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

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901

Post by rafaelmn »

belorn wrote: post #855
rafaelmn wrote: post #848

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you started seeing browser embedded ads in Chrome ? It replacing competitor ads with it's own ? Rewriting referral links ? Pushing compromised extensions from "third parties" to siphon data they legally can't. Right now it's just there to cover Googles market position - it doesn't need to make a profit, if it had to make a profit and it couldn't do exclusive search default deal I guarantee you it will get ugly -…

They don't need to embed ads into the browser if the websitet that the user will load are already loaded with google ads. They also don't need to replace competitor ads with google ads if there is no meaningful market share by any competitor. Why should they siphon data to a third parties when they themselves want the data, and its a competitive advantage to keep that data for themselves. What we are seeing is chrome…

This is my point - Chrome isn't there to play dirty, it's there so competitors can't. But if it had to make money without Google all that BS would get bundled in the browser.

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

#902

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

echelon wrote: post #507
fsh wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This list is very telling. Instead of a healthy marketplace of companies competing to sell their software and services, we end up with one monopolist who gives away mediocre products and in return taxes everything you buy (in the form of ad spending), and then annoys you with the same ads. How is this a desirable outcome?

We need a better word than "duopoly" to describe what Apple and Google are. They're just as bad as a monopoly - and they're impossible to compete with. Both Apple and Google need to be disrupted here. We should be able to see lots of healthy verticals for every single one of these product categories. They shouldn't accrue to two players and be impossible to dislodge. I propose the word "Googolith" to describe {Google…

They're called cartels. Rather than compete these companies work together to shut out competition.

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

#903

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

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

Then you'd just end up with all the ads being scams, and people not wanting to search on Google, because all the top results are scams instead of things they might actually be interested in that are not scams.

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

#904

Post by thomastjeffery »

loki49152 wrote: post #894
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.

"You essentially outline why it should be broken up." No, they didn't. They explained why breaking Google up would kill all of those "free" services. "Google is a monopoly, they exert monopoly power and enjoy monopoly pricing." No, they aren't. There are a multitude of other ad platforms available for anyone to use. Google has no power to stop them. "Most desirable service" does not constitute a monopoly in an open m…

Monopoly does not mean what you apparently think it means. It doesn't matter that competition ostensibly exists. What matters is that anticompetitive behavior is stifling that competition.

It's not a binary. By distilling the entire concept to a dualist perspective, you have evaporated most of the concept itself.

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

#905

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

CommenterPerson wrote: post #631

Garmin user here. Maybe the last one on the planet? (my kid thinks I'm nuts). Many of the comments are about how great Google's products are (or aren't). But the case is about anti-competitive behavior. Personally, I hate how a bulk of the internet now consists of surveillance. All this amazing tech brilliance.. resting on a foundation that's about getting us to buy more junk. I will be happy if this lawsuit reduces…

The USA has big tech Dutch disease.

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

#906

Post by jahsome »

raydiak wrote: post #754
jahsome wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with every single thing you said. I think GP was arguing for exactly what I asserted, and it's a literal fantasy to imagine doing something 20 years ago. I'd like to point out I wasn't being dismissive, at all. Sorry you read into it that way.

You still haven't addressed the consequences of NOT doing something. Perhaps you've never heard the expression about "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now." It's an aphorism, absolutely not literal. [1] Additionally, even if it were intended literally, which it clearly was not, saying it should have been done 20 years ago is not the same as fantasizing. It also obviously conclud…

[flagged]

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

#907

Post by jahsome »

BrenBarn wrote: post #764
jahsome wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with every single thing you said. I think GP was arguing for exactly what I asserted, and it's a literal fantasy to imagine doing something 20 years ago. I'd like to point out I wasn't being dismissive, at all. Sorry you read into it that way.

> I think GP was arguing for exactly what I asserted I was not, as I explained in another comment.

My mistake.

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

#908

Post by aydyn »

halflings wrote: post #807
fluidcruft wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three things about that chart: 1. In terms of US monopoly status, the USA chart would be more relevant than worldwide (also tangential but is Baidu really that weak in China or is there just no data?) 2. Google certainly has a stranglehold on mobile search (unsurprising given that both Apple and Android use Google search). In USA desktops Bing still isn't that strong, but it is 10% and not very low single digits. It…

I would also add that search has already moved elsewhere. Less and less people are using search engines to shop, ex:Amazon makes >$57B a year from search ads, but also look at Temu and Shein which are mostly glorified product search platforms. No one is searching for "funny videos" when you can just open Instagram and Tiktok. The only real unique thing that search engines can do is queries that are not directly comme…

Thats not true, there are some search categories that currently only google gets right.

Aside, ChatGPT is horrendous at filtering web search.

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

#909

Post by agarren »

loki49152 wrote: post #894
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.

"You essentially outline why it should be broken up." No, they didn't. They explained why breaking Google up would kill all of those "free" services. "Google is a monopoly, they exert monopoly power and enjoy monopoly pricing." No, they aren't. There are a multitude of other ad platforms available for anyone to use. Google has no power to stop them. "Most desirable service" does not constitute a monopoly in an open m…

> Monopolies can only be created by government dictate, like old AT&T or modern cable companies.

By virtually every definition I can find, a monopoly is a an entity that functions as the sole, or effectively the primary, provider of a good or service in some market. That seems to perfectly describe Google’s position wrt web-based advertising. Do other ad-platforms exist? Absolutely. Do they exhibit the kind of market dominance or control that Google does? Nowhere close.

> Google has no power to stop them.

Fact? I’d argue that Google’s sheer size and dominance means they don’t need to stop them. Potential competitors simply don’t stand a chance given Google’s size, number of resources, and reach. Explain how that’s not a significant factor into Google “power to stop” a potential rival?

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

#910

Post by animal_spirits »

BrenBarn wrote: post #761
animal_spirits wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, these services are not and never were free, we pay for them with our data. I would say this is all fairly common knowledge, my parents who are not tech savvy understand this, and I genuinely don't believe people care enough. I know this trade off, my tech savvy friends and acquaintances know this and yet we continue to make this trade off because frankly I don't think many value their personal data at all, and…

The problem is that you don't actually know how valuable it is without knowing how it's being used. If your ad-view statistics are used to charge you personally a higher price for a product than someone else who didn't click on the same ads, is that still okay? If they're used to raise your mortgage interest rate, is that still okay? If they're used to sell scam products to old ladies, is that still okay? If they're…

I fully agree with you - the practice of price discrimination is illegal under the Robinson-Patman Act and Google should be penalized for violating this law if they have been found to do this. I am only trying to push against the notion that Google (or any company) should be broken up just because they are big. This is the nuance that makes these discussions important IMO
Post reply on HN