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

421–430 of 524 posts

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

#421

Post by gerash »

arder wrote: post #54

I feel like the US should have serious conversations about it's regulation of monopolies, especially on internet giants. The current system seems to be woefully ineffective. On the one hand, it's not clear it's necessarily, Google isn't a particularly old company it hasn't had a strangle hold for long and it doesn't look like it's business is unassailable. So why go after it at all. On the other hand, the anti-monopo…

Here's my take:

The lawsuit started under Trump DOJ as a political stunt because Google resembled wokeness and the party of freedom and family values (Republicans) wanted to show how tough they are to their constituents.

A few republican states also filed similar lawsuits in tandem which all got lumped together into this lawsuit.

Then the Biden came to power and kept at it because, well, he did keep a lot of Trump initiatives and now the DOJ people think they're some kind of a hero for working on this case.

Should suing Google really the highest priority for the administration? I don't think so but here we are.

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

#422

Post by thfuran »

missedthecue wrote: post #334

I think we need a better term than monopoly, that separates it from what people usually mean which is 'the best product'. I literally cannot think of any sort of product or service with lower switching costs than internet search. Typing bing.com takes 0.8 seconds and costs $0. Hundreds of orders of magnitude easier than switching to a different railroad if only one goes through your town. Google is a big ass company…

>I think we need a better term than monopoly, that separates it from what people usually mean which is 'the best product'.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that literally nobody means that when they say 'monopoly' but I doubt it is common enough for that claim to be made in good faith.

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

#423

Post by gerash »

layer8 wrote: post #320

The root of all the “evil” here is ads. I have no particular solutions to suggest — though banning paid ads altogether sounds like a worthwhile idea, apart from the definitional difficulties — but I believe that’s the aspect that needs to be tackled one way or the other.

Of course you think this way because you're the consumer of the free ad-funded internet services.

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

#424

Post by novia »

They could take the search team, flip a coin for each employee, and split it, maintaining rank. The team that's forced to leave to start their own search company will be able to leave with the full Google search codebase and dependencies (yes I know they have a monorepo, but figure it out).

That team will from that day forward be able to create a forked version of the product. Every gripe they had about it will be able to be fixed. They'll also be given half of Google's cash to hire the best people.

If search & ads are the main money makers, then force the existing company to compete with itself in those fields.

Also, instead, they could just unmerge doubleclick from Google. Let them make money by having ads on search and other places without BEING the advertising company.

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

#425

Post by nodamage »

cptskippy wrote: post #216
Workaccount2 wrote: post #151

I'm flumuxed that Google is the first tech company to be ruled a monopoly. I would put them fourth on the tech monopoly list, behind Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, in that order. I don't think there would be much benefit to society by breaking up google. Whereas I do think there would be great benefit to breaking up Apple or MS.

Microsoft was arguably the first, the case fell apart and ended up a settlement because the Judge presiding over the case violated the court code of conduct by discussing the case with the media. Something laughable in 2024. That being said, the trial is the basis for the action taken against Google: > However, the Circuit Court did not overturn Jackson's findings of fact, and held that traditional antitrust analysis…

> the case fell apart and ended up a settlement because the Judge presiding over the case violated the court code of conduct by discussing the case with the media.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Key parts of the original ruling were overturned because the legal analysis performed by the original judge was done incorrectly. Or more specifically, for the case of bundling IE with Windows, analyzed using the wrong legal framework (per se analysis vs rule of reason).

The case was remanded back to the district level for re-analysis under the rule of reason, and that would have been necessary regardless of the judge's behavior.

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

#426

Post by ekianjo »

warkdarrior wrote: post #355
hilbert42 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. I don't use Google and don't have a Google account, and I've no problem finding alternatives. I even have an Android phone, it still works fine with all the Google crap nuked.

Android is a Google product.

it is but custom roms can remove most of the stuff thats calling home

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

#427

Post by amy-petrik-214 »

missedthecue wrote: post #334

I think we need a better term than monopoly, that separates it from what people usually mean which is 'the best product'. I literally cannot think of any sort of product or service with lower switching costs than internet search. Typing bing.com takes 0.8 seconds and costs $0. Hundreds of orders of magnitude easier than switching to a different railroad if only one goes through your town. Google is a big ass company…

It's a fine thesis, google the humble search engine, easy to compete against. Sure. That argument stands. But.. ... google is not a search engine. There's the google duopoly with facebook (ads, user data). There's the google duopoly with apple (phone operating system), there's the gmail system not exactly the same as search. There's google the web browser, duopoly(ish) with firefox. There's the youtube (duopoly with netflix? monopoly?). Probably a bunch of other various duopolies.

Then there's all these other giga-sized "side projects" which seem small proportional to those mega-businesses - google home type stuff, google nest, waze, consumer electronics etc. Arguably the google nest and assistant is duopolistic with amazon alexa.

Which is the state of tech, there's like 5 big companies that share some portion of pies of 20 major duopolies and 100 minor duopolies. And they're all like "SEE! SEE! We're NOT a monopoly". And there's two of them saying that, pointing each at the other one as evidence of their non-monopoly status. To me that's monopoly by another name, and that other name is duopoly, and as such it has many of the same problems as the monopoly. And duopolies all every damn place, not just tech - NYSE and NASDAQ stock markets. Sony and xbox (sorry nintendo). Boeing and Airbus. Visa and Mastercard. Pepsi and Coke. Intel and AMD, AMD and NVIDIA. Windows and Mac. How many "gentleman's agreements" must exist in those duopolies, too many methinks

And so if you ask me it would be quite natural to shatter all these companies according to their duopolistic silos, with the hope being that the duopolies exist in part from the synergy and deep pockets of the whole organization, and so by breaking apart the duopolistic strings to the rest of the org, perhaps there can be a third and fourth phone operating system, home consumer electronic, web browser, youtube, and so on. Because the point of capitalism is an efficient market to serve the public, not to serve the megacorp coffers

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

#428

Post by Forgeties79 »

lenerdenator wrote: post #114
Forgeties79 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you are the only grocery store for 500mi yes you functionally have a “monopoly over your shelves.”

There's Bing and DDG (aka "Bing without tracking").

Bing barely has 10% of the market despite being owned by Microsoft and DDG has .5%

I am a DDG user and even I recognize they are barely a blip.

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

#429

Post by JKCalhoun »

chipdart wrote: post #261
JKCalhoun wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't see a baseless personal accusation in my comment. It wasn't meant to be anyway. More likely I still am not following your point.

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

#430

Post by danielmarkbruce »

fooker wrote: post #411
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0. The transition to bing from google costs 0.

You missed the point. The actual customer is the one buying ads. It's comically difficult to avoid Google if you're the one who wants to show ads.

Nope, you missed the point. Google isn't paying apple for advertisers, they are paying for distribution of eyeballs. You get the eyes, you get the ads.
Post reply on HN