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

321–330 of 524 posts

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

#321

Post by mminer237 »

consteval wrote: post #232
nordsieck wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Personally, I think Search should be a public, not private, effort. Indexing the internet should be a global endeavor beneficial to world governments in unison. The issue is that the potential for censorship is rife, but I think including many govs on a board might solve this.

Google has already specifically deranked Russian government media and media promoting the lab leak theory during COVID. Obviously China would require the index to exclude any mention of Tiananmen Square. If it's anything like the UN, Jerusalem Post will be deranked in favor of Al Jazeera on every search relating to the Middle East.

I just think it's a complete non-starter for any government to allow foreign governments to decide everything your citizens see. If they don't bow to your brand of censorship, you're going to pull out.

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

#322

Post by booleandilemma »

dmonitor wrote: post #259
Someone wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know how Microsoft is not up for discussion when it's a behemoth Because we think interfering with the free market is necessary when a company misuses market power, not solely when it is a behemoth.

Let’s be real: Windows is practically a monopoly. They use it to push their online services in ridiculous ways. I doubt >10% of the current Edge userbase is through conscious decision. Teams obviously cannot compete on its own terms with any competitors, its prevalence only comes from being part of Microsoft’s all in one office suite package that no individual company can compete with.

I don't think it's true that Windows is a monopoly anymore. You could always get a mac. Most people I know use macs, in fact. I still use Windows but I'm in the minority. I tried going to Linux earlier but I still feel Windows has smoother performance.

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

#323

Post by MrDrMcCoy »

nox101 wrote: post #311
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Without Google subsidizing Chrome, a real competitive market for browsers might emerge Without Chrome there will be only be Safari and Edge

I don't that Edge would survive without Chrome. I think it would be more fair to say that without Chrome, there will only be Safari, Firefox, Ladybird, and Verso. Yes, the latter two aren't ready yet, but I get they would gain fast traction in Chrome's absence.

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

#325

Post by b112 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #241
consteval wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All that will happen is new ad placements from smaller companies, directly in the browser. I don't think this is going to be the case. This seems like an extreme conclusion with virtually no precedent. Since an ad browser is such an important piece of software, I imagine it will receive many donations. The reason Chrome doesn't is because it doesn't need them. I think that will change. Also, I think it's possible y…

The precedent is that every browser out there currently has one of: - integration to ad infrastructure - integration to the vendor's other service infrastructure - a cost of more than $0 Given that the market is full of people who will only bear $0, the likely conclusion is that a Chrome separated from the ability to integrate to vendor infrastructure will turn to integrating to someone's ad infrastructure (more poor…

No one pays $0. All that slurping of user data is used by other corps to maximize their profits.

They're paying for that data, and then believe they're making more from consumers as a result. But no matter what, the cost of collecting that data, the infra, and then corp x or y buying it, comes out of the bottom line.

It's like points credit cards. Where does that cash back come from, magical fairies? It comes from retailers' bottom lines, eg from you.

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

#326

Post by trueismywork »

oneplane wrote: post #67
fny wrote: post #31

I'm very curious to see what a breakup looks like. Past breakups involved "uniform" businesses: - American Tobacco: Commodity - Standard Oil: Commodity - AT&T: Utility - Northern Securities: Railroads - Swift & Co: Meatpacking - Kodak: Film - Paramount: Movie Theaters Google is more of a synergistic conglomerate. How would spinning off an individual business like Chrome, Android, or AdWords reduce their respective do…

There are probably only a small number of services that could successfully spin off on their own, but a lot of the value is in integration, which as others point out is also how some things seem 'free'. An easier example would be Microsoft and Office; you could spin off an application like that quite successfully, the same might apply to their ERP. But those examples only stem from the fact that they used to be isola…

If things are broken up, we will get open standards for integration. The value of open standard would be much higher than today. Think how XMPP might have evolved if everyone had an interest in keeping it open.

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

#328

Post by MrDrMcCoy »

consteval wrote: post #232
nordsieck wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Personally, I think Search should be a public, not private, effort. Indexing the internet should be a global endeavor beneficial to world governments in unison. The issue is that the potential for censorship is rife, but I think including many govs on a board might solve this.

You could contribute to the solution by spinning up an indexer for Yacy.

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

#329

Post by ben_w »

nox101 wrote: post #311
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Without Google subsidizing Chrome, a real competitive market for browsers might emerge Without Chrome there will be only be Safari and Edge

Safari may also be facing the same issues; even before this, the rules about browsers in iOS were (to my non-lawyer eyes) suspiciously similar in market impact to Microsoft's Internet Explorer in Windows 95, for which they got in trouble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

But Edge will not be the only alternative; Firefox does still exist, and the Chromium project has forked into several other browsers besides Edge.

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

#330

Post by trueismywork »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #122

It is so easy to switch away from Google I just can't take any break up attempt seriously. ATT WAS phone service in the U.S. 90% of the U.S used ATT when it was broken up, and much of that 90% had no alternative. With Google if another better search engine did appear you could switch in minutes. And if you consider Android a monopoly then you'd have to consider iOS one too, and that's one much more obvious in it's us…

ATTs customers were phone users, hence it was difficult for them. Google's customers are ad companies, and for them, switching away from Google is impossible. By thinking of how easy it is for you to switch, you are not considering the correct customers. And this shows in your statement about better search engine, better search engine cannot come without customers (not you) having option to switch.
Post reply on HN