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

US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#651

Post by animal_spirits »

BrenBarn wrote: post #574
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #367

I'm not sure people understand what the consequences of taking away Google's ad revenue is. If a large enough bank goes under, it takes out not just the bank, but huge sectors of the economy, affecting many more businesses and jobs. That's why the government bailed out the banks when they failed. The same will happen when Google loses its ad revenue. Google is an ad company. By opening up all its trade secret data, i…

> If a large enough bank goes under, it takes out not just the bank, but huge sectors of the economy, affecting many more businesses and jobs. That's why the government bailed out the banks when they failed. That is why the banks should have been broken up into smaller banks long before we reached that point, and it is why Google should have been broken up long ago. The only way to prevent the situation you describe…

I strongly disagree. If Google was broken up 20 years ago, nearly ALL the services listed above would not have happened. They are all FREE too, mind you. Everyone would still be paying for email. The enormous amount of free education on YouTube would not have been accessible to the world. The economy that we know today would be vastly different and in my opinion far worse off. So much of the economic growth came off the back of the free and ad-subsidized services Google provided for us. The reason Google is the size it is today is because it provided better services at better prices than all the competitors. If Google was broken up 20 years ago, the consumer would have paid the price.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#652

Post by lolinder »

makeitdouble wrote: post #591
TechDebtDevin wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about, there are competitors for all these products, they simply just aren't as good...

> as good This is a point that will be recurring and merits more thought IMHO. Google services are mostly better because they crushed competition. Cutting their advantage will also mean better alternatives (money will flow to competitors instead of being sucked by Google). As an analogy, it's like athlete doping: they sure were faster than the other athletes, but that's part of the issue.

Exactly. People keep saying "the alternatives aren't as good" as though markets aren't filled with feedback loops and the other products being worse somehow proves that Google is winning on fair terms. Google's products being better doesn't prove the system is fair, all it proves is that Google is better at navigating the current system, which is hardly surprising given that they have largely been able to shape it for themselves.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#653

Post by handoflixue »

animal_spirits wrote: post #651
BrenBarn wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a large enough bank goes under, it takes out not just the bank, but huge sectors of the economy, affecting many more businesses and jobs. That's why the government bailed out the banks when they failed. That is why the banks should have been broken up into smaller banks long before we reached that point, and it is why Google should have been broken up long ago. The only way to prevent the situation you describe…

I strongly disagree. If Google was broken up 20 years ago, nearly ALL the services listed above would not have happened. They are all FREE too, mind you. Everyone would still be paying for email. The enormous amount of free education on YouTube would not have been accessible to the world. The economy that we know today would be vastly different and in my opinion far worse off. So much of the economic growth came off…

> Everyone would still be paying for email.

Free email existed before Google - Hotmail and Yahoo come to mind immediately, but there were plenty of others. You also got a free email address from your ISP - even AOL users had email.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#654

Post by makeitdouble »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #639
makeitdouble wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's why anti-dumping laws were put into place, except it's complicated to expand to online markets. I actually wonder how much people actually like the current web. People bitching about popups and ads is enough of a staple of our culture.

People hate the current web the way a teenager hates the Blue 2023 F-150 his parents got him because a Black 2025 Dodge Ram is what he wanted.

If his parents dipped into the funds their grand-parent left to release at his 18th birthday, just to buy him the F150, he sure should be pissed about not getting what he actually wanted.

What Google "gives" isn't popping from nowhere, the billions they use to fund it still came from us, just in indirect ways.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#655

Post by 1123581321 »

int_19h wrote: post #583
itsoktocry wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smaller banks aren't competitive with larger (global) banks.

Smaller anything isn't competitive with larger anything, because the larger guys can always price-dump and bundle their way to full market dominance. That's why we need anti-trust in the first place.

Customers frequently prefer cheap bundles. The right time for an antitrust decision is often when the company is large and stops behaving competitively.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#656

Post by Shank »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #553
TechDebtDevin wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about, there are competitors for all these products, they simply just aren't as good...

