20 ms·

Justice Department Is Preparing Antitrust Investigation of Google

870 points by Despegar 7y ago

mudil 7y ago
Thank God! It's time to control this unethical and ruthless internet-suppressing evil corporation. Google took over the internet and it thinks it is theirs. Google took over the search. Google took over advertising, a real currency of the internet. And they believe that this currency belongs to them. Google hampers creation and creators on the internet. Google is a world wide surveillance machine. Google controls too much. It's time to break this evil behemoth. And now let's listen to the Google fans and apologists about how everything is just one click away...
- dang 7y ago
  We've already asked you several times not to post like this. It breaks the site guidelines. We're here for curiosity, not flamey rants. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Ronnie_Dipple 7y ago
  I have news for you, most corporations are unethical because they are not people they do not care for ethics they are literally money making machines and Google is great at making money. I'm not a Google fan and welcome this investigation but you need perspective.
mdorazio 7y ago
If true, this will be a landmark case and should scare FB and Amazon as well. Personally, I think this is a good thing and it's past time for the government to at least set some boundaries, but there's no telling how it will play out with the current administration and amount of lobbying dollars flying around.
- hdieonds 7y ago
  Considering how the current administration has - or at least feels it has - been treated by social media companies, I’d give good odds that the administration is the impetus behind the investigation.
- d1zzy 7y ago
  Why would this have any relevance to FB and Amazon? I realize a lot of people on HN don't like what these companies are doing with their data, but this lawsuit is not about privacy at all so I don't see how it relates to those 2 companies.
  - deytempo 7y ago
    All you need to do is look at their respective stock price histories to see how they are related.
  - chris_wot 7y ago
    Both of these companies are very good at extinguishing competition.
  - GuardianCaveman 7y ago
    Ant-competitive practices? Facebook buying up any and all rivals like WhatsApp and Instagram? They are a juggernaut and shouldn’t be able to own all social media.
    - kakaorka 7y ago
      They also tried to buy Snapchat but their bid was rejected.
    - yeukhon 7y ago
      What’s wrong with buying competitions?
      - thanatos_dem 7y ago
minimaxir 7y ago
Relevant tweet from a Yelp SVP, who propagated many allegations of anticompetitive behavior in Google Search: > :) https://twitter.com/lutherlowe/status/1134621790720995328 https://twitter.com/lutherlowe/status/1134621790720995328
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Zhenya 7y ago
  Maybe someone will investigate their mafia-like treatment of small businesses as well.
  - eanzenberg 7y ago
    Two wrongs.. whataboutism.. etc. Maybe yelp had to resort to these monetizing tactics because their results were buried by google promoting their own business-ratings copy-cat service?
- whoisjuan 7y ago
  Happy emoji faces coming from a company whose business model is basically extortion. Nice.
neonate 7y ago
http://archive.is/PHSfY http://archive.is/PHSfY
daenz 7y ago
Can someone knowledgeable in this area lay out some of the potential anti-trust points that could be shown by the probe?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Despegar 7y ago
  This WSJ story has details about the FTC recommendation to sue Google (overruled by the commissioners at the time). They accidentally sent the WSJ every other page in a botched FOIA request. https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-of-google-1426793274 https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-...
  - joseph298 7y ago
    How do I read it? Do I have to subscribe?
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Archive.is / archive.fo generally works.
    - neonate 7y ago
      http://archive.is/TsG4K http://archive.is/TsG4K
- Covzire 7y ago
  This is just speculation, but I read somewhere recently that alleged that Youtube wasn't the gift to the world it appears to be. While I love Youtube for the most part (Free, High Quality), it is strange that we haven't seen much competition. Maybe it's a loss leader for Google and nobody else can afford the expense, or maybe they're doing something shady to make sure nobody else can afford to compete.
  - 7y ago
duxup 7y ago
>closely examine Google’s business practices related to its search and other businesses Not a lot of detail.
aleister_777 7y ago
Good. To quote an old friend who worked for Google: "I'm worried that if the rest of America knew what we were actually doing here they would literally come here and kill us..."
