Live data from Hacker News

Google is a monopoly – the fix isn't obvious

theregister.com

221–230 of 524 posts

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

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s odd how this is lost on people. Want to develop a game for PlayStation, Sony will need to approve. Want to develop a Facebook app, FB will gatekeep. If you wanted to make apps for the Danger Hiptop, you published through Danger. iOS is Apple’s consolized OS for their own hardware. It’s not a PC platform that anyone can put on whatever device they want. For better or worse.

I think there is a reasonable breaking point though, where the platform becomes so ingrained in society that you are left out of social groups if you don't join. "iPhone Families" is a very real thing that Apple has gone out of it's way to solidify. Or try being an (American) 15 year old kid and get included in group chats with an android phone. It's pretty gross when a mega-corp is so powerful that it can leverage y…

Personally, I think the breaking point is when the device transitions from "appliance" or niche device to general computer.

I think at a time a phone could be considered an appliance. But that's changed, and for many people their smartphone is their only general personal computer.

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

#222
post #206
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a false dilemma thought.

The secure solution is to treat every app as malicious and put it in a sandbox where it can not cause harm. See also Android and ChromeOS.

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

#223
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breaking up their individual businesses can cause each business to have incentives that line up better with their customers / users. Example: if Chrome was separated from Google, they won't have as much of an incentive to push back against adblockers with things like Manifest V3. Or include APIs that are only available to google websites (Which it has! https://x.com/lcasdev/status/1810696257137959018 )

I agree with your premise, but you're example is unfortunate. The manifest v3 thing was due to an API change to improve performance by pulling the renderer out of the critical path for network requests. Adblockers can still block ads (as in not show them), but they can't throttle or block requests. It would be better to point out that Chrome is the only browser not getting rid of third party cookies. Chrome promised…

> The manifest v3 thing was due to an API change to improve performance by pulling the renderer out of the critical path for network requests.

That is certainly the excuse given, but that doesn't mean it's the reason.

> Adblockers can still block ads (as in not show them), but they can't throttle or block requests.

Note that this makes them less effective at blocking ads. And speaking as a former uMatrix user, filtering/blocking the network traffic is a lot of the point.

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

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your problem isn't Google, your problem is capitalism and the limited attention economy. If you were in a position where you could just put things online and they may or may not be useful to people, you wouldn't be having this problem. But you're not; you're working for a taskmaster that demands attention or they can't justify their existence. If Google evaporates tomorrow, there's no guarantee that your product gets…

I’ll take capitalism controlling the internet any day over a communist dictatorship who will censor everything that doesn’t support the regime

False dichotomy

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

#225
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breaking up their individual businesses can cause each business to have incentives that line up better with their customers / users. Example: if Chrome was separated from Google, they won't have as much of an incentive to push back against adblockers with things like Manifest V3. Or include APIs that are only available to google websites (Which it has! https://x.com/lcasdev/status/1810696257137959018 )

I agree with your premise, but you're example is unfortunate. The manifest v3 thing was due to an API change to improve performance by pulling the renderer out of the critical path for network requests. Adblockers can still block ads (as in not show them), but they can't throttle or block requests. It would be better to point out that Chrome is the only browser not getting rid of third party cookies. Chrome promised…

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck. They used the “improved security” as an excuse while leaving other just as big holes in their security. Show me how AdGuard or ublock origin abused the current system in v2

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

#226
post #8
post #4

1. Forbid Google from paying Apple and Android OEM’s to be the default search engine. Also, detach Google search from Android and forbid Google from forcing it to be included on every Android phone. 2. Give Google search competitors access to Google’s search data so these new AI search engine companies can compete. Without these huge amounts of data, they have no chance. Done!

2 is not how the US breaks up monopolies

Right. Government-mandated access to proprietary data isn't how the US breaks up monopolies, but somewhat along those lines, it might make sense for some government to provide some similar data. This seems much closer to a European style government approach, and I wouldn't expect such a thing in the U.S.

The infra for a decent crawl is prohibitive. There's a bit of black magic in crawl scheduling, and a bit in de-duplication, but most of the challenge is in scale.

I used to work on Google's indexing system, and sat with the guys who wrote the Percolator system that basically used BigTable triggers to drive indexing and make it less batch-oriented.

I know France has made at least a couple of attempts at a government-funded "Google killer" search engine. I think it would be a better use of government money to make something like a government-run event-driven first-level indexing system where search engine companies could pay basically cloud computing costs to have their proprietary triggers populate their proprietary databases based on the government-run crawling and first-level analysis. When one page updates, you'd want all of the search engine startups running their triggers on the same copy of the data, rather than having to stream the data out to each of the search engine startups.

Basically, you want to take some importance metric, some estimate of the probability some content has changed since the last time you crawled it, combine the product of the two plus some additional constraints (crawl every known page at least some maximum period, don't hit any domain too hard, etc.) as a crawl priority. You then crawl the content, convert HTML, PDF, etc. to some marked-up text format (UTF-8 HTML isn't bad, but I think UTF-8 plain text plus some separate annotations in a binary format would be better). You strip out text that's too small or too close to the background color. You calculate one or more locality-sensitive hash functions over the plain text, cluster similar texts, pick a canonical URL for each cluster. You calculate the directed link graph across clusters. The PageRank patent has expired, so you could calculate PageRank and several other link-graph ranking signals across canonical clusters. You'd presumably compute some uniqueness scores, age scores, etc. for each canonical URL, and then in parallel run each of the search engine startup's analysis over this package of analysis data each time you find a change for a particular canonical URL.

You might have some startups providing spam scoring or other analysis and providing that (for fees, of course) to search engine startups, etc. Basically, you want to modularize the indexing and analysis to provide competition and nearly seamless transition between competing providers within your ecosystem.

I think that's the way to drive innovation in the search engine startup space and properly leverage economies of scale across search engine startups.

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

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're a part of a duopoly on a product that is necessary for participating in the modern economy with as much friction as iOS has for switching to the only viable competitor... what makes it so fundamentally different from the web? IMO they can either keep the duopoly and deal with regulation or they can keep full control of their platform. One or the other. Same goes for Android.

So if a business mode is successful, regardless of whether it’s actively thwarted competition or acted anticompetitively, it should be regulated? It’s not the web. It’s not a PC. It’s a sandboxed console. > MO they can either keep the duopoly and deal with regulation or they can keep full control of their platform. Then they’ll keep they’re platform and not be regulated ;-) (I know what you meant).

> So if a business mode is successful, regardless of whether it’s actively thwarted competition or acted anticompetitively, it should be regulated?

Yes. If a product becomes essential for participation in the economy and lacks substantial competition, regulation is the only mechanism we have to protect the people. Why should it matter how it got there?

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

#228

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.

Why wouldn’t Google search be viable if it could negotiate rates with multiple ad networks? IMO there would be more net revenue generated from competition in the ad space.

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

#229
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, it would be buying an android phone

Buying a phone from another vendor is only viable if Apple/Google didn't try to lock you in. Of course we know that's not true - you can't just go elsewhere and that's by design.

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

#230
post #192

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…

Splitting ads and search is a nonstarter. Ads on the search page are very different from ads on other pages since search ads can leverage information retrieved during the search. Ads on other pages have to use contextual or remarketing signals, with much poorer results.

I don’t think I follow. Whatever the technical integration between Google search and Google ads, why could it not be done with multiple, competing ad networks?
Post reply on HN