6 ms·

Eventually this is going to get them in trouble with the Sherman Antitrust Act. From Wikipedia: > "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, i

Eventually this is going to get them in trouble with the Sherman Antitrust Act. From Wikipedia: > "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses. It's pretty clear that Google used their dominant position(s) in web search and web advertising to then dominate the user-generated video space. And now they're engaging in the type of abuse of customers that the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to mitigate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
Sure, its clear to you and I. But we on HN aren't whom you have to convince. Do you believe the US DOJ or more powerful states would go after Alphabet/google? That's the ones that count. I just can't see our current administration going that avenue.
- cvwright 8y ago
  Yeah I don't know. With this administration, anything is possible. There's lots of bad blood between silicon valley progressives and the Trump admin, too.
  - JetSpiegel 8y ago
    Silicon Valley progressives? Are you talking about RMS or something? Are (American) liberals automatically progressive even if they collude to lower salaries, pay less taxes, and contribute to housing bubbles? Not to mention selling to the DoD and ICE.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
fusiongyro 8y ago
I fail to see how this behavior helps artificially preserve their status as a monopoly or constitutes a nefarious dealing to create a monopoly, and the fact that Blender is using this opportunity to switch to another provider is not going to reinforce your point about YouTube being a monopoly.
- cvwright 8y ago
  No you're right, this particular behavior doesn't help to preserve their monopoly. It's evidence that they already have one. Companies who have to survive in a competitive marketplace don't typically go around driving away customers en masse. This is like something from 1990's Microsoft.
  - cwyers 8y ago
    In what sense is Blender a customer if they aren't monetizing their videos, though?
    - falcolas 8y ago
      In the same sense an open source project is a customer of GitHub's. The exchange of money is not required for someone to be a customer of a service.
      - cwyers 8y ago
        That's a user.
      - hueving 8y ago
        Customers pay money. Users provide data and marketing.
        virgilp 8y ago
        Well, strictly speaking, this is a legitimate dictionary definition that doesn't involve money: > a person of a specified kind with whom one has to deal [edit] Youtube has 3 kinds of customers (or users, if you wish): publishers, viewers and advertisers. It makes sense to separate them like that, but not based on a "pays/ does not pay" criterion. If PewDiePie is a customer, then most definitely Blender Foundation is a customer too.
comex 8y ago
> It's pretty clear that Google used their dominant position(s) in web search and web advertising to then dominate the user-generated video space. That's not particularly clear to me. YouTube was already pretty huge when Google bought them in 2006: according to Wikipedia, the fifth most popular website, albeit of a far smaller Web. Google, meanwhile, had their own video-uploading service, Google Video, which launched three months before YouTube but was not nearly as successful. Sure, there's no doubt that YouTube has benefitted massively from Google's resources in the decade since, including their willingness to let it run without a profit. But based on that history, it seems far from inevitable that Google would be the one to dominate video. It also doesn't seem like YouTube's growth is all that directly linked to Google Search's monopoly status, other than in that the latter powered Google's profits (but there are plenty of sources of money in the world). Google Search's video results have always shown videos from all websites rather than being YouTube-specific; who knows what they might have done if there had been more serious competition, but there wasn't, so they don't have that particular blood on their hands. You could argue that Google used its Search leverage to promote Web videos in general, as opposed to some other form of media, but I don't know what other form would be or why it would be preferable to video. (Perhaps live video? There might be another universe in which justin.tv was successful early on, rather than waiting most of a decade for the unexpected explosion of Twitch. But I think that given the state of Internet connections at the time, it made more sense for YouTube to happen first.)
- deftturtle 8y ago
  The internet today vs 12 years ago seems heavily biased towards video content. Different landscape, where Facebook and Google/YouTube now account for a majority of all internet traffic. If YouTube manipulates people, they’ll lose support and maybe risk a lawsuit. I’m not very familiar with the specifics here, but YouTube is the dominant video platform. If Facebook cleaned up their design and embraced an open web with public links, they could probably destroy YouTube.
sitkack 8y ago
Don't forget that Google owns the backbone that Youtube videos transit on for free. By leasing that dark fiber, they get peering agreements that effectively makes their ability to send bytes to the internet free. No one else has that ability.
- analognoise 8y ago
  Yes they do; you could buy it yourself if you wanted to. Nobody else having the scale or cash & willingness to do so is not the same thing as being unable to.
  - sitkack 8y ago
    If I had a lever long enough, I could move the universe.
    - hackmiester 8y ago
      Right, but leasing dark fiber is quite common for many types of organization.
      - sitkack 8y ago
        Google leases out dark fiber, not in, and in the process negotiates free peering agreements.
gm-conspiracy 8y ago
Oh, yeah, that act worked really well for the salary collusion. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-google-settle-antitrust-lawsuit-hiring-collusion https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo... Alphabet/Google/Youtube will just pay the fine, as a cost of doing business.
paulie_a 8y ago
No that will absolutely never happen, ever. Sorry to burst your bubble. It isn't even in the realm of possibility, spotting Bigfoot riding the lochness monster is more realistic.
- asax 8y ago
  Why? Honest question. You seem very certain, so you can probably explain?
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    Honestly no. It's incredibly obvious. There is no need for a detailed explanation of why Google will never face a 1930's antitrust lawsuit. It's simply not in the realm of reality. It was barely possible in the 90s.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago

