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

US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 888 posts

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#461

Post by gerash »

arrosenberg wrote: post #340
adventured wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big tech is very good for the US. They're far more difficult to compete with in terms of scale and the resources they can deploy, than small companies. It more easily enables the US to suffocate the tech efforts of other competing nations. Giving this advantage up is extraordinarily moronic by the US. There is no benefit to the US by making it easier for the rest of the world to compete with the US golden geese. The…

Big Tech is stagnant and mostly good at milking the US consumer for cash. The tech industry would be better serve the average American if the market was more dynamic, and that requires breaking up the big players who are (often illegally) stifling competition.

What industry is not stagnant then? Auto? Medicine? Food?

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#462

Post by T-Winsnes »

hzia wrote: post #446
stego-tech wrote: post #188

Loving the discourse in the comments here. Speaking as someone who grew up alongside Google in a sense, I fall on the side of the "break it up" camp. It was novel at the time to have a single company so nicely provide us with everything digitally that we could need - G Suite, YouTube, Search, Maps, Advertising, Books, Reader, etc - but in hindsight, we gave too much power to too unaccountable an entity, who in turn u…

I think most people do not understand that Google funnels a lot of their profits to make Chrome and Android into OSS. Youtube may be the only viable company that can come out of Google. Rest will either have to charge a lot of money or die. And we will be left with an even more profitable ad giant, that sends back all profits to it's share holders.

I think you underestimate the value of controlling the platform that you base all your revenue from. Chrome controls the internet and android has a huge market share on mobile.

The latest changes to chrome that breaks plugins like ublock origin allows them to keep maximising their advertising revenue.

I think these two being open source is a major reason why they have been so successfully adopted. It isn’t direct revenue, but the control and indirect revenue that comes from that which is the driver

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#463

Post by rafaelmn »

robertlagrant wrote: post #441
dmonitor wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My concern is that breaking up Google without breaking up Microsoft will basically just be giving MS a huge advantage in the multitude of categories in which they compete with each other, so we'll be left in an even worse situation than before.

Yeah. Google is far less locked in than Microsoft. Gaming across Windows and Xbox vs Sony/Nintendo. Office is used by almost every org in the world. Azure locked in via clickops IT staff always wanting to pick it; you have to make a big case to use GCP or AWS in a lot of companies vs "just" using Azure. Google's search advantage could be taken away with another website that's better. There's no installed base or corp…

Is Microsoft gaming relevant that much these days ? Admittedly I'm not gaming that much but I own PS5 and Mac and I don't really feel I'm missing out on any titles I'd want to play. Big stuff comes out on PS5 and Steam - I did see Microsoft buying a bunch of studios but the impact of that feels irrelevant in grand scheme of things.

Office/GCloud does feel like the two big players but I'm sure competition would creep up here if GSuite went away (and I doubt it would, even as a standalone company).

Working for big corps these days I see that supporting Apple devices is pretty standard.

I'd say Microsoft is way less entrenched than it was 10-15 years ago technically - but they do a great job of selling Azure to enterprises. And even there AWS is a huge competitor without Google.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#464

Post by JumpCrisscross »

WalterBright wrote: post #458
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the DoJ is an executive department, it is notoriously independent. Google is one of the biggest lobbyists in D.C. Trying to predict anti-trust actions by lobbying activity is naïve to the point of being counter-productive: it can be better, in many cases, to fly under the radar. (Exhibit A: Andreessen Horowitz.)

Cisco reputedly avoided an anti-trust action by wining and dining DoJ lawyers. Microsoft, in comparison, said rude things about the DoJ. Of course, I wish things did not work this way. But isn't it a bit naive to think it doesn't?

> Cisco reputedly avoided an anti-trust action by wining and dining DoJ lawyers

Source? (They settled with Multiven.)

> isn't it a bit naive to think it doesn't

No, it's naïve to think that level of influence can be bought. Not an uncommon mistake. Bankman-Fried made it, and it's increasingly looking like Bytedance did too. But D.C. is a town obsessed with power over money. People regularly toss aside lobbyists and their clients if it's politically expedient. In part because it's not like the lobbyists (or their clients) ditch them after being spurned.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#465

Post by threeseed »

ineedasername wrote: post #456
hzia wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people do not understand that Google funnels a lot of their profits to make Chrome and Android into OSS. Youtube may be the only viable company that can come out of Google. Rest will either have to charge a lot of money or die. And we will be left with an even more profitable ad giant, that sends back all profits to it's share holders.

The Android Play Store alone generates about $100B/year for Google. I saw $40B as what Google has spent over the years on Android. That seems like a viable business.

