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

US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 888 posts

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#21

Post by akoboldfrying »

LightHugger wrote: post #11
teleforce wrote: post #8

There's side effect benefit of big kahuna companies mainly on the significant breakthrough and game changing research output because these excellent researchers are paid handsome money compared to conventional universities or research institutions. We saw this with AT&T Bell research labs with their inventions of transistor and Unix, among others. The same thing happened with Google research with (arguably) deep lear…

This is a theoretical benefit which is directly at odds with the benefits of competition in a healthy market. For google, my observation is the "big kahuna" benefit of google basically does not exist and competition needs to be restored. Google is famous for not innovating on anything successfully, they produce graveyards of trash. Instead what they do is buy other companies then enshittify them in an anti competitiv…

>Google is famous for not innovating on anything successfully

PageRank

Gmail

Maps

MapReduce

Chrome

Protocol Buffers

Go

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#22

Post by brendoelfrendo »

teleforce wrote: post #8

There's side effect benefit of big kahuna companies mainly on the significant breakthrough and game changing research output because these excellent researchers are paid handsome money compared to conventional universities or research institutions. We saw this with AT&T Bell research labs with their inventions of transistor and Unix, among others. The same thing happened with Google research with (arguably) deep lear…

So wait, markets don't work, then? A free market, theoretically, promotes innovation by ensuring that businesses must advance their products in order to compete with one another. You're saying that a lack of competition promotes innovation by concentrating all of an industry's capital under one roof.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#23

Post by waveBidder »

teleforce wrote: post #8

There's side effect benefit of big kahuna companies mainly on the significant breakthrough and game changing research output because these excellent researchers are paid handsome money compared to conventional universities or research institutions. We saw this with AT&T Bell research labs with their inventions of transistor and Unix, among others. The same thing happened with Google research with (arguably) deep lear…

just skip the middle man skimming off the top and 10x the national labs funding.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#24

Post by akoboldfrying »

shiroiushi wrote: post #16
ClassyJacket wrote: post #6

They biggest web advertising company definitely shouldn't control the world's most popular browser. Just like we all knew they would, they're blocking ad blockers, and this problem will only get worse. Tell your friends to use Firefox, people.

I'm not so sure this is a problem. They're not completely blocking ad-blockers, just neutering them somewhat with MV3. You can still use uBOL (the "Lite" version of uBO) and get a lot of ads blocked on Chrome. Remember, Chrome is not installed by default on Windows PCs; Edge is. People are using Chrome because they want to. They could just as easily download Firefox and uBO, like more-savvy users do. Unfortunately, t…

>Chrome is not installed by default on Windows PCs; Edge is

Whenever this is brought up, the silence is deafening.

Edge is a good browser, and users are notoriously lazy; most won't read a dialog box before clicking it away. And yet... ~everyone on Windows still downloads Chrome.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#26

Post by akoboldfrying »

ImHereToVote wrote: post #7
arthurcolle wrote: post #4

break up google for fumbling transformers alone

Yeah that's what monopolies do. Make people use inferior products. The US used to break up monopolies all the time. This was followed with a wave of innovation.

I can't tell if you're serious.

Not only did Google not "force" anyone to use the LLM tech that they largely developed, most people think they're silly for inventing it and then sitting on their hands until another company (OpenAI) ate their lunch.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#27

Post by eastbound »

There has been many announcements of lawsuits based on antitrust in the last 3 weeks.

We can assume the message is “If you reelect the current party, we’ll finish these lawsuits.” There are two perverse effects:

- It positions the alternate party as the party that Google should sponsor,

- The good choice after reelection will then be to delay the next step of those popular antitrust cases to 3 weeks before the end of the next mandate, to tell the electors that they should reelect. Which ironically puts the current party in the position of the one doing nothing on the popular antitrust case (a corollary to “a party’s platform depends on ensuring the problems it’s supposed to solve keep existing”).

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#28

Post by teractiveodular »

akoboldfrying wrote: post #21
LightHugger wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a theoretical benefit which is directly at odds with the benefits of competition in a healthy market. For google, my observation is the "big kahuna" benefit of google basically does not exist and competition needs to be restored. Google is famous for not innovating on anything successfully, they produce graveyards of trash. Instead what they do is buy other companies then enshittify them in an anti competitiv…

>Google is famous for not innovating on anything successfully PageRank Gmail Maps MapReduce Chrome Protocol Buffers Go

Maps was technically an acquisition (Where2). But like YouTube, Doubleclick, Google Docs (Writely), Translate (Word Lens), Google Flights (ITA) and many others, Google successfully grew these products into giants.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#29

Post by eastbound »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #22
teleforce wrote: post #8

There's side effect benefit of big kahuna companies mainly on the significant breakthrough and game changing research output because these excellent researchers are paid handsome money compared to conventional universities or research institutions. We saw this with AT&T Bell research labs with their inventions of transistor and Unix, among others. The same thing happened with Google research with (arguably) deep lear…

So wait, markets don't work, then? A free market, theoretically, promotes innovation by ensuring that businesses must advance their products in order to compete with one another. You're saying that a lack of competition promotes innovation by concentrating all of an industry's capital under one roof.

Regalian roles are to ensure fair competition by reducing any actor bigger than the state to something smaller, and ensuring the economy works with transparent information (no lying, rule of law, etc.)

Companies getting too big are natural; Letting them get too big is what happens when your state borrows a trillion per semester: Your state is obese, intervening in every little sector of the economy (thus the opposite of liberal), and not playing its regalian role.

You should indeed reduce the size of both the state and the largest companies, to let the economy self-regulate, but then, how would the US govern the rest of the world?

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#30

Post by [deleted] »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #22
teleforce wrote: post #8

There's side effect benefit of big kahuna companies mainly on the significant breakthrough and game changing research output because these excellent researchers are paid handsome money compared to conventional universities or research institutions. We saw this with AT&T Bell research labs with their inventions of transistor and Unix, among others. The same thing happened with Google research with (arguably) deep lear…

So wait, markets don't work, then? A free market, theoretically, promotes innovation by ensuring that businesses must advance their products in order to compete with one another. You're saying that a lack of competition promotes innovation by concentrating all of an industry's capital under one roof.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN