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

Google/IAC/Expedia (2019)

techemails.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: Google/IAC/Expedia (2019)

#41

Post by ivan_gammel »

kubb wrote: post #36
ivan_gammel wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally do not own Google shares directly, it’s mostly ETFs. I do not care much about Google and would rather prefer the portfolio to be diverse enough, meaning that there’s enough competition on the market and enough other companies worth investing. We do not need monopolies to prosper, because they reduce the size of the pie. Any fan of free market would agree with me, because when competition does not exist,…

Just saying, I’m not talking about idealized free markets, but specifically what we have right now. Your ETFs rely on the companies in the basket doing what Google does.

Maybe those companies should have been smaller and focus on returning money to shareholders rather than on investment in expansion to other markets/products. It all depends on their size and influence.

Re: Google/IAC/Expedia (2019)

#42

Post by oefrha »

This is Expedia we’re talking about, the face of an industry that has marketed/SEOed/strongarmed their way into taking a cut on the majority of reservations. They’re literally the Google to the industry they feed on. I bet a lot of business owners hate them more than they hate Google, even though Expedia considers themself “vibrant innovative enterprises that deliver value for consumers”.

Re: Google/IAC/Expedia (2019)

#43

Post by fdw »

avidiax wrote: post #35
fidotron wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android, cloud, email, youtube, maps, search and advertising could all be entirely separate businesses in an actual sense.

Android -- a cost center. No viable business model. Maybe Samsung would fork AOSP for their phones. Cloud -- has to run at a loss in the immediate future to capture marketshare Email -- nobody pays for email. Get ready for a much smaller mailbox and ads targeted by email contents. Get "sponsored" emails in your feed. YouTube -- was a separate company before Maps -- will become a free tourist map, may have to pay to u…

But isn't that the very problem?

The market for these loss-leading services is skewed because Google subsidizes their free offerings so that they improve their ads branch. Because it is hard to compete with a free (actually money-losing) service, it is very hard for competitors to spring up. And thus the whole thing is anti-competitive.

If they were separate companies and had to compete on their own merit, not subsidized by the ads division, they'd have to ask for money too. Then, competitors actually have a chance to offer something better. And through that, the reach of the ads business is limited unless they start to work with the competing services. This opens up the market for other ad markets, too.

And then we are a step closer to the free market that is efficient and good for consumers.

Re: Google/IAC/Expedia (2019)

#44

Post by passwordoops »

kubb wrote: post #21

In my impression, a lot of people here hold a surprisingly contradictory set of beliefs. They're huge fans of the current economic system, where the main actors are publicly owned companies, and where we rely on profits growing YOY to generate wealth for everyone (who owns the stocks). And, on the other hand, they're critical of Google which is operating precisely as such a company, and doing exactly what it needs fo…

You're right that the company and execs are behaving exactly as they should given the regulatory environment that existed since the 1980s. Namely, do not stand in the way of consolidation and only consider consumer prices for anti-Trust evaluations.

Unfortunately that's a fundamentally anti-capitalist way to go about things because the end result is what Google, and frankly all other dominant, publicly traded corporations are doing right now: profit by increasing rent-seeking and strangling competition rather than out-innovate (e.g 1, for perspective Google's cost of remaining the default search engine is about on par for their average R&D spend; in a healthy, thriving, innovative environment that wouldn't be the case).

The problem isn't Google per se, they're acting as expected. It's the regulatory capture of the judiciary and FTC from ignoring and/or dismantling the laws that would have prevented this environment from occurring in the first place. So we don't have a vibrant, diverse ecosystem anywhere, whether search, washing machines, publishing, defense contractors, etc.

Luckily the tide is turning with the Google trial on right now, and Amazon kicking off soon.

(1) https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/27/23934961/google-antitrus...

Re: Google/IAC/Expedia (2019)

#45

Post by passwordoops »

tvc wrote: post #10

Bit rich considering Expedia's subsidiary Trivago was fined by the ACCC in Australia for pushing hotel listings by the highest paying advertisers to the top of their search results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivago#Legal_issues

Not rich at all given given this is the game Google is forcing everyone to play

Re: Google/IAC/Expedia (2019)

#46

Post by eloisant »

epolanski wrote: post #3

Between Android, App Store, Chrome and Search Google has a very big stronghold over how people access and consume the internet. Google has an insane competitive advantage over most of the internet into knowing exactly what are people looking for and being the first to provide it. This isn't any different to what Amazon does on their shop. They know what sells and for how better than any of their sellers, and they wil…

Yes, we can't blame Google for making as much money as possible.

But we can blame regulators for letting them.

Re: Google/IAC/Expedia (2019)

#47

Post by kubb »

passwordoops wrote: post #44
kubb wrote: post #21

In my impression, a lot of people here hold a surprisingly contradictory set of beliefs. They're huge fans of the current economic system, where the main actors are publicly owned companies, and where we rely on profits growing YOY to generate wealth for everyone (who owns the stocks). And, on the other hand, they're critical of Google which is operating precisely as such a company, and doing exactly what it needs fo…

You're right that the company and execs are behaving exactly as they should given the regulatory environment that existed since the 1980s. Namely, do not stand in the way of consolidation and only consider consumer prices for anti-Trust evaluations. Unfortunately that's a fundamentally anti-capitalist way to go about things because the end result is what Google, and frankly all other dominant, publicly traded corpora…

Do you think there should be regulation preventing consolidation in other areas, like land ownership?

Re: Google/IAC/Expedia (2019)

#48

Post by eloisant »

kubb wrote: post #21

In my impression, a lot of people here hold a surprisingly contradictory set of beliefs. They're huge fans of the current economic system, where the main actors are publicly owned companies, and where we rely on profits growing YOY to generate wealth for everyone (who owns the stocks). And, on the other hand, they're critical of Google which is operating precisely as such a company, and doing exactly what it needs fo…

Anti-trust laws are crucial for a well functioning capitalism.

Without them, power eventually gets concentrated into few companies holding monopolies, while the fundamental of capitalism is competition.

The problem is anti-trust laws have not been enforced and we let tech companies hold way too much power.

Re: Google/IAC/Expedia (2019)

#49

Post by fulafel »

kubb wrote: post #21

In my impression, a lot of people here hold a surprisingly contradictory set of beliefs. They're huge fans of the current economic system, where the main actors are publicly owned companies, and where we rely on profits growing YOY to generate wealth for everyone (who owns the stocks). And, on the other hand, they're critical of Google which is operating precisely as such a company, and doing exactly what it needs fo…

Also the elephant in the headline - facilitating mass air travel is of course facilitating the climate catastrophe. Watching megaorps debate about the market rules of how to optimize this harmful activity is its own special kind of grotesque.

Re: Google/IAC/Expedia (2019)

#50

Post by thecompilr »

tvc wrote: post #10

Bit rich considering Expedia's subsidiary Trivago was fined by the ACCC in Australia for pushing hotel listings by the highest paying advertisers to the top of their search results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivago#Legal_issues

That is different though, they weren’t pushing their own hotels. Google actually built a competing product and integrated it with all its services including search and maps.
Post reply on HN