- infinity0 7y ago
  Can you elaborate? I left Google years ago but it wasn't that bad.
- daenz 7y ago
  Suddenly, any regret from not pursuing a Google interview is gone...
  - fizwhiz 7y ago
    Will you consider interviewing should the case ultimately turn out in Google's favor?
    - PenguinCoder 7y ago
      At least in my opinion, no. Many reasons but the underlying ones that make me not want to interview with or work for, Google are the same as for Microsoft. I can't trust them. I can already hear the argument, 'who can you trust'. That's subjective depending on your criteria. For me, I won't work for a company I do not trust to keep their promises, be it to the community or its employees.
- mav3rick 7y ago
  There are many many people who do good work at Google. Quote a random to suit your pitch forks. No name, no context , no source.
- oldjokes 7y ago
  I wonder how severe the backlash is going to be, not just for Google but all the tech giants. Our anti-trust laws were mostly written around monopolies abusing pricing power to rip off consumers, but with the intersection of data and hosting and analytics and everything else the potential to abuse people is far greater than just raising prices. And they have expanded their ability to profile and experiment on individuals worldwide, regardless of whether you create a Google account. It's just getting scary at this point.
ok_coo 7y ago
Finally.
raleigh_user 7y ago
Yep. Been coming. Platforms are super interesting with laws/regulations. Going to be interesting to watch what is decided.
781 7y ago
I'd be more interested in Google/Amazon/FB paying taxes than in anti-trust actions.
- bwb 7y ago
  They pay a ton of taxes :), payroll, property, etc. Corporate taxes they pay on profits if you invest a ton you can deduct it from profits. Nothing nefarious going on here.
  - ajdlinux 7y ago
    > Corporate taxes they pay on profits if you invest a ton you can deduct it from profits. Nothing nefarious going on here. One's definition of "deductions" and "profits" can, of course, depend on how much one spends on tax lawyers, one's appetite for testing the untested boundaries of the relevant tax laws, and one's willingness to do fun and interesting things with structuring international subsidiaries. The ultimate result may or may not correlate with what the average citizen would accept as legitimate. Whether you think this is okay is a matter of opinion.
    - acct1771 7y ago
      We need to care about governance beforehand. Tax laws are what you're looking to change.
- adventured 7y ago
  Facebook's corporate income tax rate in 2018 was 12.8% ($3.2b) and for 2017 it was 22.6%. About 2/3 of their income taxes are paid domestically. Historically Facebook has paid high income tax rates. In 2014 and 2015 it was near 40%, in 2016 it fell to 19%. Google's corporate income tax rate in 2018 was 11.9% (2017 had an abnormally high domestic tax payment due to repatriation accounting; 2016 had a 19% rate). About 1/2 of their income taxes are paid domestically. Europe's average corporate income tax rate in 2018 was 18%, the EU was 21%, the world was 23%. There are eight European nations with corporate income tax rates equal to or lower than what Google and Facebook are paying. Their rates are low, no doubt about it. They're neither zero (paying no taxes), nor shockingly low given the very low tax rate jurisdictions available to them (eg in Europe). Amazon is however avoiding taxes successfully. They've managed to temporarily delay the tax hit on their new profit machine. That won't last much longer.
fizwhiz 7y ago
For everyone here squealing with glee: This will be just another Tuesday for the legal team at Big G ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- partiallypro 7y ago
  You can't seriously believe this. The US bringing a case a vastly more a BFD than Europe's prodding at companies for cash.
  - acct1771 7y ago
    See USA's FTC etc - we take our fair share of drive by fines, and change nothing afterwards. Doubt it'll happen in this case...people want blood from Google or FB, and they're going to get it. Other commenters had it right, though - ISPs, and lobbyists should be hanging next to them.
m0zg 7y ago
As an ex-Googler: good. Google has done a lot of good in the past, and that continues today, but it's pretty clear nobody should have as much control over "making information universally accessible and useful" as Google does. Especially after they give up any pretense of "don't be evil". I also very much hope FB is next.
rayiner 7y ago
While I think an antitrust suit against Google would be a waste of time, they really need to stop recommending Chrome every time you do a Google search with a different browser. Just stop, that will not play well to a jury.
