5 ms·

> Even if we assume that allowing Google to exist as a monopoly does bring better services How is google even a monopoly? Bing exists, yahoo still exists. In A

> Even if we assume that allowing Google to exist as a monopoly does bring better services How is google even a monopoly? Bing exists, yahoo still exists. In Asia Google isn't even the most popular search engine. Want me to show you how google is not a monopoly? A company with monopoly power would be able to raise the price of its service to the price the market can bear. If google put search behind a pay wall, Bing would destroy it in market share. > that's a small price to pay for not having to be subjugated by a conglomerate. So now you are not using economic arguments but appealing to emotion. I just need to point this out First you felt the need to off hand mention your (clearly undergraduate) degree in economics which had absolutely zero relevance to the discussion. Secondly, you are using appeals to emotion without any basis in fact. "Google is an extremely successful company and we use them in so many things! They must be evil!" Try using evidence. I'm not going to argue against your fear mongering only point out that like almost all fear mongering, it is not based on fact. > Countries can already barely withstand pressure from big companies There is absolutely zero evidence of this. None of your arguments are based on evidence. The US just fined Volkswagen billions of dollars. The EU is ready to fine Google billions of dollars. Apple paid japan hundreds millions of dollars in fines. All the banks responsible for the financial crisis in America and the EU paid hundreds of billions > In many cases even better services because the prime objective is to make a program that would help the user, not make money for the company. Again you have no evidence of this. If smaller businesses were able to provide better services people would be using dedicated email providers, not gmail. They would be using flickr instead of google and apple photos.