Sure, its clear to you and I. But we on HN aren't whom you have to convince. Do you believe the US DOJ or more powerful states would go after Alphabet/google? That's the ones that count. I just can't see our current administration going that avenue.

cvwright 8y ago
Yeah I don't know. With this administration, anything is possible. There's lots of bad blood between silicon valley progressives and the Trump admin, too.
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  Silicon Valley progressives? Are you talking about RMS or something? Are (American) liberals automatically progressive even if they collude to lower salaries, pay less taxes, and contribute to housing bubbles? Not to mention selling to the DoD and ICE.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

fusiongyro 8y ago

I fail to see how this behavior helps artificially preserve their status as a monopoly or constitutes a nefarious dealing to create a monopoly, and the fact that Blender is using this opportunity to switch to another provider is not going to reinforce your point about YouTube being a monopoly.

cvwright 8y ago
No you're right, this particular behavior doesn't help to preserve their monopoly. It's evidence that they already have one. Companies who have to survive in a competitive marketplace don't typically go around driving away customers en masse. This is like something from 1990's Microsoft.
- cwyers 8y ago
  In what sense is Blender a customer if they aren't monetizing their videos, though?
  - falcolas 8y ago
    In the same sense an open source project is a customer of GitHub's. The exchange of money is not required for someone to be a customer of a service.
    - cwyers 8y ago
      That's a user.
    - hueving 8y ago
      Customers pay money. Users provide data and marketing.
      - virgilp 8y ago
        Well, strictly speaking, this is a legitimate dictionary definition that doesn't involve money: > a person of a specified kind with whom one has to deal [edit] Youtube has 3 kinds of customers (or users, if you wish): publishers, viewers and advertisers. It makes sense to separate them like that, but not based on a "pays/ does not pay" criterion. If PewDiePie is a customer, then most definitely Blender Foundation is a customer too.

comex 8y ago

> It's pretty clear that Google used their dominant position(s) in web search and web advertising to then dominate the user-generated video space. That's not particularly clear to me. YouTube was already pretty huge when Google bought them in 2006: according to Wikipedia, the fifth most popular website, albeit of a far smaller Web. Google, meanwhile, had their own video-uploading service, Google Video, which launched three months before YouTube but was not nearly as successful. Sure, there's no doubt that YouTube has benefitted massively from Google's resources in the decade since, including their willingness to let it run without a profit. But based on that history, it seems far from inevitable that Google would be the one to dominate video. It also doesn't seem like YouTube's growth is all that directly linked to Google Search's monopoly status, other than in that the latter powered Google's profits (but there are plenty of sources of money in the world). Google Search's video results have always shown videos from all websites rather than being YouTube-specific; who knows what they might have done if there had been more serious competition, but there wasn't, so they don't have that particular blood on their hands. You could argue that Google used its Search leverage to promote Web videos in general, as opposed to some other form of media, but I don't know what other form would be or why it would be preferable to video. (Perhaps live video? There might be another universe in which justin.tv was successful early on, rather than waiting most of a decade for the unexpected explosion of Twitch. But I think that given the state of Internet connections at the time, it made more sense for YouTube to happen first.)

deftturtle 8y ago
The internet today vs 12 years ago seems heavily biased towards video content. Different landscape, where Facebook and Google/YouTube now account for a majority of all internet traffic. If YouTube manipulates people, they’ll lose support and maybe risk a lawsuit. I’m not very familiar with the specifics here, but YouTube is the dominant video platform. If Facebook cleaned up their design and embraced an open web with public links, they could probably destroy YouTube.

sitkack 8y ago

Don't forget that Google owns the backbone that Youtube videos transit on for free. By leasing that dark fiber, they get peering agreements that effectively makes their ability to send bytes to the internet free. No one else has that ability.

analognoise 8y ago
Yes they do; you could buy it yourself if you wanted to. Nobody else having the scale or cash & willingness to do so is not the same thing as being unable to.
- sitkack 8y ago
  If I had a lever long enough, I could move the universe.
  - hackmiester 8y ago
    Right, but leasing dark fiber is quite common for many types of organization.
    - sitkack 8y ago
      Google leases out dark fiber, not in, and in the process negotiates free peering agreements.

gm-conspiracy 8y ago

Oh, yeah, that act worked really well for the salary collusion. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-google-settle-antitrust-lawsuit-hiring-collusion https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo... Alphabet/Google/Youtube will just pay the fine, as a cost of doing business.

paulie_a 8y ago

No that will absolutely never happen, ever. Sorry to burst your bubble. It isn't even in the realm of possibility, spotting Bigfoot riding the lochness monster is more realistic.

asax 8y ago
Why? Honest question. You seem very certain, so you can probably explain?
- paulie_a 8y ago
  Honestly no. It's incredibly obvious. There is no need for a detailed explanation of why Google will never face a 1930's antitrust lawsuit. It's simply not in the realm of reality. It was barely possible in the 90s.