Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance • Hacker News Board

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#281

Post by TheAceOfHearts » Fri, May 14, 2021, 2:29 PM UTC

CountDrewku wrote: post #159

Why is the EU the only one doing anything about monopolies? I'm tired of useless US politicians letting these massive corporations run our entire country. Break them up already.

I keep hearing claims about breaking up these large tech companies, but how do you envision that should or would look like? Do you know of any good resources where I could read up more on the topic?

Which companies would this apply to? Should Apple's vertical integration be disallowed and broken up? How would you split up Twitter?

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#282

Post by dalbasal » Fri, May 14, 2021, 3:03 PM UTC

Siira wrote: post #263

dalbasal wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "real" motive, only history. One thing led to another. Now we are here.

Your theory has zero predictive powers, unlike mine.

What does it predict?

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#283

Post by permo-w » Fri, May 14, 2021, 3:33 PM UTC

kosievdmerwe wrote: post #204

permo-w wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just a plurality? wouldn’t a plurality make them the controlling shareholder?

Plurality means largest stake, but that stake is less than 50%. So it means that they have a lot of say, but they can be overridden if every other shareholder disagrees.

isn’t the controlling shareholder generally the shareholder with the largest portion?

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#284

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 14, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #230

permo-w wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes but if you allow alternative app stores, then what? it’s either regulated by apple, which defeats the point, or it’s a security risk. I’m against walled gardens, I just disagree that there’s no security upside to it

put a system setting in place that lets you lock down the device if necessary with a password so grandma can use it safely? As OP points out you do not need an app store monopoly, you just need adjustable device settings.

[deleted]

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#285

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 14, 2021, 7:16 PM UTC

dan-robertson wrote: post #104

wccrawford wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But also in colloquial English, "rule out" means "eliminate by logic". Like, "use the rules to take it out of possibility".

I don’t think this is an accurate definition or etymology. The phrase can mean “formally remove” or just “eliminate”. I think it always alludes to using a stick of wood to draw a line rather than a regulation or law.

[deleted]

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#286

Post by zeroimpl » Sat, May 15, 2021, 12:00 AM UTC

wccrawford wrote: post #146

dan-robertson wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think this is an accurate definition or etymology. The phrase can mean “formally remove” or just “eliminate”. I think it always alludes to using a stick of wood to draw a line rather than a regulation or law.

My etymology might be completely wrong. No argument there. But as for the meaning, that's what it's always meant when I've heard it said. So it definitely means that, at least colloquially.

Definitely agree here. I’ve never associated a physical ruler with the verb rule.

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#287

Post by Closi » Sat, May 15, 2021, 9:06 AM UTC

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #281

CountDrewku wrote: post #159

Why is the EU the only one doing anything about monopolies? I'm tired of useless US politicians letting these massive corporations run our entire country. Break them up already.

I keep hearing claims about breaking up these large tech companies, but how do you envision that should or would look like? Do you know of any good resources where I could read up more on the topic? Which companies would this apply to? Should Apple's vertical integration be disallowed and broken up? How would you split up Twitter?

> Should Apple's vertical integration be disallowed and broken up?

Personally I think there are specific use-cases that should be identified and banned in competition law - for instance the issue here (which could be legislated against) is when companies become a marketplace/platform that they 'sell' their own services on, which their competitors also need to use their services to effectively compete.

It's the dual role of being both a marketplace and a seller on that marketplace at the same time that produces conflicts of interest and market abuse potential. Examples (on top of the Google example):

* Apple vs Spotify - Apple could retain 100% of margin on their music subscription service, while Spotify their competitor had to give away 30% of their margin to Apple if purchased via App Store (which was mandated).

* Amazon vs Marketplace Sellers - Amazon encourages other retailers to sell on their platform, but secretly spies on their data to understand if they should directly compete and undercut them.

This isn't the only thing that requires specific legislation - and other parts I personally think should be better-legislated include:

* Use of one product to entrench another non-connected product's market position (e.g. Chrome -> Google Ads is an issue because the dominance of Browser means that they also get dominance of online search, because they can track better than the competition).

* Use of market-power to ensure people offer the lowest cost on your platform, despite fees (Booking.com, Valve, Amazon).

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#288

Post by kosievdmerwe » Sat, May 15, 2021, 4:50 PM UTC

permo-w wrote: post #283

kosievdmerwe wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plurality means largest stake, but that stake is less than 50%. So it means that they have a lot of say, but they can be overridden if every other shareholder disagrees.

isn’t the controlling shareholder generally the shareholder with the largest portion?

AFAIK controlling shareholder means that the shareholder has more than 50% of the voting power. They or the group they belong to have unilateral control of the company barring some restrictions.

Though looking at this a large but not 50%+ stake can also be "controlling": https://www.upcounsel.com/controlling-shareholder

But controlling looks to more about how much voting power and influence you have rather than how many shares, because remember companies can have different classes of shares.

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#289

Post by TheAceOfHearts » Sat, May 15, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

Closi wrote: post #287

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep hearing claims about breaking up these large tech companies, but how do you envision that should or would look like? Do you know of any good resources where I could read up more on the topic? Which companies would this apply to? Should Apple's vertical integration be disallowed and broken up? How would you split up Twitter?

> Should Apple's vertical integration be disallowed and broken up? Personally I think there are specific use-cases that should be identified and banned in competition law - for instance the issue here (which could be legislated against) is when companies become a marketplace/platform that they 'sell' their own services on, which their competitors also need to use their services to effectively compete. It's the dual r…

That helped clarify a lot, thanks. All of the examples you present seem very reasonable and worth attempting to improve. It does seem like most of the larger tech companies have managed to amass so many resources and power that it's not feasible for others to compete fairly.

Another similar avenue for helping increase competition which I've been exploring is a reduction in the duration and power of IP protections. This would increase the propagation of good memes and the rate at which they may be iterated upon by others.