0x737368 9y ago
> First you felt the need to off hand mention your (clearly undergraduate) degree in economics which had absolutely zero relevance to the discussion. That was a different person. >There is absolutely zero evidence of this. None of your arguments are based on evidence. The US just fined Volkswagen billions of dollars. The EU is ready to fine Google billions of dollars. Apple paid japan hundreds millions of dollars in fines. All the banks responsible for the financial crisis in America and the EU paid hundreds of billions Precisely, EU, USA and China(ones that I know, there might be more) are the ones who can actually fight back from the pressure. Once they're able to pay enough politicians even more to coax them into bringing laws that help them further, we won't even have that(like that hasn't happened before). Additionally, you need to consider if the fines are actually painful enough. Sure, sometimes it's enough to make them stop doing offences, but sometimes the companies are left with a net profit from illegal actions. > Again you have no evidence of this. If smaller businesses were able to provide better services people would be using dedicated email providers, not gmail. They would be using flickr instead of google and apple photos. Look up Linux. Whilst big companies did have a hand in making it, it's still driven a lot by the community. Compare how Linux performs against Windows(fast, no intentional backdoors, free, almost limitless customisability) and MacOS(no upgrades that make your completely fine hardware useless in 3-4 years after purchase). I neither use flickr not google/apple photos so can't judge the discrepancy in quality. But I do a lot of messengers, text editors, email clients and so on, and they're completely fine. You need to consider that perhaps people are using them because they didn't bother to look up alternatives and just went with what the company offered them because "hey! it's 'free'! and it's right here." You seem to be giving off some belligerent vibes, so I'm not going to argue much further, all I'm asking is that you consider that companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft and so on are not in the business of making people happy, but in the business of making money. And if that means the best path to that is to manipulate governments and try to control every aspect of people's lives for their own profit - they'll do it. If you break them apart you give them much less power to do that.
anth1988 9y ago
> How is google even a monopoly? Bing exists, yahoo still exists. In Asia Google isn't even the most popular search engine. Not a monopoly is not a high enough bar. They are dominant in search, browser, and mobile. > Try using evidence Evidence like using their position in search to shove Chrome in our faces, then using that position to help shove DRM on us. Evidence like their ridiculous plans with the ad blocker?
thesagan 9y ago
A pattern I notice on this site, and reddit: that it's far easier to ask left-and-right for evidence than it is producing your own or going on a limb to make a point in your own words. Is open discussion discouraged on HN? Now, I don't provide a lot of hard evidence on HN, if only because this probably isn't the right type of forum for a courtroom. I like to keep it a bit more casual.
kbwt 9y ago
> A company with monopoly power would be able to raise the price of its service to the price the market can bear. The 30% share Google takes from sales of Android applications is completely arbitrary and they could probably even increase it further without suffering any consequences beyond negative PR.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  So then under this definition, apple is also a monopoly, as is pretty much any walled garden app store company (ie. Valve, arguably Amazon, Microsoft, and any other company with a platform that allows third parties to use that platform for a cut)? To be clear, in the US, there is at least one major competitor to Google in that space (Apple), so a price increase would lead developers to leave the platform. And in much of the rest of the world, sideloading APKs is a very, very common way of installing, so google taking 50% or 99% would lead to more third party app stores (note some of these already exist) and users sideloading APKs without Google taking any cut whatsoever.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Apple isn't actually much of a competitor where it matters: OEMs only have one choice which OS to license, which is why without major government trustbusting action, dozens of manufacturers have no choice but to build Android phones. Google has no competition in this space, and any company that tried to break from them would go under.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      That's a different conversation (hardware licensing vs. app store). Also I'm curious, I see you posting pretty often, and about 80% of your comments are anti-Google specifically, is there a reason for that?
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        First of all, you need to acknowledge the vertical integration. Google has a lock on manufacturers, who have no option put to license Android, and as a requirement of that, must include the Play Store, where Google has a complete monopoly on all devices in that market. Second, I wanted to address the accusatory notion of the back half of your comment, and point out the hypocrisy of Googler coming in here and suggesting others have ulterior motives for their comments. - I do not work for nor am paid for any company with skin in this game. My opinions are very literally my own. I speak a lot about Google because a lot of people disproportionately speak positively about Google even though they should not. - You are paid by a company being directly suggested to be destroyed/broken up, in this article. As Upton Sinclair once said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
confounded 9y ago
> If google put search behind a pay wall, Bing would destroy it in market share.... if smaller businesses were able to provide better services people would be using dedicated email providers, not gmail By using Google services you are Google's product, not Google's customer. Google's services are free attractions, provided in exchange for highly-profitable surveillance capabilities. In other words, the value an individual may derive from a interaction with Google is decoupled from the profit Google can derive from that interaction. This breaks the key assumption behind classic "free market" models. For Google, the two are related only in aggregate and in abstract, via network effects, largely as proxies for monopoly status and capital accumulation. 18th C. arguments about "free markets" and competition naturally springing up from animal spirits don't work very well for the modern technology industry. > There is absolutely zero evidence of [technology monopolies exerting pressure on governments] Examples of companies paying fines in exchange for breaking the law (a pretty generous punishment considering what happens to non-corporation people) is evidence that companies have not yet taken over from governments, but I don't think that was the parent's point. The largest gripe from governments is flagrant tax avoidance/evasion. If you need "evidence", I'd recommend keeping tabs on technology news in the 'mainstream media' (e.g. various EU governments re: Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple tax evasion; Tim Cook pretty openly asking the US to change tax law for him because he's got a lot of money, and is happy to deprive his countrymen of it).

0x737368 9y ago

> First you felt the need to off hand mention your (clearly undergraduate) degree in economics which had absolutely zero relevance to the discussion. That was a different person. >There is absolutely zero evidence of this. None of your arguments are based on evidence. The US just fined Volkswagen billions of dollars. The EU is ready to fine Google billions of dollars. Apple paid japan hundreds millions of dollars in fines. All the banks responsible for the financial crisis in America and the EU paid hundreds of billions Precisely, EU, USA and China(ones that I know, there might be more) are the ones who can actually fight back from the pressure. Once they're able to pay enough politicians even more to coax them into bringing laws that help them further, we won't even have that(like that hasn't happened before). Additionally, you need to consider if the fines are actually painful enough. Sure, sometimes it's enough to make them stop doing offences, but sometimes the companies are left with a net profit from illegal actions. > Again you have no evidence of this. If smaller businesses were able to provide better services people would be using dedicated email providers, not gmail. They would be using flickr instead of google and apple photos. Look up Linux. Whilst big companies did have a hand in making it, it's still driven a lot by the community. Compare how Linux performs against Windows(fast, no intentional backdoors, free, almost limitless customisability) and MacOS(no upgrades that make your completely fine hardware useless in 3-4 years after purchase). I neither use flickr not google/apple photos so can't judge the discrepancy in quality. But I do a lot of messengers, text editors, email clients and so on, and they're completely fine. You need to consider that perhaps people are using them because they didn't bother to look up alternatives and just went with what the company offered them because "hey! it's 'free'! and it's right here." You seem to be giving off some belligerent vibes, so I'm not going to argue much further, all I'm asking is that you consider that companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft and so on are not in the business of making people happy, but in the business of making money. And if that means the best path to that is to manipulate governments and try to control every aspect of people's lives for their own profit - they'll do it. If you break them apart you give them much less power to do that.

