a credible plan to solve this. Electing your preferred president doesn't solve a broken Senate and other structural problems. The presidency is likely to keep bouncing between parties that care as much (if not more) about undoing the previous four years as they do sketching out a coherent plan for the future four. How is wielding thi…

  > Meanwhile China is operating on government initiatives
china fosters intense internal competition though; they don't just create and then subsidize some monopoly... avoiding breaking up mono/oligopolies feels the opposite (and a loosing strategy long-term imo)

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#165

Post by andrekandre »

pessimizer wrote: post #148
shevy-java wrote: post #122

The US judges lack courage here. This means they help Google power through with its de-facto monopoly. This is, interestingly, also against capitalism, since now you no longer have a truly free market; no real competition. It is just one giant blob contorlling (almost) everything. Every blind one sees how Google controls WAY too much. Youtube is part of Google too. It is a cash cow that excludes competitors.

This isn't a matter of courage. They're doing what they want to do. Clinton's deregulation, especially of telecommunications, is what lead to our horrible present (he appointed this judge.) The judges that Obama appointed literally don't believe that antitrust should exist.

yea, a lot of people claiming "but its a clinton judge" dont really get this i think...

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#166

Post by saghm »

vlovich123 wrote: post #120
xahrepap wrote: post #113

Slightly tangential thought: My belief is: legislation needs to either make it just as hard to merge two companies as it is to unmerge them, or make it just as easy to unmerge two companies as it is to merge them. It's insane to me that for how often companies merge and cause competition issues, we effectively never see the opposite happen. I know there's a ceremonial approval for merging two companies (at least in t…

You're basically advocating for unscrambling the omelet to be easier. Should be obvious why it's harder to unmix than it is to mix.

No, they're advocating for more scrutiny of whether the omelet is going to be very bad for everyone who isn't part of the omelet (yes, this metaphor is weird, but I didn't introduce it)

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#167

Post by saghm »

Arainach wrote: post #152
makeitdouble wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why skip this part ? > legislation needs to either make it just as hard to merge two companies as it is to unmerge them

Nothing was skipped - the point is that this is directly analagous to unscrambling an omelet. Separating mixed things is significantly more difficult than mixing them. "The laws says X" doesn't change whether X is possible or not.

Do you really think it's impossible to pass legislation that makes something that's currently easy hard without making the reverse any harder as well?

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#168

Post by jen20 »

gambiting wrote: post #102
ralfd wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple's App Store centralized despite trillions of dollars in ostensible market damage Please. The Androidfication of iOS with malware/scamware would cost quadrillions in market damage.

Citation needed. The idea that somehow my mum can't even find the space bar on her keyboard and yet is competent enough to go through several warning screens to install a custom .apk is just laughable.

> is competent enough to go through several warning screens

What about "is incompetent enough to press the buttons when the nice man from Microsoft calls about the viruses on her USB"?

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#169

Post by saghm »

Arainach wrote: post #153
rectoverso wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PE companies do it all the time.

PE companies do it with very little regard for if any of the pieces are viable and survive after the fact, so their model isn't one I'd suggest following.

Maybe if a large company is anticompetitive and the parts would not survive on their own, we should be letting those pieces fail

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#170

Post by rigrassm »

hammock wrote: post #140
rigrassm wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect a large majority of the issues you brought up with splitting can be addressed by legislation. Off the top of my head, something along the lines of having a mandatory period of time where the company being acquired must be kept separate enough that the merger can be dissolved in a timely manner should it be deemed necessary. How long that window should be would be up for debate but personally I'd argue the w…

What can’t be solved with legislation?

Lots of shit can't be solved by legislation, what's your point?
Post reply on HN