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

491–500 of 524 posts

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

#491

Post by randomdata »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #489
randomdata wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it wasn't. I didn't start the discussion. All the more reason for you to stick the topic that is already there. No need to double down on whatever out-to-lunch behaviour that came beforehand. If you really want to talk about something else, why not start a new thread? > One of the biggest complaints is the fees Google pay Apple. Right, because that solidifies their position in the market. That spend provides a…

The thread started by someone saying switching costs are zero. Actually read the case. Maybe start with the conclusion. Surely at some point you get tired of just making stuff up.

> The thread started by someone saying switching costs are zero.

And as discussion continued, it was asked what the transition costs are for advertisers. He who answered that question clearly claimed it was also zero. This "someone said something about search users earlier", while technically true, is unrelated to anything being talked about here.

In danielmarkbruce speak: Actually read the comments. Whatever it is that you missed is leaving you horribly confused.

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

#492

Post by mulmen »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #437
mcpar-land wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breaking up their individual businesses can cause each business to have incentives that line up better with their customers / users. Example: if Chrome was separated from Google, they won't have as much of an incentive to push back against adblockers with things like Manifest V3. Or include APIs that are only available to google websites (Which it has! https://x.com/lcasdev/status/1810696257137959018 )

> Example: if Chrome was separated from Google, they won't have as much of an incentive to push back against adblockers I think your example is completely wrong. Chrome has no source of funding. If separated from Google, they will have a massively magnified incentive to cater to the whims of advertisers because they would be completely subservient to them for funding. My understanding is that Chrome provides value to…

The “intangibles” you reference have a name. It’s called vertical integration.

Boeing used to own an oil company, engine manufacturer, airline, and airplane manufacturing. The US government broke them up because nobody can compete with that vertical integration.

This is a common issue addressed by strong anti-trust regulations.

If Google (or any online business) is prevented from owning a web browser then the browsers compete on merit. Consumers choose what is actually good for them.

Google has no incentive to make a good browser for consumers. They only have incentive to make one that is good enough for consumers to behave in Google’s interest. And if nobody can compete then that bar is low. Consumers don’t know what they are missing. Nobody does because we haven’t had a competitive browser market in close to three decades.

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

#493

Post by ProllyInfamous »

My major complaint is when cities/states/governments only use a Google product for hosting allegedly-public data — which is otherwise inaccessible (unless you allow access to e.g. Google Drive).

Even worse is when these "public forums" are hosted entirely within walled gardens, e.g. Facebook; then you need an account (and not just DNS whitelisting) to participate in this public forum.

All government entities should be required to post public documents on their own servers/equipment/hostname.

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

#494

Post by flessner »

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…

The issue isn't having a monopoly, it's exploiting vertical integration in digital platforms.

- Hardware (Google Pixel, Chromecast, Chromebook)

- OS (Android, ChromeOS)

- Distribution (Google Play Store)

- Browser (Chrome)

- Search (Google)

- Products (YouTube, Drive, Gmail, ...)

- Business (GCP, Workspace)

The only other companies that are similar are Microsoft and Apple... both arguably less extensive.

The issue with this also isn't entirely clear until it's "exploited": Google (and the others) can force certain products on their customers due to controlling the "underlying" product. Ad targeting also becomes incredibly precise and valuable... everyone else has to go through the scraps while Google can "just" read your emails (Gmail), get your location (Hardware/OS), go through your files and photos (Drive) and use your search history (Google).

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

#495

Post by danielmarkbruce »

randomdata wrote: post #491
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thread started by someone saying switching costs are zero. Actually read the case. Maybe start with the conclusion. Surely at some point you get tired of just making stuff up.

> The thread started by someone saying switching costs are zero. And as discussion continued, it was asked what the transition costs are for advertisers. He who answered that question clearly claimed it was also zero. This "someone said something about search users earlier" , while technically true, is unrelated to anything being talked about here. In danielmarkbruce speak: Actually read the comments. Whatever it is…

The debate was around two things - which is the relevant group and what the costs were for each.

Read the comments. Read the case. Stop making things up.