- ggm 7y ago
  Your reply almost immediately says you think a jury could be swayed by argument, sentiment or both. Does that not mean an antitrust suit may actually be reasonable, judged by a potently prosecutor? I think you meant "I don't want them found guilty" which is a different thing. If you really think there is no case to answer I don't think you understand what an antitrust case is about. It's about market dominance and anti competitive behaviour. Something alphabet has already demonstrated they are capable of doing, as in when google, Facebook and apple agreed not to poach Staff and altered the pay rates accordingly, something of which they have already been found guilty.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    >Your reply almost immediately says you think a jury could be swayed by argument, sentiment or both... If this goes to a jury, Google will definitely get off. I seriously hope that doesn't happen.
    - atomical 7y ago
      I wouldn't be so sure. Juries can be convinced of anything if you look at past judgements against Monsanto. I'm not saying that I think Google is innocent but often the evidence is very difficult for the lay person to interpret (especially when it is absent).
      - bilbo0s 7y ago
        >Juries can be convinced of anything... Which is exactly why they'd get off.
    - sjy 7y ago
0xcde4c3db 7y ago
Questions from someone who doesn't know a lot about antitrust law, in case someone knowledgeable cares to chime in: To what extent does antitrust law require specific intentional or knowing conduct? Is there some "knew or should have known" standard that would require Google to explain why they didn't anticipate or investigate some suspiciously favorable placement of Google products/services/affiliates? Or can Google basically shrug and say "algorithm" a lot and the Justice Department would have an uphill battle to prove intent?
- KirinDave 7y ago
  It requires no intent, and iirc the argument of Standard Oil before their censure was precisely that they didn't mean to stifle trade, they were just better than everyone else at it. The Supreme Court said they didn't really care why or how, they cared that it was a monopoly in fact. But historically anti-trust suits have usually been about what happens when negative sentiment towards American mega-corporations grows too high. Essentially the rules are different for big companies. In reality, most of the things companies need to do to avoid anti-trust cases are performative. Even more ironically, the super rich at the tops of corporate pyramids often end up profiting from these sorts of actions. All an anti-trust suit can do is mandate companies fracture into multiple legal entities. Usually the same owners retain their ownership, only now over dozens or more of companies which each individually pay upwards. What's even more distressing about these laws is that they're quite unusable against entities that are at least as frightening, like Amazon (and historically Walmart). Amazon is the omni-company, and now they're gonna get into consumer telecom too. And because they're lateral as opposed to vertical and they choked out the competition during a recession, they don't even have to pretend the're offering a square deal to their resellers.
  - threezero 7y ago
    Amazon could very well be the next target. Their practice of driving out smaller resellers in a category and then jacking up prices could be looked at as an antitrust issue.
- asr 7y ago
  Monopolization requires anticompetitive conduct. To prove this, intent evidence is often helpful. For example, in the recent Qualcomm case the judge cited evidence that Qualcomm executives knew their business model created antitrust risk. But intent evidence is not required. A corporation doesn't have a state of mind. Also, wanting to beat your competitors is fine (and good). So it's tricky to distinguish bad intent from good intent.
justinph 7y ago
Dear Justice Department: Take a look at google AMP and how they use it to strong-arm publishers by linking it to search placement. You'll find some stuff.
- sdan 7y ago
  AMP is just the start. I won't be surprised if we find out Google is promoting websites for using Google Analytics.
  - duskwuff 7y ago
    There's already some questionable aspects, like the way that Google search query strings are only available if you sign up for Google Analytics. And I would be very interested to hear what Google does with the other data they collect with Analytics...
