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

Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 524 posts

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#171

Post by deepsquirrelnet »

nordsieck wrote: post #123
brookst wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads and search are the two businesses that most directly collude and which could both survive and thrive independently. If the search business worked with other ad networks to maximize their revenue, while the ad business worked with other search engines, we’d likely see higher quality search results, less confusion about what’s an ad versus a result, and better as rates for buyers. That said I don’t support that rem…

> Ads and search are the two businesses that most directly collude and which could both survive and thrive independently. I'm skeptical that search is viable as an independent business at scale. I know DDG is making a go of it, but the business only has to pay a single salary.

I’m skeptical that Google search contains any search results. So maybe that part of their business is already dead and they just need an honest rebranding to ad search.

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#172

Post by olalonde »

dml2135 wrote: post #164
olalonde wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment specifically called out their search product. If your argument is that they have a monopoly on ads, I don't believe that's true either.

What I mean is that search is not a product in the sense that you can say “search is free” and not have that be misleading in some way. YOU are the product, being sold to advertisers, and Google search is the channel through which you are sold.

That's a bit an unconventional take on what free and selling mean, but regardless that wasn't my main point.

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#174

Post by sensanaty »

matthewfelgate wrote: post #58
bearjaws wrote: post #30

If what comes after is not better, then we waited too long to break this monopoly up. We either start ripping this band-aids off or we will just continually have a worse and worse internet.

What about Microsoft?

In these types of discussions, people love bringing out the "But what about $OTHER_OBVIOUS_MONOPOLY?".

The solution is simple (the word simple here is doing a lot of work, I know); Meta, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple and any other similarly sized behemoth should be nuked, and not just in the tech world. Microsoft should've been properly nuked 30 years ago with the original anti-trust, yet alone now, same goes for the others.

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#175

Post by jonhohle »

bentice wrote: post #126
uptownJimmy wrote: post #39

Google's "search results" are the textbook definition of a monopolized good/service. The whole thing is almost a casino, rigged to the point of absurdity. There has been nothing in my life so disillusioning as working on a Web app for a company that is more or less required to play Google's game.

To exist on the internet you need to pay Google. Google is essentially the government of the open web. The problem is that government like monopolies do arise especially when there are network effects. We need to regulate search and app stores like it is a public utility. Pricing should be dutch auction or something provably fair. 20-30% for in-app purchases is obviously insane when credit cards do 1.5-3.5%. I worry…

Credit card companies do one thing - process payments. What cut do VOD or music hosting sites take? Bandcamp takes 15%. eBay takes 15% on things they never physically touch. It’s hard finding hard data, but it seems like YouTube, on average charges $15CPM and pays $5CPM to the highest paid YouTubers. What is the value of download hosting and store platform?

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#176

Post by Someone »

elforce002 wrote: post #160

While we're at it, we need to break Microsoft and Amazon asap. I don't know how Microsoft is not up for discussion when it's a behemoth (GitHub, LinkedIn, Azure, Windows, Office, etc.). The same applies for Amazon.

> I don't know how Microsoft is not up for discussion when it's a behemoth

Because we think interfering with the free market is necessary when a company misuses market power, not solely when it is a behemoth.

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#177

Post by rubyfan »

bearjaws wrote: post #30

If what comes after is not better, then we waited too long to break this monopoly up. We either start ripping this band-aids off or we will just continually have a worse and worse internet.

Hard to imagine it getting worse. Browsing search engine results these days reminds me of post apocalyptic movie scenery.

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#178

Post by Workaccount2 »

tgv wrote: post #157
Workaccount2 wrote: post #151

I'm flumuxed that Google is the first tech company to be ruled a monopoly. I would put them fourth on the tech monopoly list, behind Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, in that order. I don't think there would be much benefit to society by breaking up google. Whereas I do think there would be great benefit to breaking up Apple or MS.

Apple doesn't match the description of a monopoly, as far as I can see. Amazon might. But Google is dominant. You could add Facebook to the monopolies, unless you think it shares the same space as Twitter.

You generally cannot have friends as an American under 25 without owning an iPhone. Outside of HN tech heads, regular young Americans use phones that "can send pictures that don't look like garbage!".

I consider Apple by far the most insidious, since they leverage your friends and family against you to put heavy social penalties on not submitting. They then use this dominance to bend devs to their will, and take an egregious cut of their profits while doing it.

Re: Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

#179

Post by jonhohle »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #125
Forgeties79 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you are the only grocery store for 500mi yes you functionally have a “monopoly over your shelves.”

You can switch your search to bing in less time then it took to write this message. Your 500 mile analogy simply does not apply.

As a business owner you can’t tell all of your present and future customers you’re only going to be in Bing results going forward. This isn’t about what an individual chooses to use. Google is effectively the Yellow pages of the internet. In that era you could take out ads in the newspaper, but no one was looking there when they needed to find a resource they needed now.
Post reply on HN