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

EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 361 posts

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#181

Post by hardware2win »

Yujf wrote: post #126
gumballindie wrote: post #77

And microsoft is walking scot free. They can happily control operating systems, office tools, a slice of search, ides, ads within their os, are allowed to buy large game makers and soon ai. As a bare minimum they should be forced greater compatibility with running their software on linux and ideally be banned from doing ads, ai and gamedev.

I agree they should be forced to offer office on Linux. It is one of the things that really keeps Linux down for normal people. Why should they not be able to offer ads in their own products though? I don't like ads but I do not immediataly see the issue. I think they should absolutly be allowed to do AI but things like only allowing bing chat in Edge should be banned. The amount of pushing they do is clearly not OK.…

>I agree they should be forced to offer office on Linux

They created web version

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#182

Post by Yujf »

hardware2win wrote: post #181
Yujf wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree they should be forced to offer office on Linux. It is one of the things that really keeps Linux down for normal people. Why should they not be able to offer ads in their own products though? I don't like ads but I do not immediataly see the issue. I think they should absolutly be allowed to do AI but things like only allowing bing chat in Edge should be banned. The amount of pushing they do is clearly not OK.…

>I agree they should be forced to offer office on Linux They created web version

The web version is completely inferior though

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#183

Post by itairal »

nisegami wrote: post #39

As expected, the comments here seem generally in support of such a move. But, it is really unclear to me how such a move would improve my life or the lives of most typical users. Genuinely open to having it explained to me.

This is the problem.

How is your life better with having Standard Oil broke up in 1911? We didn't get to see the counterfactual of Rockefeller strangling the oil industry by 1920.

Big tech though has gone beyond the definition of a monopoly. We didn't breakup Standard Oil because we were worried about them taking over the garment industry too.

I imagine we already pay for big tech dearly as a society but we can't run reality a 1000 times over to see the alternatives. We basically run the Windows 11 version of society and since we can't actually have a different experience we conclude "hey this Windows 11 society isn't that bad, how would any of this improve my Windows 11 life?".

If we could actually see the alternate paths this would be the biggest political issue in democracies by a mile. Instead we have big tech controlling what people see and read almost entirely so of course this is no big deal. Big tech told me so!

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#184

Post by bogwog »

Fyrezerk wrote: post #40
hfkwer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day? Always this same old tune. Do you realize how outlandish and naive it is to even suggest that? Google is fighting tooth and nail to make sure that EU laws are laxist. You know why? Because they know that they will have to comply, in the end. The market is just too big to let go of. And I don't think you're…

My point, though, is where do we draw the line between antitrust enforcement because it serves the public's best interest, and enforcement that results in a net negative experience?

I think that if a monopoly is necessary to serve the public's interest, as you're suggesting Google is, then it needs to be a public utility, like water or electricity.

But I think that's wrong about Google (except maybe for search). None of the services they're offering are unique, it's all tech commodities. They're just entrenched due to decades of anticompetitive behavior and incompetent regulators, and if they were broken up/destroyed, other companies would easily be able to offer the same services at a higher quality, and it would be a net positive to society overall.

If Google ads gets broken up, it may be easier for a competitor to actually compete against any Google property. Imagine trying to win a bidding war against Google, much less on their own bidding platform.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#185

Post by s1k3s »

> The Commission preliminarily finds that, in this particular case, a behavioural remedy is likely to be ineffective to prevent the risk that Google continues such self-preferencing conducts or engages in new ones. Google is active on both sides of the market with its publisher ad server and with its ad buying tools and holds a dominant position on both ends. Furthermore, it operates the largest ad exchange. This leads to a situation of inherent conflicts of interest for Google. The Commission's preliminary view is therefore that only the mandatory divestment by Google of part of its services would address its competition concerns.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_...

--

How would this work, in practice?

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#186

Post by throwaway462910 »

thfuran wrote: post #144
madeofpalk wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't have it both ways though. You don't get to take advantage of Irish law to reduce your tax/costs, but then also say that Ireland (and the EU) has no jurisdiction over you.

But that's not the claim being made.

It's the claim being pre-emptively argued against though

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#187

Post by unicornmama »

aurareturn wrote: post #142
Mistletoe wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto is much more transparent than Google Ads due to the fact that most of them at least have a public blockchain. Is there any way to know if Google Ads purchasing isn’t a giant Ponzi of ads? Is there any way to verify they aren’t bidding up the auctions and that any of it is based on reality and competition at all? Crypto also has price discovery through shorting and selling. How would one short a Google Ad or se…

Holy cow. People are comparing Google to crypto exchanges now. Blockchains are public, yes. But the entities behind them are completely and utterly cryptic and centralized. Most of them operate out of Cayman Islands/Bahamas, etc. Comparing Google to crypto exchanges is insane.

Don’t forget Switzerland. Home of many “non-profit” crypto companies that have made their founders and investors very rich.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#188

Post by aurareturn »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #179
aurareturn wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% of the people don't care. That's why there are 2.1 billion people on Facebook. Without surveillance capitalism, prices for services would go up or would cease to be free. The ad-driven business model is a legitimate one. I assume that you use a free service from Google/Facebook/Microsoft? So you must not care about surveillance capitalism either. At least not care enough.

>99% of the people don't care. People do care. They just don't have much, if any, choice.

They do.

Neeva, founded by a former Google exec, built a search engine that had no ads and no tracking. No surveillance capital. They just shut down because no one wanted to pay for it - hence the idea that 99% don't care about surveillance capital enough.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65671468

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#189

Post by aurareturn »

piva00 wrote: post #156
aurareturn wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% of the people don't care. That's why there are 2.1 billion people on Facebook. Without surveillance capitalism, prices for services would go up or would cease to be free. The ad-driven business model is a legitimate one. I assume that you use a free service from Google/Facebook/Microsoft? So you must not care about surveillance capitalism either. At least not care enough.

> I assume that you use a free service from Google/Facebook/Microsoft? So you must not care about surveillance capitalism either. At least not care enough. This happens exactly because there is no competition and hence antitrust is needed. I don't want to be using services from Google/Facebook/Microsoft but there's no competition and then I end up using their services even when trying to avoid it as most as possible.…

Did you subscribe to Neeva?

It was a search engine developed by an ex Google exec. It had no ads, no tracking. It required a subscription to use. Most people who used it said the search results were great.

It shut down because no one wanted to pay for it.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#190

Post by aurareturn »

jfk13 wrote: post #150
aurareturn wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now fast forward a decade. Google drop their "do no evil" motto and jack up ad prices. Online store now pays 10 times as much for their ads and have to raise prices to cover the costs. This is just not true and not how Google's ads work. Google has a bidding system. You don't have to pay their prices if your ads aren't profitable. You can pull out. You can go somewhere else. You can try other forms of marketing. Yo…

> If other companies are willing to pay more for the ads, then your product/business/marketing isn't as good as theirs Or maybe you just don't have as much venture capital to burn. Do we really want to live in a world that overwhelmingly rewards whoever is prepared to spend the most on publicity? (How's Citizens United been working out?)

>Or maybe you just don't have as much venture capital to burn.

What does this have to do with the post you're replying to? I would suggest starting a new HN post if you want to talk about VC cash.

Post reply on HN