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

The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 351 posts

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#151

Post by satvikpendem »

GeekyBear wrote: post #144
satvikpendem wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking iMessage on non Apple devices and generally making Apple stuff only work with other Apple stuff, not to mention their 30% fees on their app store while also not allowing other app stores, are all anticompetitive practices, which the EU is well regulating soon.

> Blocking iMessage on non Apple devices iMessage has always worked with any device that supports SMS. Google, on the other hand, actively blocked Windows Phone from having access to Youtube. Even when Microsoft paid to write a Youtube app themselves, Google blocked it. Google did the same thing and blocked Youtube on Amazon's Echo Show.

Why the whataboutism? They both have flaws. By iMessage blocking, you surely knew that I didn't mean just interoperability via SMS. If Apple adopted RCS or some other such standard, Android users and iPhone users could talk without having a degraded experience on either side. Apple executives literally admitted that not expanding iMessage ensured that people would continue to buy iPhones:

> app.)...In the absence of a strategy to become the primary messaging service for [the] bulk of cell phone users, I am concerned [that] iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove an obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406303/imessage-android...

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#152

Post by lolinder »

jonex wrote: post #149
lolinder wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kagi stands to me as proof that search can be better if it isn't run by an ad company. Kagi deliberately downranks sites that are loaded with ads and trackers, and the quality of their results is much higher, with much less SEO blogspam. Unsurprisingly, having a high concentration of ads and trackers is highly correlated with having content that is intended to maximize views rather than provide utility. Google has a…

If Kagi were as popular as Google, you'd quickly see pages appear "without ads", that looks suspiciously like what an ad would say. The problem is SEO, and it affects the mainstream search engine because that's what's worth optimising for. For instance, Google product search results would likely be greatly improved by always showing relevant reddit posts first. But this would last a very short amount of time until re…

> that looks suspiciously like what an ad would say ... fake comparison sites pretending to be genuine content.

This is already a thing under Google's system: if a result isn't an ad-ridden mess, it's content marketing trying to sell an adjacent product.

You haven't addressed the conflict of interest that Google has as the largest vendor of ads on the internet. Right now, Kagi's sole job is to help me find what I'm looking for. If SEO started to game their current algorithm, the incentive would be for Kagi to improve their algorithm and win the meta game. If they fail to do so, their payments will dry up as people look for an engine that will.

Google has no such incentive. If their algorithms consistently drive traffic to pages that have their ads on them, Google is incentivized to keep that traffic flowing, regardless of how SEO'd the content is. The user isn't Google's customer, the advertiser is.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#153

Post by _8j50 »

halflings wrote: post #140
prakhar897 wrote: post #130

The Indian govt imposed restrictions that a payment provider in India can fulfill max 30% of the total volume of transactions in an year [1]. After that, they have to restrict themselves. This completely avoids monopoly and concentration risks. This can be done for search as well which makes sure at least 4 players stay in the market at all times. Why isn't US govt doing this? 1. https://www.indiatimes.com/worth/news…

> Why isn't US govt doing this? Why isn't the UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, ... doing this? Because it's a pretty strong form of controlled economy that distorts the market. How would this work for search engines? Would you force people to use a different search engine than the one they want? (e.g. they type Google.com and end up redirected to Bing.com) ; or somehow just funnel revenue to other companies... then wh…

People can use google all they want, the restriction would be on how much ad can be sold by Google.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#154

Post by kurthr »

halflings wrote: post #140
prakhar897 wrote: post #130

The Indian govt imposed restrictions that a payment provider in India can fulfill max 30% of the total volume of transactions in an year [1]. After that, they have to restrict themselves. This completely avoids monopoly and concentration risks. This can be done for search as well which makes sure at least 4 players stay in the market at all times. Why isn't US govt doing this? 1. https://www.indiatimes.com/worth/news…

> Why isn't US govt doing this? Why isn't the UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, ... doing this? Because it's a pretty strong form of controlled economy that distorts the market. How would this work for search engines? Would you force people to use a different search engine than the one they want? (e.g. they type Google.com and end up redirected to Bing.com) ; or somehow just funnel revenue to other companies... then wh…

Alphabet in the US would just spin off 3 "competitors" and be done. All 4 would then be subsidiaries of the holding company and they still collect the money. Of course this can't happen in India, because there would be political repercussions unless it was was an Indian firm connected to the government.