At least according to this, Google generated ~$47B/year.

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/google-play-statistics/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/444476/google-play-annua...

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#466

Post by lelandbatey »

braabe wrote: post #326
someluccc wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A) Do you pay them? - No: then yes it is free “But my data” Have your ever sold your data? Would the value you could ever possibly receive for your data ever equate to the value you get from the free services? Likely No and No. Is the free ad supported city newspaper free? Yes it is in fact free, just like FM radio is free, and broadcast television is free, and sidewalks next to billboards are free Someone creating s…

All of these examples are probably in part or fully paid for with some sort of taxes. So it is less "no payments" and more "deferred payments". I would argue that the question of "Is it free?" should not be restricted to monetary payments. If I offer you dinner for an hour of yardwork - are you receiving the food for free? If I would offer you that same dinner in exchange for letting me watch you use your computer fo…

You're describing the difference between highly diffuse costs (taxes -> sidewalks) and transactional costs (price of a hamburger -> hamburger).

I would like private businesses to offer transactional costs. I do not want businesses leveraging diffuse costs; I'd prefer that only my governments use diffuse costs and that private businesses have limited ability to use diffuse costs. At least with government I get a vote.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#467

Post by ineedasername »

nox101 wrote: post #397
pembrook wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we’re just arguing semantics. No, you can’t buy user data on 1 specific person (then again, there’s many examples of people buying ads on a persons name to catch them googling themselves), but you can buy user data on small groups of people.

No you can't. It's not semantics. It's reality. You can't buy data on people or groups of people from google any more than you can buy data on people from NBC, ABC, CBS. From TV stations you can buy ads during specific programs. That's it. From Google you can buy ads. You can not buy data. Data is something you can do something with on your own, analyse it, etc. Google does not give you data.

Google will let you target on the following. Especially by combining criteria you can narrow things down to very small specific groups of people. If a person in that campaign then clicms and enters a name and email I have a better profile on them as a person than many of their neighbors.

Demographics: Target users based on age, gender, parental status, household income, and more

Interests: Target people based on their interests, even if they're visiting pages about other topics

In-market audiences: Target users who are actively looking for products or services similar to yours

Custom intent audiences: Create and target audiences based on their search behavior and interests

Remarketing lists: Reconnect with users who have previously interacted with your website or app

Customer match: Use your first-party data to reach and re-engage with your customers

Similar segments: Expand the reach of your best-performing audiences by targeting new users with similar characteristics

Affinity audiences: Reach people based on a holistic picture of their lifestyles, passions, and habits

Life events segments: Target users

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#468

Post by shiroiushi »

busterarm wrote: post #99
shiroiushi wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one of several scary scenarios. What if it kills Android, and everyone has to buy an iPhone? (Yeah, I know, Android is OSS and the phone makers could just maintain/improve it as a consortium without Google, but looking at how these companies operate I don't think they're capable of doing this.) (And no, I don't think the USG will break up Apple if this happens. They're already showing highly preferential treat…

Samsung could easily maintain Android as they already have their own little Android software ecosystem that differs greatly from Google's. Full of spyware, but yeah. There's tons of video hosting options but what makes YouTube special is access to a large audience and monetization. TikTok's monetization is garbage and not even a contender really. Large content creators are already negotiating their own brand deals to…

OpenStreetMaps is utterly useless for urban navigation. No connection to the local transit system, no business directory, it's only useful if you have a physical address you want to go to, and personally I never have that information.

MapQuest doesn't have any of this stuff either. Apple Maps is probably the closest, but it falls very far short of what Google Maps can do.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#469

Post by JumpCrisscross »

hightrix wrote: post #405
BurningFrog wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the worst attempt at logical reasoning I've seen in a while...

What’s hard for you to understand? Plumbing is good and useful. Plumbing using lead pipes is harmful. Advertising can be good and useful. Modern advertising that requires tracking everything a user does is harmful.

> What’s hard for you to understand?

They're looking for depth where there isn't any. You're attempting to prove advertising is bad by claiming it's like lead pipes, on the basis of them both being bad. It's tautology. One could similarly "prove" ad blockers or puppies by this analogy to be whatever because they, too, can be good or bad.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#470

Post by [deleted] »

zaphar wrote: post #172
tivert wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're getting it backwards. The research operations are a desperate attempt stave off regulation to keep the sweet, sweet monopoly profits coming in (and those profits are so big that the bean-counters allow it). I believe that was the explicit strategy at AT&T. We collectively pay way, way more. It'd be way more efficient and cost effective to just set up a well-funded government labs to do that research.

I am not at all confident that a government lab will be either well-funded or efficient in any sense of the words.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN