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

Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

zyppy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 309 posts

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#221

Post by Razengan »

slownews45 wrote: post #175
kens wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 15 years ago, IBM was far from being a monopoly I think some historical background is necessary here. Nowadays IBM isn't a monopoly but during the 20th century, IBM was more or less a monopoly. IBM's antitrust problems go back to their 1936 consent decree and 1956 consent decree. IBM was subject to a huge antitrust case that went on from 1969 to 1982 as well as many other antitrust lawsuits. The first point is that…

No question that anti-trust is currently pretty much incoherent. One frustration is that it has morphed from things around consumer harm to a new focus on harm to other ... businesses. Google downranks some crappy content farm / shopping aggregator - bam - antitrust complaint. Yes, it hurt that business and so helps google shopping - but no one asks - do users like these crap content farms? Same with google finance -…

> One frustration is that it has morphed from things around consumer harm to a new focus on harm to other ... businesses.

This is the root of most hullabaloo around Apple, isn’t it? Many of the things they do, like limiting exploitation by third-party payment systems (e.g. which rarely offer refunds for regretful purchases, unlike the App Store which always complies) or hiding your email from personal data farmers, ultimately benefit consumers, but of course Apple’s competitors would love to break those walls down and invade the garden.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#222

Post by aix1 »

titzer wrote: post #117
owisd wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Write it on the wiki first then just email the link to the wiki. No additional effort and then the guy who joins two years after everyone on the email chain has left and now has to maintain it also has that info.

I meant specifically, things like "Wait, who is this person? What did they want again? What did I tell them last time?" That's not stuff you put on a wiki.

This may or may not work for you, but I keep notes in a collection of Google docs.

Depending on context, these are either shared with the other person (and usually editable by them) or is accessible only by me.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#223

Post by slownews45 »

Razengan wrote: post #221
slownews45 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No question that anti-trust is currently pretty much incoherent. One frustration is that it has morphed from things around consumer harm to a new focus on harm to other ... businesses. Google downranks some crappy content farm / shopping aggregator - bam - antitrust complaint. Yes, it hurt that business and so helps google shopping - but no one asks - do users like these crap content farms? Same with google finance -…

> One frustration is that it has morphed from things around consumer harm to a new focus on harm to other ... businesses. This is the root of most hullabaloo around Apple, isn’t it? Many of the things they do, like limiting exploitation by third-party payment systems (e.g. which rarely offer refunds for regretful purchases, unlike the App Store which always complies) or hiding your email from personal data farmers, u…

It's interesting because the coalition for "app fairness" is a whose who almost of folks who have repeatedly paid fines / penalties (which barely covers the cost) for their billing and other practices.

We already know how the other guys do it, they screw you. must cancel 30 days in advance or you get a 1 year renewal. Meanwhile, when I delete an app that has a subscription apple reminds me and suggests cancelling subscription!

The problem is individuals have NO / ZERO leverage in these deals these days. This is not your corner grocer. Match Group etc are major companies - and yes, they will do everything they can to extract every $, long term brand strength be darned.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#224

Post by aix1 »

nitrogen wrote: post #92
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't continuing to work for a company that has policies you strongly oppose an example of successful groupthink? I suppose you could make a case for continuing if the policies are/have been/could realistically be changed. But if that's unlikely?

When a company is large enough[0], it's probably not unreasonable to start thinking of it as a municipality, or even a small country. There are probably people who live in my city who I wouldn't like, there are probably policies of my city I don't like, but I still live where I live. Similarly, at a large enough company, if your work is good, but some other division of the company is bad, should you leave the company…

Thank you for this, the analogy really resonates.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#225

Post by throwaway201025 »

tytso wrote: post #25

When I was at IBM 15 years ago, IBM was far from being a monopoly, since there were plenty of competitors in the hardware space (HP, Sun, Dell, etc) and in the software space (Oracle, SAP, etc.) and in the Services space (Accenture, PwC, KPMG, etc.) employees still had to complete annual legal training that was very similar to what was described in the post. Any large company with half-way competent legal counsel is…

> Any large company with half-way competent legal counsel is going to tell their employees not to say, "our goal is to crush our competitors, dominate the market, and hear the lamentation of their women."