To change this takes real political will and a recognition of who the beneficiaries of the current systems are. It's not simple in any remotely democratic system with rule of law.

We do have the FTC which can enforce antitrust (when the executive branch doesn't interfere) and force various requirements (like the auctioning of ad terms be separated from the business of marketing ads, and the collection of search data) on different parts of the company.

(edit: Oops, I must remember to only discuss US politics with any realism. Reference to any other country's corruption/politics must only be with the highest reverence, deference, and awe.)

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#155

Post by smoldesu »

rolph wrote: post #88
WirelessGigabit wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is authority. What makes you an authority on a subject? Books written? Credentials (diploma?)? References? These things aren't all true in real life, and on the internet it's even easier to fake all of that. In the beginning Google went by 'amount of text' (which is why you read everybody's life story on how they had sex next to a magma flow in Hawaii which created the idea of doing burnt ends on a p…

>>What makes you an authority on a subject the ability to make accurate predictions of outcome by way of knowledge, observation, and logical deliberation.

You seem to have misread the question. How does Google, an automated service, "make accurate predictions of outcome by way of knowledge, observation, and logical deliberation"?

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#156

Post by Karunamon »

littlestymaar wrote: post #138
advisedwang wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who else will pay salaries to maintain Firefox? Firefox can't survive on community contributions alone.

Wikipedia having a higher turnover than Mozilla from contribution alone is a counter-example. And if Google is being split, then Chrome will also need to find a monetization strategy, opening the perspective for Mozilla.

The bar to contribute to a software project of any size is many times higher than the bar to contribute to Wikipedia.

If you were speaking monetarily, Wikipedia has a gargantuan user count and good will to match, where Mozilla has spent the last few years squandering both of those.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#157

Post by barnabee »

nicoburns wrote: post #150
hgs3 wrote: post #96

Antitrust laws are too reactive. We need proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria. Ideally, the criteria would be aggressive enough to kill large corporations leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses. The result would be markets with increased competition, more innovation, lower prices, more options for employment and self-employment, and the elimination of Big Co…

I feel like we ought to have progressive taxation on corporations: the larger you are, the more you get taxed. This would act as a general purpose biasing of the economy in favour of smaller companies and more competition.

I'd strongly welcome this, based on both size and profitability (which should also include money going to salaries above some level per employee, as well as accounting profit, dividends, etc.).

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#158

Post by halflings »

_8j50 wrote: post #153
halflings wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why isn't US govt doing this? Why isn't the UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, ... doing this? Because it's a pretty strong form of controlled economy that distorts the market. How would this work for search engines? Would you force people to use a different search engine than the one they want? (e.g. they type Google.com and end up redirected to Bing.com) ; or somehow just funnel revenue to other companies... then wh…

People can use google all they want, the restriction would be on how much ad can be sold by Google.

So the remaining traffic would be all expenses, no profit? Doesn't sound like capitalism anymore then, more of a public service.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#159

Post by shadowgovt »

dudus wrote: post #148
Aurornis wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why isn't US govt doing this? Because it would be incredibly unpopular, for one. Can you imagine being in the middle of some work, Googling a term, only to be hit with "Sorry, we're over the government limit and can't fulfill your search" Hacker News and Stack Overflow would be full of people trading tips about using VPNs to evade the limits. People don't actually like having the government restrict them from using…

Sorry you also spent your allotted time on Hacker News and Stack Overflow. Please ask about VPNs on Quora until the end of the month.

You say that like there isn't a big old demographic on this site who has been rate limited in how often they're allowed to post. ;)

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#160

Post by shadowgovt »

halflings wrote: post #158
_8j50 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can use google all they want, the restriction would be on how much ad can be sold by Google.

So the remaining traffic would be all expenses, no profit? Doesn't sound like capitalism anymore then, more of a public service.

Imagine a government creating a search engine as a public service.

... Oh wait, that's actually a great idea and I want to see that happen.

Post reply on HN