4 ms·

I don't. Why do we want or even trust government to decide for us that a company is too big and needs to be smaller or that a company should conducts it busin

by todd8 9y ago

I don't. Why do we want or even trust government to decide for us that a company is too big and needs to be smaller or that a company should conducts it business in the way that the government wants it to. As long as a company isn't somehow forcing me to use it services, I'm free to go elsewhere. If you don't like Google don't use it. The fact that you desire something from Google that it isn't giving you (searching with more privacy, better free email service, whatever) doesn't give you some sort of moral claim against the company. The public can vote for other companies by buying from or using them. As a last resort, start a new company and run it the way you want.

5ilv3r 9y ago
That'd be a fine option if it was a real option.
na85 9y ago
Comcast is a good counterexample that basically destroys this entirely naive line of thinking. In industries where huge capital costs are the barrier to entry, the market is not open or free, and requires regulation.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>Why do we want or even trust government to decide for us that a company is too big and needs to be smaller or that a company should conducts it business in the way that the government wants it to. As long as a company isn't somehow forcing me to use it services, I'm free to go elsewhere. Should we get rid of IP laws then? Isn't copyright a government granted monopoly?
chiefofgxbxl 9y ago
> If you don't like Google don't use it. What happens when people don't know they're using Google? I have an Android phone and one thing that is bugging me is how the default browser on the bottom "toolbar" is in fact named "Internet". This may be fine for techies like you and me, but I'm concerned for the older folk who may have difficulty with technology or non-techies. In this case, if one just went with the defaults, one wouldn't even know you were using a Google-built browser. Remember that old story back when Internet Explorer was dominating the market, and most people surveyed couldn't tell the difference between the web and a web browser? They pointed to the "e" browser logo and said, "That's the internet!" This is a nasty pattern in tech these days. On my laptop which carries Windows 10, the programs aren't named in such a way to identify that they are Microsoft programs [0]. You see an email client named "Mail" and a map service named "Maps". No indication that they are Microsoft Mail or Microsoft (Bing) Maps. Also, on Windows 10 when you log in you are presented with a "photo of the day". If you click on any of the links on that image, the URLs will be opened in Microsoft Edge, and any searches are performed using Bing, regardless if you set your default browser to something else! [0] https://s18.postimg.org/ipxt1962h/default.png https://s18.postimg.org/ipxt1962h/default.png
- scarface74 9y ago
  Remember that old story back when Internet Explorer was dominating the market, and most people surveyed couldn't tell the difference between the web and a web browser? They pointed to the "e" browser logo and said, "That's the internet!" How did that whole trying to use their monopoly to dominate the market work out for Microsoft in hindsight? There was time that AOL was the number one ISP and MySpace was the number one social media platform.
  - chiefofgxbxl 9y ago
    It didn't work out for Microsoft, namely because lawsuits and coverage brought attention to the issue of market dominance. That's what people on this HN article are proposing we do today. And it's about time, given that our current economy is vastly different from the one a century ago when anti-trust laws started springing up. You haven't addressed the core of my previous comment though, regarding how big tech companies today are obscuring their branding to mislead (in my opinion) users to be completely unaware they are even using a (insert big tech company name here) product. The part of my comment you quoted wasn't me trying to talk about the rise and fall of Internet Explorer's monopoly. Rather, it was me pointing out what I believe to be a nasty dark pattern of tech today, where tech companies are building black-box products.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    Yeah, how did it work out that the EU forced Microsoft to unbundle its browser?
    - scarface74 9y ago
      It's not "unbundling" the browser that caused Microsoft to lose its dominance in the technology industry. None of the big four major technology companies today - Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon -depend on their browser being dominant. Microsoft failed to take advantage of the next major technology waves - mobile, search, social, and ecommerce. Unbundling the browser didn't help the other browser manufacturers.
- 9y ago
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> As long as a company isn't somehow forcing me to use it services, I'm free to go elsewhere. You might want to educate yourself on an economic concept called network effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect > The fact that you desire something from Google that it isn't giving you (searching with more privacy, better free email service, whatever) doesn't give you some sort of moral claim against the company. Doesn't that depend on what it is that you expect and which role Google (or any other company or person) plays in withholding whatever it is that you do expect from you? > The public can vote for other companies by buying from or using them. Well, yes, it can, and one way to implement that is by organizing a government that enforces it, no? If your argument is that people can do so through independent individual decisions: Well, to some degree they can, but even then I don't see why they necessarily should? If Google, say, can organize a ton of people to work unified towards its goals, why shouldn't the public at large do the same? But I guess more importantly: To a large degree, you actually can't. Where network effects or scaling efficiencies are involved, there are many situations in which it would be a huge sacrifice with extremely high risk to individually decide against the (quasi-)monopoly, even though overall society would be better off if many people did. In such situations, coordination between actors is required to achieve the better outcome for everyone. That is a role that government can play: To enable coordination between members of a public in order to reach the critical mass that is necessary to move from a (quasi-)monopolistic equilibrium to the overall better equilibrium of multiple competing offers.