  - tantalor 7y ago
    No, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLmO1GE4GvI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLmO1GE4GvI > search quality in general does not use Google Analytics in ranking > it won't affect your ranking
    - lohszvu 7y ago
      Do you actually believe them? I don't.
      - sdan 7y ago
        I agree with lohszvu and given this was made nearly a decade ago, I'm pretty sure their tactics have changed (I don't even think AMP was made in 2010).
  - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    If Google we’re truly committed to building a search engine that is useful they would give the user control of ranking. I hope one day we see a search engine not driven by ad incentives....
fyoving 7y ago
I don't see how after the FTC came up empty the DOJ would fare any better as arguable the sherman act is a much tougher route, and the competition landscape has changed to google's detriment (amazon ads, facebook, etc). Anyway the article is quite scarce and the source is the WSJ so they might be trying to amplify some stuff or even advocate for it.
- pm90 7y ago
  The DOJ has significantly more resources and investigative power.
  - fyoving 7y ago
    The FTC act has broader powers in these cases as they can consider effect on competitors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_of_1914 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_o... The DOJ enforces the sherman act, which is useless here (no consumer harm).
- partiallypro 7y ago
  The FTC backed off because the administration at the time (2012-2013) were friendly with Google.
  - eanzenberg 7y ago
    Don't forget that social media, FB & GOOG helped elect the administration at the time.
  - acct1771 7y ago
    Source is probably controversial, but I'm interested in refutations: https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
benologist 7y ago
In the last ~year Google has admitted to accidentally-but-knowingly stealing $75 million from Adwords customers, and settled a case they had fought four years for $11 million to avoid revealing what happens to a banned Adsense account's unpaid revenue. There is likely several hundred million dollars of fraud just in these two 'edge cases' they ignored handling for decades, so it's definitely time for someone to dig deep into this company. https://www.businessinsider.com/google-emails-adtrader-lawsuit-refund-ad-click-fraud-2019-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-emails-adtrader-lawsu... https://www.searchenginejournal.com/adsense-lawsuit/248135/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/adsense-lawsuit/248135/
- soup10 7y ago
  lets not forget their latest and greatest of releasing chrome for free until it saturated the market and became a monopoly then maliciously making changes to reduce the effectiveness of adblockers like ublock origin
  - xkgt 7y ago
    And they did all they could to kill Windows Phone (a viable alternative ecosystem at that time) by blocking access to Youtube[1] and providing sub-par experience for their other services. Now I fear Firefox has a similar sisyphean task at hand, trying to keep their browser usable on google services. And for many of the users, that is same as usability of the browser as a whole. [1]https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/microsoft_on_the_issues/2013/08/15/the-limits-of-googles-openness/ https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/microsoft_on_the_issues/...
    - Zigurd 7y ago
      Microsoft managed to kill Windows Phone by itself and take Nokia, and a more mature more viable smartphone OS, down with it. Windows phone was a "viable alternative" by the end, but in the beginning it was uncompetitive without any hindrances. Also recall that mobile carriers and OEMs were opposed to Android because it would further degrade their ability to create walled gardens. The carriers lost control of apps, not for lack of trying. Imagine what a world that would be. The FANG succeed largely instead of a carrier-controlled mobile ecosystem. You may think that replaces one kind of oppression with another, but if you weaken the internet platforms, you strengthen the carriers who are now off the net neutrality leash, and who see 5G as an opportunity to gain control of a lot of what we now enjoy as an open internet.
GeekyBear 7y ago
The career officials at the FTC recommended antitrust action against Google back in 2012, but the political appointees shut them down. >When the Federal Trade Commission neared a momentous decision on whether to charge Google with violating antitrust laws in January 2013, the White House was watching closely. New emails uncovered by the Campaign for Accountability, a public interest watchdog organization, show that a White House advisor met with top Google lobbyist Johanna Shelton and top Google antitrust counsel Matthew Bye twice in the weeks before the FTC announcement. And minutes prior to the final decision – in which FTC commissioners took the unusual step of overriding their staff’s recommendation to sue, and voted to settle the case instead – the White House official even sought Google’s talking points in the matter. https://theintercept.com/2016/08/18/white-house-official-cozied-up-to-google-before-antitrust-lawsuit-was-shelved/ https://theintercept.com/2016/08/18/white-house-official-coz...
