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

Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 761 posts

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#751

Post by rpbiwer2 »

highcountess wrote: post #668
majewsky wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of Google's 2023 revenue of 305.63e9 US-$, 77.8% (237.86e9 US-$) was advertising revenue. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-reven... They are obviously not only an ad company, but GP only claimed that they are an ad company "first". Can you please clarify which part you consider oversimplified?

Considering that the recent Google code leak only substantiated that Chrome is the honey pot for surveillance and data harvesting that people long suspected, even any supposedly not ad related work is technically also ad related work. It’s something people have a really difficult time preaching logically, the veil of deception of many things. Another big example is TV, which are ad sales companies, not TV show distri…

> Considering that the recent Google code leak only substantiated that Chrome is the honey pot for surveillance and data harvesting that people long suspected

I'm vaguely aware of a code leak but haven't delved into the details; I'm curious if you have a link to details about this data harvesting?

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#752

Post by fuzztester »

j_maffe wrote: post #745
fuzztester wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

j-maffe, it looks to me like you are being disingenuous, because in reply to your earlier comment above, I had quoted the Wikipedia definition of monopoly. my entire subsequent argument was based on that, as you well know. if you want to try to redefine terms, or move goalposts, feel free to do so, but I will not participate in an argument based on such behaviour. to repeat, quoting from the Wikipedia definition of m…

Just to be clear, you're saying that the judge [1], the Justice Department [2], and journalists[3] are all wrong? If you want to be pedantic about it, they have what is called an effective monopoly[4]. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-05/google-lo... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/20/google-... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-google-has-a-mon... [4] http://www…

I am making a rare exception to my statement about not engaging with you further (because of the crap that you wrote earlier), because of the other crap that you wrote above (only in order to point that crap out to other readers):

half the links (i.e. 1 and 2) you quoted above don't work for me. paywalls or signup required? clever you, eh? not!

and link 4 is too long and verbose. I searched for the word effective, but did not find it in the initial part on the screen.

aaannnddd ... you are quoting journalists (!) as though they are automatically competent authorities? and even judges' decisions sometimes get reversed by higher courts. so effectively you have no point. hee ... hee ... hee ...

looks like, in your arguments, you thrive on appeals to faux authority, and nothing else, particularly not on reasoning.

so, tata, bye bye, dude.

this sort of argument is below me.

bless you. you need it.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#753

Post by intended »

darby_nine wrote: post #748
theshrike79 wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People always _always_ forget that Google today is an ad company first. They do search, phones and mobile operating systems as side projects.

I don't know how anyone could forget this given how much advertising has made the internet unusable.

At this point, I think it’s clear that ads create a bunch of messed up incentives. From Cable, to Newspapers, to the Internet.

I guess any information fares badly against financial consolidation of its

Advertisements are one part of the fall - it forces a fight for attention, and that is a limited resource.

We know enough about gaming Attention today, and that converges content that drives revenue in a similar direction, creating a conformity of content that is reproduced.

As revenues decline, independent nodes on the network get consolidated, so that you have very similar messages being sent.

——

Counter point: As content generated increases, people turn to trusted sources to find out what’s true.

That said, trusted sources aren’t just the big media houses, it’s whoever people trust.

So some part of the consolidation effect is reduced by having more sources of content.

But the new sources of content exist, because they can afford to exist. So it comes back to the fact that advertising subsidizes independent creators.

——

Guess the final point would be that this evolves into a discussion on resources and orchestrated information dissemination.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#754

Post by alvah »

hot_gril wrote: post #734
alvah wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is a disagreement. I don't agree they have the best search engine at the moment. They did until they crippled it with the last 2 big updates.

Then who has the best search engine?

Free? Perplexity or Bing. Paid? Perplexity (pro).

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#755

Post by [deleted] »

intended wrote: post #753
darby_nine wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how anyone could forget this given how much advertising has made the internet unusable.

At this point, I think it’s clear that ads create a bunch of messed up incentives. From Cable, to Newspapers, to the Internet. I guess any information fares badly against financial consolidation of its Advertisements are one part of the fall - it forces a fight for attention, and that is a limited resource. We know enough about gaming Attention today, and that converges content that drives revenue in a similar direct…

[deleted]

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#756

Post by darby_nine »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #517
cletus wrote: post #31

I expect this to be bad for everyone except Google if the ruling holds. Why? Mozilla and Apple will lose significant revenue from having Google as the default search engine and Google will no longer have to pay those billions. What's more, no one else can pay to be the default either (eg the short-lived Mozilla Bing deal). So what's going to happen? Most users will probably still use Google, nobody is getting paid an…

"I expect this to be bad for everyone except Google if the ruling holds." If the decision will not be bad for Google, then why would Google spend so much money and time to defend against it.^1 Why not just stop making the anti-competitive payments and terminate the agreements. Money saved. Problem solved. We can now safely say it is not a defense to claim "Google is the best" and that's why people choose it. Anti-com…

> Anti-competitive conduct is illegal.

Why are so many mergers and acquisitions allowed to go through then? Either the law isn't phrased this way, the DOJ ignores the law, or we need to write new legislation.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#757

Post by Izkata »

Maxatar wrote: post #293
troupo wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But your article argues the opposite of your claim. It's not. The article talks about Youtube nailing the final nail in IEs coffin, which it did. As for shoving Chrome down everyone's throats I'm amazed no one remembers the ancient history of just 15 years ago: - showing it on search pages: http://www.webandsay.com/archives/google-is-actively-pushing... - prominently showing it on Youtube: http://googlesystem.blogs…

Fascinating how two people can read the same article and take away two opposite conclusions from it. If anything what Youtube did helped Firefox far more than it helped Chrome, but I suppose from your point of view it's the opposite. Ah well, c'est la vie!

> Fascinating how two people can read the same article

Two different articles describing things a year apart. Youtube was pushing only Chrome long before they presented the three options to kill IE.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#758

Post by utopcell »

greenthrow wrote: post #741
kortilla wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s bullshit, Google came after a bunch of other worse search engines and ate all of the market share because it was so much better. If you think they got it some other way, you weren’t using the Internet in the early 2000s

How they took over is a completely different subject from how they maintained dominance.

how exactly do they maintain dominance on the desktop, with Edge / Safari being the default browsers on a new machine ?

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#759

Post by ffgjgf1 »

aergh345ygq wrote: post #684
ffgjgf1 wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Apple and Mozilla for whom it’s a huge part of their profits/revenue respect

Deals are mutually beneficial. If Apple and Mozilla were both taking Google's offer it's because neither felt they had more to gain from developing their own search engine to compete outright in the meantime or from offering someone else's as a default. There might be something to the argument Mozilla isn't in a position to reject the money because they're sort of a shambling corpse at this point but Apple is about a…

> Apple is about as far from a desperate

Yes but Google’s payments still make up around 25% of their net income which is pretty huge. Losing that would have a very significant effect on Apple’s margins and stock price

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#760

Post by brazzledazzle »

n4r9 wrote: post #657
brazzledazzle wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a coworker insist on using ddg for privacy reasons and he was a bit smug about it even though meetings where he was presenting while searching the web always started with a ddg search and ended with him sighing and giving up by using !g to switch to google. I think, even in it's less than ideal state, people still underestimate how much time google's tailored search can save you when you train it to figure out…

I'm curious, what kind of presentations involve searching the web on the spot?

The kind with no agenda
Post reply on HN