I don't think that's true. I work for Samsung and we talk about market share and competitors all the time.

I mean, why shouldn't we? Being crystal clear is a very good step to achieve a goal. We need to be more honest.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#226

Post by Razengan »

deathanatos wrote: post #184

This is such an uncharitable interpretation of the training materials. The material there is not saying "if you want to speak about things that raise antitrust concerns, use this coded language", it's saying "don't do these things, and just focus on building a good product". Like, the thing here that really boggles my mind: if the training materials had said literally the exact opposite of what they do: "crush the co…

> This is such an uncharitable interpretation of the training materials. The material there is not saying "if you want to speak about things that raise antitrust concerns, use this coded language", it's saying "don't do these things, and just focus on building a good product".

That is a very charitable interpretation of the training materials.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#227

Post by slownews45 »

pencilcode wrote: post #220
mpweiher wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> morphed from things around consumer harm to a new focus on harm to other ... businesses. As far as I know, it is actually the focus on "consumer harm" that is, well was, the new thing, introduced in the 1980s under Reagan, and it largely gutted antitrust law. And that was exactly the purpose. For much of that history, including the seminal breakup of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil in 1911, the ruling antitrust…

Monopolies in the long term tend to lead to higher prices because without good competition what’s the incentive to sell with low profit margins? So, sell cheap for years, kill any competition, then the market is yours and you can do whatever you want to the inevitable detriment of the consumer. The consumer also looses in monopolies.

But the complaints against apple have focused on things they do that at least too me seem helpful and a positive part of my experience with apple. I feel MUCH more comfortable spending money via apple then I do almost anywhere else.

Software on the web - endless issues buying / refunding / renewing.

And if I don't like apple (which only has like 15% market share) I can switch to any number of android phones.

It's just weird seeing the FTC going after a player that is generally doing things consumers like. Meanwhile, android phones ship with rom loaded rootkits / trackers / overlays and app stores and what do we hear from FTC? Crickets - literally.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#228

Post by vasco »

equality_1138 wrote: post #207
tytso wrote: post #25

When I was at IBM 15 years ago, IBM was far from being a monopoly, since there were plenty of competitors in the hardware space (HP, Sun, Dell, etc) and in the software space (Oracle, SAP, etc.) and in the Services space (Accenture, PwC, KPMG, etc.) employees still had to complete annual legal training that was very similar to what was described in the post. Any large company with half-way competent legal counsel is…

Healthier way? This is wrong. First, to admit your goal is to crush your competitors is completely appropriate. That is the exact way the market is supposed to work. Thoughts about hiding this inherent part of any businesses strategy is, well, fine for lawyers, but essentially ignorant for engineers. Lawyers are not paid to make things, nor to develop your strategy. They are paid to manipulate laws and the truth. To…

You can win a 100 meter race by having a goal of running sub 8 seconds, or you can win a race by having a goal of crushing the other athletes. It's up to you if during your training you're focused on the times versus on the other athletes. It's also up to you if during the race you're looking left and right to see how fast they're running or if you're just focused on going the fastest you can. I think this is the difference in approach that they were mentioning. Obviously you still defeat the competition as a byproduct of being the fastest, but they are very different approaches.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#230

Post by oefrha »

rossjudson wrote: post #195
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't negate my point in the least. The fact alone that there exists such an extensive training specifically about monopoly-related stuff hints that there is extensive monopolistic behavior liability for which only hinges on whether it's acknowledged as such in the internal communication. Also, it adds a whole new (new?) meaning to any press release or a blog post from Google using any of the terms from the right c…

Someday you will participate in a legal proceeding, and you will feel silly about writing this. I wish I could have those days back, when I believed that lawyers wouldn't twist words out of context, or construct entire alternate realities from a few found seed words. But they do, and the good ones are really good at it. Any competent company is going to train its people with some sort of variation on a course named "…

This is sound advice not only for corporate survival; you should also keep this in mind in personal communications. Even your private communications with your closest friends could be leaked years later if you somehow manage to cross the wrong people, and Internet mobs are every bit as capable as the smartest lawyers at constructing alternate realities from a few found seed words; or maybe they’re not as capable, but the bar of acceptance is also far lower.
Post reply on HN