- fyoving 7y ago
  That's one interpretation by interested parties another would be that enforcement lawyers are always aggressive and those who make the decision in the end would have to weigh the odds of winning in court and unanimously they decides not. Regardless, the FTC would have had a much better chance than the DOJ as they have specific broad powers more suitable to this case.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    Google was also very positively connected to the Obama administration. It was some googlers that stepped in and turned around healthcare.gov for instance. I've heard a lot of rumors that they gave a lot of data access to the campaigns too.
    - fyoving 7y ago
      I don't know about data accesse rumors but the fact that a bunch of Googlers did government work during the Obama years is well documented, that said the FTC is an independent agency with commissioners from both parties and they unanimously voted against going to court.
scotchio 7y ago
Stop the bubbling Stop the personalization engines
KirinDave 7y ago
Distressingly absent from this list is the company that cheerfully collects and sells even more data that Google about the average American's life and collects MUCH more of their money: Amazon.
- untog 7y ago
  Collects money, yes. But collects more data? I'm dubious.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    Everyone who uses AWS essentially gives data signals to Amazon. As they're by far the biggest cloud provider, that's a lot of data. Add that to their physical goods store, their shipping, their payments, their music store, their player apps, their subscription data, their identity and payment data. Amazon's looking at getting into the consumer communications business too. If I were a bad person asking, "Who's more valuable to Hack for consumer data" I don't know how I could conclude it's anything but Amazon. Google might have your credit card and purchasing patterns, Amazon will. Google might know about your phone, Amazon will.
    - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
      The idea that data stored on AWS is equal to data collected by Amazon is ludicrous. There are contracts and laws to govern such relationships. Hundreds of people inside Amazon would know about it, and any one of them could expose them to existentially threatening lawsuits whenever they are even slightly upset with their employer.
      - KirinDave 7y ago
        That's not what I said though. I said as the biggest CSP they have signals no one else has access to. I didn't say they were reading your RDS boxes.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      I may be mistaken but every major cloud provider, from AWS to Azure to Google, has dictated in their SLA that they don't mine your data (as a cloud customer).
orev 7y ago
Look, I get it — the issues with Google, Facebook, Amazon. But I can’t help but think about how AT&T and other ISPs banded together to claim they shouldn’t be regulated because they are Internet companies just like FANG during the Net Neutrality discussions. When I see just how bad ISPs are acting, in lack of competition, price gouging, content ownership, data monitoring, it really seems they were successful in shifting the focus to FANG and convincing everyone to forget about Net Neutrality. This is not meant to whataboutism, but the truth is the public/news cycles can only handle so many “tech” related items at one time. People are not “locked in” to any of the FANG companies nearly as much as they are their physical ISPs where they really do not have an option.
- wybiral 7y ago
  It shouldn't be a whataboutism, it's true. They gave too much of a pass to ISPs and that needs to stop. But it doesn't stop by relaxing on tech companies like Google, that would only further normalize it.
- creato 7y ago
  I think more importantly, ISPs made a (in my opinion, bullshit) free market argument that resonated with conservatives. At the same time, FANG made themselves an enemy of conservatives. Conservatives are now in power.
  - jeremyjh 7y ago
    You could make the free market argument here too, but it won't appeal to them. Conservatives have a sort of pact with business interests that are otherwise neutral on social issues. They can look after each other because neither care much about the other's priorities. FANG are not reliably neutral in that same way, they are more like Hollywood in terms of "values". Of course their money is just as good as anyone else's and conservatives will take a lot of it where there is a tactical advantage but there can't be a long-term alliance.
