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

791–800 of 1001 posts

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

#791

Post by immibis »

drivebyhooting wrote: post #125
lolinder wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which market are you talking about specifically? The outstanding cases against them are in search and in adtech. This amicus brief is for the Search case (this one [0]). In search (the relevant market here), Microsoft does compete in the marketplace, and Microsoft's evidence that Google's anticompetitive practices have prevented them from gaining any meaningful ground in search were a keystone of the government's cas…

Bing has a brand problem.

This. You can tell by the popularity of DuckDuckGo, which is just reskinned rebranded Bing.

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

#792

Post by jsheard »

dieortin wrote: post #743
jsheard wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or more recently beginning to throw money at websites to lock out their competitors, which is why Bing and co can't index Reddit anymore.

That’s not accurate, Bing can index Reddit just fine

This doesn't look very fine to me...

https://www.bing.com/search?q=pope%20francis%20died%20site%3...

The results are all from before July 2024, when the Google deal was established.

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

#793

Post by tobias3 »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #349
snielson wrote: post #168

The solution proposed by Kagi—separate the search index from the rest of Google—seems to make the most sense. Kagi explains it more here: https://blog.kagi.com/dawn-new-era-search

This just in: small search engine company thinks it's a great idea for small search engine companies to have the same search index as Google. Also, I love this bit: "[Google's] search results are of the best quality among its advertising-driven peers." I can just feel the breath of the guy who jumped in to say "wait, you can't just admit that Google's results are better than Kagi's! You need to add some sorta qualifi…

Kagi is just a meta search engine. They are already using Googles search index. They just find it too expensive. Guess they need to show ads to pay for the searches.

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

#794

Post by FMecha »

Create wrote: post #750
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…

- OpenStreetMap, MapLibre - GMX, ProtonMail, Tutanota - Nextcloud, Seafile - Collabora, Etherpad, CryptPad - Discourse, Flarum - LimeSurvey Framaforms - Nextcloud, OpenStack, Hetzner, OVHcloud, Wix - Keycloak, Gluu, eduID, SAML2, OAUTH - Qwant, DuckDuckGo - Matomo, Plausible Analytics - Firefox, Brave - LineageOS, /e/ OS - OpenAuto, AGL (Automotive Grade Linux) - Open Health, Gadgetbridge - Fairphone, Various MVNOs (…

>Firefox

Mozilla is dependent on Google money.

>Brave

Chromium-based (another engine monopoly on itself) and crypto connections (if you're not a fan of them).

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

#795

Post by grumple »

ppsreejith wrote: post #662
Workaccount2 wrote: post #250

The real killer is that Google perfected the ad-paid model, and launched an entire ecosystem on top of it Paid competitors cannot compete because people won't pay. People want the death of Google because people hate ads and tracking. Ultimately it is an everyone loses situation. No one is going to fly in a replace Google without either 1.) Charging a monthly sub or 2.) Invasive (yet most profitable) ad tracking. This…

> People want the death of Google because people hate ads and tracking. > Paid competitors cannot compete because people won't pay. Seems to me they're different groups of people. Otherwise, if people hate ads, why don't they pay? I don't agree it's an everyone loses situation. Enough people don't mind or prefer the ads based ecosystem for it to continue. IMO, more sophisticated ad blockers (I.e real control over one…

With Google controlling most devices and browsers, you aren’t getting that control.

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

#796

Post by FMecha »

jeroenhd wrote: post #78
echelon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have two major phone operating systems and they charge a tax of 30%, which gets passed onto consumers. This should be zero if there was unlimited competition or web installation. There's also so much innovation happening in the mobile space right now. It's not like they're parked and reaping untold benefits. By having search monopolies, they've gamified paying for placement above your competitor's trademarks. Rath…

If developers bothered to put their apps on alternative stores with much lower rates, we wouldn't be in this mess. Amazon is shutting down their store because it turns out nobody is really all that interested in actual alternatives. Samsung has their own store but all I hear about it is people bitching that they already have Google Play and that it's "bloatware". Huawei even sells phones without Google Play in the we…

>Huawei even sells phones without Google Play in the west! Of course the first thing people try to do on them is get Google Play working, because the cheap hardware is all people care about.

For the devs' part, some of them did port their apps to Huawei's store (at least from my observation in Indonesia). Samsung also has their own app store on their own phones that's mostly for their built-in stuff.

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

#797

Post by FMecha »

Zak wrote: post #69
amazingamazing wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is for people to make web apps which are agnostic to platform and device, no?

A finding that preventing or discouraging installation of apps from anywhere but the first-party store constitutes use of market power to exclude competitors and fix prices in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act sounds like a great solution to me.

Console gaming will probably catch the strays of it, though (not that the sentiment to move to PC gaming is increasingly vocal anyway).

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

#798

Post by drdrek »

danboarder wrote: post #298

This action comes a bit late, at the end of the "Search engine" era, at a time when AI responses from many sources are largely replacing the "Google Search". Similar action happened against Microsoft Windows around 2000, just as the rise of web-based apps (online email, google docs, etc) largely made the underlying operating system less relevant to how people use their computers and apps. So I read this as the domina…

Do you think its a coincidence that companies start getting regulated when they are at the end of their rope? I think its the other way around. When Google started to lose power, when alternatives started to pour money into the political system, when jobs and money from alternatives presented themselves, then the wheels of justice began turning. The regulation is caused by googles apparent decline.

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

#799

Post by Workaccount2 »

MyOutfitIsVague wrote: post #735
Workaccount2 wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google services are not a gift. They are not actually free. Google is not a charity nor is it a non-profit. I want people in this discussion to stop arguing as if Google isn't making money on all these services. If the parents were slowly siphoning off enough of the teen's money through a convoluted set of channels such that the teenager indirectly paid for the truck anyway and the parents ended up effectively taking…

The point is that people are spoiled and still complaining. A replacement for Google is 15 services that are $9.99/mo or ad-supported with zero tolerance for ad blocking.

People are blind to this, they think Google is a charity that got greedy. Meanwhile they haven't let a Google ad through their ad blocker for 15 years.

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

#800

Post by mattmaroon »

intended wrote: post #775
jmatthews wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You essentially outline why it should be broken up. I'm not convinced making the ad tech sector more competitive would prompt that outcome but, "It would disrupt mature products" isn't a compelling argument to allow the existence of a monopoly. Google is a monopoly, they exert monopoly power and enjoy monopoly pricing. I think the more likely outcome would be more dynamic products under smaller bannerheads.

I think the point here is that it should be done carefully and thoughtfully.

Nobody thinks otherwise so what’s the point of such a comment?
Post reply on HN