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

#496

Post by randomdata »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #495
randomdata wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thread started by someone saying switching costs are zero. And as discussion continued, it was asked what the transition costs are for advertisers. He who answered that question clearly claimed it was also zero. This "someone said something about search users earlier" , while technically true, is unrelated to anything being talked about here. In danielmarkbruce speak: Actually read the comments. Whatever it is…

The debate was around two things - which is the relevant group and what the costs were for each. Read the comments. Read the case. Stop making things up.

Debate is for maladjusted high school students. All we have here is laughing at he who thought that there are no costs to transition from using Google's ad service to something else, and continuing to laugh at the doubling down on the out-to-lunchery that followed.

You'd have known that if you read the comments.

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

#497

Post by bsder »

shadowgovt wrote: post #470
bsder wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The market price for a browser from a consumer perspective is $0. The market price for search is $0. And yet we have Kagi because Google is now so ad infested. Ads are now bad enough that there is money in killing them. The market price for email is $0. And yet we have Fastmail. The problem with Google is dumping . The cross-subsidization means that YouTube, Gmail, Chrome, etc. can run at a loss indefinitely and so…

But do we have any reason to believe that in the absence of Google, the next dumper won't just come along and take their place? The government isn't exactly signaling a willingness to change the fundamentals of the market here. > YouTube, on the other hand, should be sued into oblivion for not implementing identity checks for upload YouTube is probably actually too big to fail at this point. Breaking YouTube video li…

> But do we have any reason to believe that in the absence of Google, the next dumper won't just come along and take their place?

A new dumper would have to compete with the split out Google Ad Company for ad resources in order to have enough money to cross subsidize. The Baby Bells reformed, but they never again reached "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company." levels (other companies took on that mantle).

> Hosting video (efficiently and performantly) is still actually expensive, and YouTube is eating the cost of subsidizing most of the Internet's archive of videos.

That's even more reason to crack them up immediately. Did Google not just shut down the DejaNews Usenet archive--something that had negligible storage cost?

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

#498

Post by nonrandomstring »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #482
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, I think you're right. It hides a lot. We do need a better understanding of the problems. But be careful what you wish for. Google being a monopoly is not a cause, but a symptom. Do a little 5Y analysis. Even rolling it back one step; Q. Why is Google/Microsoft etc a monopoly? A. Because they bought up all the competitors. So, a deeper problem is the very ability to buy a…

Sorry that was clumsy and insensitive of me to suggest values should go ahead of money.

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

#499

Post by jemmyw »

parineum wrote: post #474
jemmyw wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read through some of the documents of the original complaint. This is mainly not about Google being the dominant search engine for consumers. It's more to do with their anti competitive behavior in the ad tech market. As a consumer, switching is easy. As a company that wants to advertise, switching is not easy if Google holds all the users. But also they've bought up all sides of the market, so what used to be comp…

I agree with you on the premise of the complaint but I think the parent's point still holds, the reason why you don't want to switch to another ad company is because all the people are with Google but they're with Google because they like it. The judgment makes a lot of hay over google paying to be the default search engine and how google has all this data on how valuable default is and how much people don't tend to…

> problem with talks of "splitting up Google" is that Google is an ad company

This is a little unimaginative. Google's ad business could be split horizontally or vertically to make space for competition. It's simplistic to say they are an ad business, they are performing several functions in the online ad business space.

> I'd like to see a competitor

Me too!

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

#500

Post by nielsbot »

parineum wrote: post #474
jemmyw wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read through some of the documents of the original complaint. This is mainly not about Google being the dominant search engine for consumers. It's more to do with their anti competitive behavior in the ad tech market. As a consumer, switching is easy. As a company that wants to advertise, switching is not easy if Google holds all the users. But also they've bought up all sides of the market, so what used to be comp…

I agree with you on the premise of the complaint but I think the parent's point still holds, the reason why you don't want to switch to another ad company is because all the people are with Google but they're with Google because they like it. The judgment makes a lot of hay over google paying to be the default search engine and how google has all this data on how valuable default is and how much people don't tend to…

> but they're with Google because they like it

are you sure? what if they had other options?

> Make it illegal to pay to be the default

Yes

> I'd like to see a competitor with a better model that Google used their market advantage to intentionally kill.

I hope the government will show this is exactly what happened. The competitor doesn't even have to have a "better model"

Post reply on HN