anth1988 9y ago

> How is google even a monopoly? Bing exists, yahoo still exists. In Asia Google isn't even the most popular search engine. Not a monopoly is not a high enough bar. They are dominant in search, browser, and mobile. > Try using evidence Evidence like using their position in search to shove Chrome in our faces, then using that position to help shove DRM on us. Evidence like their ridiculous plans with the ad blocker?

thesagan 9y ago

A pattern I notice on this site, and reddit: that it's far easier to ask left-and-right for evidence than it is producing your own or going on a limb to make a point in your own words. Is open discussion discouraged on HN? Now, I don't provide a lot of hard evidence on HN, if only because this probably isn't the right type of forum for a courtroom. I like to keep it a bit more casual.

kbwt 9y ago

> A company with monopoly power would be able to raise the price of its service to the price the market can bear. The 30% share Google takes from sales of Android applications is completely arbitrary and they could probably even increase it further without suffering any consequences beyond negative PR.

joshuamorton 9y ago
So then under this definition, apple is also a monopoly, as is pretty much any walled garden app store company (ie. Valve, arguably Amazon, Microsoft, and any other company with a platform that allows third parties to use that platform for a cut)? To be clear, in the US, there is at least one major competitor to Google in that space (Apple), so a price increase would lead developers to leave the platform. And in much of the rest of the world, sideloading APKs is a very, very common way of installing, so google taking 50% or 99% would lead to more third party app stores (note some of these already exist) and users sideloading APKs without Google taking any cut whatsoever.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Apple isn't actually much of a competitor where it matters: OEMs only have one choice which OS to license, which is why without major government trustbusting action, dozens of manufacturers have no choice but to build Android phones. Google has no competition in this space, and any company that tried to break from them would go under.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    That's a different conversation (hardware licensing vs. app store). Also I'm curious, I see you posting pretty often, and about 80% of your comments are anti-Google specifically, is there a reason for that?
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      First of all, you need to acknowledge the vertical integration. Google has a lock on manufacturers, who have no option put to license Android, and as a requirement of that, must include the Play Store, where Google has a complete monopoly on all devices in that market. Second, I wanted to address the accusatory notion of the back half of your comment, and point out the hypocrisy of Googler coming in here and suggesting others have ulterior motives for their comments. - I do not work for nor am paid for any company with skin in this game. My opinions are very literally my own. I speak a lot about Google because a lot of people disproportionately speak positively about Google even though they should not. - You are paid by a company being directly suggested to be destroyed/broken up, in this article. As Upton Sinclair once said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

confounded 9y ago

> If google put search behind a pay wall, Bing would destroy it in market share.... if smaller businesses were able to provide better services people would be using dedicated email providers, not gmail By using Google services you are Google's product, not Google's customer. Google's services are free attractions, provided in exchange for highly-profitable surveillance capabilities. In other words, the value an individual may derive from a interaction with Google is decoupled from the profit Google can derive from that interaction. This breaks the key assumption behind classic "free market" models. For Google, the two are related only in aggregate and in abstract, via network effects, largely as proxies for monopoly status and capital accumulation. 18th C. arguments about "free markets" and competition naturally springing up from animal spirits don't work very well for the modern technology industry. > There is absolutely zero evidence of [technology monopolies exerting pressure on governments] Examples of companies paying fines in exchange for breaking the law (a pretty generous punishment considering what happens to non-corporation people) is evidence that companies have not yet taken over from governments, but I don't think that was the parent's point. The largest gripe from governments is flagrant tax avoidance/evasion. If you need "evidence", I'd recommend keeping tabs on technology news in the 'mainstream media' (e.g. various EU governments re: Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple tax evasion; Tim Cook pretty openly asking the US to change tax law for him because he's got a lot of money, and is happy to deprive his countrymen of it).