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

261–270 of 524 posts

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

#261

Post by chipdart »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #149
kmmlng wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems to be in support of the parent's point. So breaking up Google would have resulted in worse outcomes for consumers 10 years ago, but it would be even worse today? Then it wouldn't have made sense to break them up 10 years ago and it would make even less sense today. I'm not claiming there aren't any good reasons to break up Google (I don't know), but this line of argumentation doesn't work as far as I can s…

If your of the opinion that Google should not be broken up at all, ever, then your point is valid.

> If your of the opinion that Google should not be broken up at all, ever, then your point is valid.

I don't think it's a good sign that you decided to resort to baseless personal accusations in reaction to a simple request to support your baseless clams.

The question is very simple: does it still make sense to break the company today? Not a decade ago, but today. It you believe so, why?

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

#262

Post by shadowgovt »

maeil wrote: post #250
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.

> 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) No, that's not possible. Google pays $20 billion to Safari to be the default search engine. Imagine how much they would pay an independent Chrome, which has many multiples of Safari's market share. That alone guarantees it would be an incredibly…

Would they be allowed, or would that be more anti-competitive behavior?

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

#263

Post by newsclues »

vel0city wrote: post #112
newsclues wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ma Bell didn’t have the power to cut off advertising revenue to YouTubers who say things the company does like, nor the power to shape the global access to information with search, nor did they scan people’s communications

Ma Bell had the power to make it so you couldn't talk on a wire, at all . They owned all the wires. They owned all the phones. But sure, being de-monetized on a website, that's way worse. And yes, Ma Bell had the ability to listen in to every conversation had on a wire. Not just some, all . Meanwhile most conversations I have on the internet don't involve Google in the slightest.

More control over a narrower aspect of life, vs control over many parts of your life.

Google can be your email, your phone, your ISP, own your health data, control what you watch, listen, search for, it can control your ability to make money or even control access to your data and documents.

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

#264

Post by FMecha »

elforce002 wrote: post #160

While we're at it, we need to break Microsoft and Amazon asap. I don't know how Microsoft is not up for discussion when it's a behemoth (GitHub, LinkedIn, Azure, Windows, Office, etc.). The same applies for Amazon.

They tried to do this in 2000/2001, but it didn't result in a breakup.

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

#265

Post by labcomputer »

maeil wrote: post #250
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.

> 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) No, that's not possible. Google pays $20 billion to Safari to be the default search engine. Imagine how much they would pay an independent Chrome, which has many multiples of Safari's market share. That alone guarantees it would be an incredibly…

But Google isn’t allowed to pay to be the default search engine anymore. So that revenue stream is gone.

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

#266

Post by chipdart »

ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #156
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears to me that your two paragraphs contradict each other. If we break up Google and what comes afterwards is worse, then break it up or we'll get worse? Is it worse if we do and worse if we don't? Which "worse" is worse? Or do I misunderstand your point? The whole point of breaking up monopolies is not moral principle. It's so that things get better for customers. If they don't, then what's the justification f…

Things may get worse for a while, but then maybe they'll eventually get better than if we didn't break up Google.

> Things may get worse for a while, but then maybe they'll eventually get better than (...)

This argument is perplexing. Isn't the whole point of this sort of intervention to fix things that are broken so that everyone is better off? You're arguing for major interventions at a time they are arguably not needed at all and would expectedly leave everyone worse, and the only mitigating factor you could come up was that perhaps who knows things might "eventually get better". Maybe. I don't know?

What's the point, then?

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

#267

Post by extraduder_ire »

sensanaty wrote: post #174
matthewfelgate wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about Microsoft?

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…

Amazon is a funny example to imagine being broken up, since they famously try to isolate their business units from each other and keep them self-sustaining income wise. It might kill or dramatically change some business units like twitch, or IMDB though.

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

#268

Post by diffeomorphism »

brookst wrote: post #233
isodev wrote: 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?

I’m not a subscriber to the “if I choose to buy a product, I get to dictate product design decisions for the company” school of thought. Buy it or don’t. If you want X there is no right do demand Y turn into X.

"buy it or don't" does not work with oligopolies. If you had a free market, I would agree, but you very much don't in this case.

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

#269

Post by chipdart »

brookst wrote: post #86
timmg wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There has been nothing in my life so disillusioning as working on a Web app for a company that is more or less required to play Google's game. Have you built any iOS apps?

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

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

OP was whining over Google's role in Android. Pointing out Apple's control of iOS, and the fact that iPhone is by far the dominant platform for handhelds, does refute OP's personal assertion.

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

#270

Post by jauntywundrkind »

chipdart wrote: post #253
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.

> If what comes after is not better, then we waited too long to break this monopoly up. I don't follow your logic, because it does not have any logic. Can you clarify your line of reasoning? I mean, if breaking up a company creates more problems than the ones it solves, what leads you to believe that anticipating the breakup would have any impact whatsoever in the fact that breaking up the company creates more proble…

The main thing I specifically value about Google being whole is that there is a part of the business that is a firehouse of money, and some sizable % of this money is used in a Patronage system, supporting not the arts but open source technology & standards.

This world would be much poorer a place without this open source work & protocols.

I struggle to think of how else we would have got this, what action we would have taken to keep this outcom, while not "waiting too long".

Post reply on HN