Not just bad. There isn't a single piece of Apple software that is (1) free and (2) people choose to use on iOS, only use because the user is forced to. Photos? Forced, sucks. iMessage? Forced, sucks. Apple Mail, Calendar, Contacts? Huge pieces of shit. The App Store, the very gateway into competition, is the shittiest of all, and not just because the 30% fee, but because its discovery is maybe the worst ever made by…

It’s pretty myopic to say that people don’t choose to use Apple software. Not only do many people choose to use the Apple software that comes with their devices, they buy those devices for it.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#657

Post by lolinder »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #637
bernardom wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't be killed, they'll be forced to stand up as their own businesses, like the Baby Bells after Ma Bell broke up, or the split of Standard Oil. I can see most of these being reasonable standalone businesses. And if they can't be they'll die and get replaced by one that is better.

The problem is that it is ingrained in people that these services are free, and the only way they are free is by having them feed a centralized ad network.

It's about time that people get used to the idea that you have to pay for some of these things.

In aggregate it won't even hurt to transition to that: consumers are, in aggregate, already paying for these things in the form of increased spending on unrelated products they were sold by the ads and increased prices on goods (because their suppliers pay Google monopolistic prices for ads).

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#658

Post by animal_spirits »

handoflixue wrote: post #653
animal_spirits wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree. If Google was broken up 20 years ago, nearly ALL the services listed above would not have happened. They are all FREE too, mind you. Everyone would still be paying for email. The enormous amount of free education on YouTube would not have been accessible to the world. The economy that we know today would be vastly different and in my opinion far worse off. So much of the economic growth came off…

> Everyone would still be paying for email. Free email existed before Google - Hotmail and Yahoo come to mind immediately, but there were plenty of others. You also got a free email address from your ISP - even AOL users had email.

Fair point. Maybe I'm too young and have bought into the narrative that Google was the first widely available and free email. Still I think though, the plethora of their other services widely available for free (maps, drive, sites, youtube) were extraordinary for the price, at least for me.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#659

Post by lolinder »

animal_spirits wrote: post #651
BrenBarn wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a large enough bank goes under, it takes out not just the bank, but huge sectors of the economy, affecting many more businesses and jobs. That's why the government bailed out the banks when they failed. That is why the banks should have been broken up into smaller banks long before we reached that point, and it is why Google should have been broken up long ago. The only way to prevent the situation you describe…

I strongly disagree. If Google was broken up 20 years ago, nearly ALL the services listed above would not have happened. They are all FREE too, mind you. Everyone would still be paying for email. The enormous amount of free education on YouTube would not have been accessible to the world. The economy that we know today would be vastly different and in my opinion far worse off. So much of the economic growth came off…

The consumer did pay the price. Google built on empire on making consumers believe they were getting things for free while selling other businesses a direct line to its customers' wallets. It's been a very effective sleight of hand operation, to the point where even relatively savvy people on HN seem to forget that advertising pays the bills by getting its targets to spend money they would not have otherwise spent.

A world without Google would not be a world with less disposable income for regular people, but it might be a world with less disposable junk.

Even if you discount the effectiveness of ads (which seems foolish given how many people have so much staked on them working), the eye-watering prices Google charges for them get directly passed to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

Monopolies are rarely if ever good for consumers, but some monopolies are better than others at offloading the responsibility for their harm onto other businesses.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#660

Post by fergbrain »

animal_spirits wrote: post #658
handoflixue wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone would still be paying for email. Free email existed before Google - Hotmail and Yahoo come to mind immediately, but there were plenty of others. You also got a free email address from your ISP - even AOL users had email.

Fair point. Maybe I'm too young and have bought into the narrative that Google was the first widely available and free email. Still I think though, the plethora of their other services widely available for free (maps, drive, sites, youtube) were extraordinary for the price, at least for me.

> “their other services widely available for free”

None of their services are free. You just pay for them in other ways, even if you don’t realize it.

Post reply on HN