by todd8 9y ago

5ilv3r 9y ago

That'd be a fine option if it was a real option.

na85 9y ago

Comcast is a good counterexample that basically destroys this entirely naive line of thinking. In industries where huge capital costs are the barrier to entry, the market is not open or free, and requires regulation.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

>Why do we want or even trust government to decide for us that a company is too big and needs to be smaller or that a company should conducts it business in the way that the government wants it to. As long as a company isn't somehow forcing me to use it services, I'm free to go elsewhere. Should we get rid of IP laws then? Isn't copyright a government granted monopoly?

chiefofgxbxl 9y ago

> If you don't like Google don't use it. What happens when people don't know they're using Google? I have an Android phone and one thing that is bugging me is how the default browser on the bottom "toolbar" is in fact named "Internet". This may be fine for techies like you and me, but I'm concerned for the older folk who may have difficulty with technology or non-techies. In this case, if one just went with the defaults, one wouldn't even know you were using a Google-built browser. Remember that old story back when Internet Explorer was dominating the market, and most people surveyed couldn't tell the difference between the web and a web browser? They pointed to the "e" browser logo and said, "That's the internet!" This is a nasty pattern in tech these days. On my laptop which carries Windows 10, the programs aren't named in such a way to identify that they are Microsoft programs [0]. You see an email client named "Mail" and a map service named "Maps". No indication that they are Microsoft Mail or Microsoft (Bing) Maps. Also, on Windows 10 when you log in you are presented with a "photo of the day". If you click on any of the links on that image, the URLs will be opened in Microsoft Edge, and any searches are performed using Bing, regardless if you set your default browser to something else! [0] https://s18.postimg.org/ipxt1962h/default.png https://s18.postimg.org/ipxt1962h/default.png

scarface74 9y ago
Remember that old story back when Internet Explorer was dominating the market, and most people surveyed couldn't tell the difference between the web and a web browser? They pointed to the "e" browser logo and said, "That's the internet!" How did that whole trying to use their monopoly to dominate the market work out for Microsoft in hindsight? There was time that AOL was the number one ISP and MySpace was the number one social media platform.
- chiefofgxbxl 9y ago
  It didn't work out for Microsoft, namely because lawsuits and coverage brought attention to the issue of market dominance. That's what people on this HN article are proposing we do today. And it's about time, given that our current economy is vastly different from the one a century ago when anti-trust laws started springing up. You haven't addressed the core of my previous comment though, regarding how big tech companies today are obscuring their branding to mislead (in my opinion) users to be completely unaware they are even using a (insert big tech company name here) product. The part of my comment you quoted wasn't me trying to talk about the rise and fall of Internet Explorer's monopoly. Rather, it was me pointing out what I believe to be a nasty dark pattern of tech today, where tech companies are building black-box products.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  Yeah, how did it work out that the EU forced Microsoft to unbundle its browser?
  - scarface74 9y ago
    It's not "unbundling" the browser that caused Microsoft to lose its dominance in the technology industry. None of the big four major technology companies today - Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon -depend on their browser being dominant. Microsoft failed to take advantage of the next major technology waves - mobile, search, social, and ecommerce. Unbundling the browser didn't help the other browser manufacturers.
9y ago

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> As long as a company isn't somehow forcing me to use it services, I'm free to go elsewhere. You might want to educate yourself on an economic concept called network effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect > The fact that you desire something from Google that it isn't giving you (searching with more privacy, better free email service, whatever) doesn't give you some sort of moral claim against the company. Doesn't that depend on what it is that you expect and which role Google (or any other company or person) plays in withholding whatever it is that you do expect from you? > The public can vote for other companies by buying from or using them. Well, yes, it can, and one way to implement that is by organizing a government that enforces it, no? If your argument is that people can do so through independent individual decisions: Well, to some degree they can, but even then I don't see why they necessarily should? If Google, say, can organize a ton of people to work unified towards its goals, why shouldn't the public at large do the same? But I guess more importantly: To a large degree, you actually can't. Where network effects or scaling efficiencies are involved, there are many situations in which it would be a huge sacrifice with extremely high risk to individually decide against the (quasi-)monopoly, even though overall society would be better off if many people did. In such situations, coordination between actors is required to achieve the better outcome for everyone. That is a role that government can play: To enable coordination between members of a public in order to reach the critical mass that is necessary to move from a (quasi-)monopolistic equilibrium to the overall better equilibrium of multiple competing offers.