3 ms·

Any company this big needs to have some outside control. They are clearly monopolizing. I thought the US had a law against monopolies, or does it only apply to

Any company this big needs to have some outside control. They are clearly monopolizing. I thought the US had a law against monopolies, or does it only apply to the railroads?

TulliusCicero 8y ago
> I thought the US had a law against monopolies, It's more complicated than that. US law tries to only target "bad monopolies" that engage in anti-competitive practices or hurt consumers: https://www.investopedia.com/insights/history-of-us-monopolies/ https://www.investopedia.com/insights/history-of-us-monopoli...
- jacksmith21006 8y ago
  Two things different in the US. First, monopolies are defined by harm to a consumer. Second, monopolies in the US are NOT illegal but certain behaviors when you have a monopoly are.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  In reality, monopolies like Google have repeatedly demonstrated anti-competitive practices and consumer harm. The unspoken reality is: We simply don't do antitrust anymore.
lallysingh 8y ago
Monopoly on what? google.com? Android? Google's power comes from its (a) technical prowess and (b) popularity of some of its products. Many of their products get a large advantage just from being on their own internal platform. But I can't think of a product of theirs that doesn't have a strong competitor. Search is the strongest they have, and the underlying problem's getting a bit simpler (I believe it's substantially cheaper now to pay for the infrastructure for a good-enough web crawler than it used to be), and competitors give pretty good results as well. I'm a bit surprised Apple hasn't tried going after this beachhead yet. Android can be avoided by using an iPhone. I can get an email account for free nearly anywhere. Every ISP I've had in the last 20 yrs has given me one (that I don't use). Google's got a lot of influence, and I think AMP is quite the overreach, but they don't fit in the monopoly bucket. If you want, it's pretty easy and reasonable to avoid using them. At least as consumer -- I can't speak as an advertiser. But I don't have a lot of sympathy for advertisers.
- dmitriid 8y ago
  Google have monopoly on search (up to 90% in some markets). So anything they do with AMP is anti-competitive, for example. Google have monopoly on business email, close 85% if you trust reports from Datanyze [1]. And now they are pushing AMP for email with exactly 0 external input [2][3] [1] https://www.datanyze.com/market-share/email-hosting/gmail-for-business-market-share# https://www.datanyze.com/market-share/email-hosting/gmail-fo... [2] https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13597 https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13597 [3] https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13623 https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13623
  - lallysingh 8y ago
    Dominant market share != Monopoly. > the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. "his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs"
emodendroket 8y ago
The conception of antitrust regulation has gradually evolved into the idea that if it doesn't directly lead to higher prices for consumers it's harmless, which is a much stricter standard than was applied in periods of vigorous trustbusting.
- jacksmith21006 8y ago
  Exactly in the US. Both Dems and Repubs base on the consumer being harmed. That would have to change first. I have my doubts. Repubs do NOT want regulations. Dems and SV are pretty tight.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    You'd probably have to have different people in office, yes.
    - jacksmith21006 8y ago
      Think it will take more than new people. Take a fundamental change in the US.

Any company this big needs to have some outside control. They are clearly monopolizing. I thought the US had a law against monopolies, or does it only apply to the railroads?

TulliusCicero 8y ago

> I thought the US had a law against monopolies, It's more complicated than that. US law tries to only target "bad monopolies" that engage in anti-competitive practices or hurt consumers: https://www.investopedia.com/insights/history-of-us-monopolies/ https://www.investopedia.com/insights/history-of-us-monopoli...

jacksmith21006 8y ago
Two things different in the US. First, monopolies are defined by harm to a consumer. Second, monopolies in the US are NOT illegal but certain behaviors when you have a monopoly are.
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
In reality, monopolies like Google have repeatedly demonstrated anti-competitive practices and consumer harm. The unspoken reality is: We simply don't do antitrust anymore.

lallysingh 8y ago

Monopoly on what? google.com? Android? Google's power comes from its (a) technical prowess and (b) popularity of some of its products. Many of their products get a large advantage just from being on their own internal platform. But I can't think of a product of theirs that doesn't have a strong competitor. Search is the strongest they have, and the underlying problem's getting a bit simpler (I believe it's substantially cheaper now to pay for the infrastructure for a good-enough web crawler than it used to be), and competitors give pretty good results as well. I'm a bit surprised Apple hasn't tried going after this beachhead yet. Android can be avoided by using an iPhone. I can get an email account for free nearly anywhere. Every ISP I've had in the last 20 yrs has given me one (that I don't use). Google's got a lot of influence, and I think AMP is quite the overreach, but they don't fit in the monopoly bucket. If you want, it's pretty easy and reasonable to avoid using them. At least as consumer -- I can't speak as an advertiser. But I don't have a lot of sympathy for advertisers.

dmitriid 8y ago
Google have monopoly on search (up to 90% in some markets). So anything they do with AMP is anti-competitive, for example. Google have monopoly on business email, close 85% if you trust reports from Datanyze [1]. And now they are pushing AMP for email with exactly 0 external input [2][3] [1] https://www.datanyze.com/market-share/email-hosting/gmail-for-business-market-share# https://www.datanyze.com/market-share/email-hosting/gmail-fo... [2] https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13597 https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13597 [3] https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13623 https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13623
- lallysingh 8y ago
  Dominant market share != Monopoly. > the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. "his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs"

emodendroket 8y ago

The conception of antitrust regulation has gradually evolved into the idea that if it doesn't directly lead to higher prices for consumers it's harmless, which is a much stricter standard than was applied in periods of vigorous trustbusting.

jacksmith21006 8y ago
Exactly in the US. Both Dems and Repubs base on the consumer being harmed. That would have to change first. I have my doubts. Repubs do NOT want regulations. Dems and SV are pretty tight.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  You'd probably have to have different people in office, yes.
  - jacksmith21006 8y ago
    Think it will take more than new people. Take a fundamental change in the US.