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

201–210 of 524 posts

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

#201

Post by sdenton4 »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #162
shadowgovt wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting hypothesis, but it's entirely possible that separated from Google, Chrome is either not a viable business model (browsers don't make money on their own) or is incentivized to get into bed with some other ad company to make money, to effectively the same result.

Aren't you pointing out the exact problem with Google? If Chrome wasn't a viable business without Google's ads subsidizing it, isn't its existence in its current form exactly the kind of anti-competitive outcome we would be better off without? Without Google subsidizing Chrome, a real competitive market for browsers might emerge, with more vendors investing more effort into competing for users, without having to comp…

I dunno, man - a competitive market for browsers likely involves the browser itself inserting a bunch of ads all over the place. It becomes another axis for enshittification, rather than a mostly-neutral window into the web. It's not enough to hope that a business model appears... Ask any journalist.

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

#202

Post by IX-103 »

oneplane wrote: post #117
bluGill wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they break up the ad business it could be helpful. Otherwise search and youtube are like you say synergistic and there is no obvious way to break them up.

Keep in mind that without the Ad business, most of Google's products cannot exist. Search gets paid by Ads, same with YouTube. Most of the free product are just Ad delivery platforms, and they are all pretty much on the verge of losing money as-is. The Ad business itself has margin enough to cover that, and without a set of outlets like those services, it wouldn't be able to exist. Vimeo has tried a different approac…

YouTube has been profitable in recent years -- thanks to an investment in hardware transcoding reducing costs. So that is potentially separable.

One point to mention is that there are two different "Google Ads". Search ads are very different from page ads (DoubleClick). You could certainly take away the DoubleClick part, but separating Search Ads from Search is much harder.

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

#203

Post by tantalor »

sunaookami wrote: post #196
sensanaty wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not to mention that Microsoft wasn't broken up because Bush intervened: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2001/sep/07/microsoft...

Obviously nothing more than a coincidence, but very interesting this news came out days before 9/11. I wonder if this would have gotten more attention at the time.

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

#204

Post by graemep »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #135
graemep wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and other markets where network effects tend to create monopolies tend to be very highly regulated or state owned: telecoms and financial markets, for example.

Utilities are monopolies because it makes no sense to spend tons of resources running extra pipes and wires to each and every house. It’s called a structural monopoly.

Yikes! Yes. WIll correct. I do not know what happened to my brain there.

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

#205

Post by lmpdev »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #169
bentice wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The question then becomes: Are users going to be willing to pay google (or whatever search) now instead? I don't think the vast majority of the internet understands how the business model of the internet works.

Not OP but as a public utility it would be paid for through both taxes and usage

The actual computational resources required to provide search would be a fraction of Google’s operating costs

Added benefit would be pitting private providers against each other so they’re incentivised to provide better outcomes, as opposed to the current decoupling of utility and market position

The current situation is immensely wasteful of everyone’s time and resources (Alphabet shareholders aside)

It really is a Standard Oil situation, but as it’s just inflaming - but not halting -the global economy, it’s been flying under regulators’ radar until a few years ago

No moat is too wide for the flick of sufficiently powerful pens, business models be damned

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

#206

Post by mouse_ »

isodev wrote: post #142
brookst wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While true and a fair point, iOS is Apple’s platform in a way that the web is most certainly not Google’s.

Just following this thought then the remedy will be forcing Apple to allow alternative OS and firmware on their devices, allowing consumers to choose what they do with the device hardware they purchased?

Ownership and security are at odds. The only remedy would be forcing Apple to allow the owner of the device to run whatever they would like on it, unfortunately this does include malware.

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

#207

Post by rch »

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.

Break them all up simultaneously or find a better approach.

My perception is that there are too many politicians trying to pick winners for their own benefit.

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

#208

Post by at_a_remove »

taeric wrote: post #189
at_a_remove wrote: post #154

I have no love for Google but, in light of the Google Graveyard, I am at a loss to see how to cut it up in a way where almost anything can remain profitable on its own. Imagine chopping Search and Ads out to be their own things. GoogAds turns into just another advertising company. Perhaps viable but uninteresting. GoogSearch, well, almost nobody wants to pay for search, so they seek some kind of way to get money, and…

Oddly, breaking it up may give some items a better chance at living? Ostensibly, one of the main drivers of that graveyard is the monorepo nature of how they rollout changes, combined with them moving people off of projects. Splitting them directly addresses both of those?

Again, which items?

Google Sets? Ain't nobody gonna pay for that! Chromecast? Google Domains? I am scrolling through the list and not seeing much that would stand on its own two feet. Stadia? Google+?

I'm just not seeing much that can stand on its own, that people will pay for without it resorting to an ad model to support it.

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

#209

Post by deepsquirrelnet »

IX-103 wrote: post #168
deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bigger problem is that by conglomerating all of these businesses that are operating in different industries, Google has cut out competition from companies that would provide those services. Why does Google search use Google adwords? Is it because adwords has given them the better terms than their competition or because they have no choice by virtue of being the same company?

Or because AdWords was designed and specifically optimized for search and then only later released (in a modified form) as a separate product.

They didn’t have to go into new business sectors under the same parent company. They chose to because it allowed them to control multiple sectors without competition.

Regardless, there is not competition in their business in areas where there should be according to monopoly rules.

I believe this falls under the rules against exclusionary conduct. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

Post reply on HN