  - RandomTisk 7y ago
    What would be different today had NN passed?
mark_l_watson 7y ago
If, and it is an impossible if, the big nine or ten AI companies (mostly in USA and China) could be split into smaller companies like Judge Green did to AT&T so many years ago, then, I think that would overall be a good thing. However, it is not right for the large companies in just one country to be split up. Piketty in Capital in the 21st Century makes good points on how mass amounts of capital earn more money than mass amounts of labor. It is the same winner take all situation in high tech. It is easy conceptually: governments just need to apply the law fairly. But in my country (USA) corporate interests have almost totally co-opted both main political parties and control most of the regulatory institutions.
simplecomplex 7y ago
Google isn’t a monopoly and using a competing search engine is quite easy. Pretty sad that providing an excellent service that customers love is seen as a bad thing, especially on HN. Sad bitter people celebrating the thought of Google being punished for being at the top of their game... get a life.
magicalist 7y ago
I feel like about 2/3rds of hn commentators are going to be very disappointed when we learn this investigation is whether it's an antitrust violation to regularly list new york times and cnn news results above breitbart's. The Trump administration has threatened this a couple of times now... edit: I'm not sure why this is less plausible than the Obama white house personally interceding on the earlier case because they sought Google's "talking points"
- mistermann 7y ago
  Is this based on insider knowledge of some kind?
tyingq 7y ago
The 2012 leaked memo from the last time they tried this: http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/ http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/
swalsh 7y ago
Imagine what competition in the search space would do for adword prices. I have no idea how one would go about breaking up google search, and the infrastructure/IP behind it. Or changing consumer habits, but there would be a lot of beneifts to everyone.
- derscheister 7y ago
  How would it benefit everyone? Who exactly and in what way?
- ThrustVectoring 7y ago
  Adwords prices are based off the bids submitted - whether this is done through one centralized exchange or many competing ones makes little difference. Each search-based digital advertiser will end up charging the maximum it can while avoiding "vacancies".
nsomaru 7y ago
I was the biggest Google fan ever. I recommended all their products to everyone I know. Gone are those days. I now trust Microsoft (heh! M!cr0$0ft, anyone?) more than Google which is strange given I grew up rebelling against MS’s technical desktop hegemony. I wonder when Google decided “doing evil” was okay. I wonder how the SWE’s and other senior people in this thread feel about working for a company that many now consider scum. All their excuses and retorts can honestly take a hike: It is my honest opinion that if you still work for Google you’re selling us all out. After years of serving malware through ads and doing nothing to stop it, they’re now trying to stop us blocking ads?! That’s just the last of many strikes that set me down this road.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  > After years of serving malware through ads and doing nothing to stop it, I occasionally see articles to that effect. But I have never been effected by such malware. And that includes 20+ years on the web, including the seedier corners, and without ever taking special measures like anti-virus. As far as I can tell, this 'ad-distributed malware' are a few cases far between, completely blown out of proportions to justify peoples' use of ad blockers.
- jetzzz 7y ago
  > I now trust Microsoft more than Google What's so good about Microsoft? They filled their OS with spyware and adware and they seem to be incompetent as a tech company - remember their recent Windows update that deleted user data even though early testers have reported the issue.
  - snazz 7y ago
    Lesser of two evils? That's how I interpreted the comment you replied to, anyway.
  - ryl00 7y ago
    > They filled their OS with spyware and adware But only after Google, et. al. proved how willing we all are to trade our data for free stuff. This is just the new reality of SaaS, at least as targeted to the general public who now expect free updates for life, isn't it?
enitihas 7y ago
I think the slowly most businesses would realize if you are a big company, it makes much more sense to capture exclusively the high end market (iPhone) and try to stay as much away as possible from the low end market. This gives you a lion's share of the profits, while making sure you don't get labelled a monopoly (and people asking you to make your platform open). This is the exact model of Apple. iPhones dominate the high end market, and the high price ensures both a.) high capture of the profit. b.) less market share due to simply being out of reach for a lot of people. Once you are in the above position, you can do anything on your platform, and since you aren't a monopoly, you have much more leeway than your competitors. Your competitor might be forced to unbundle and compromise the uniformity of their platform, while you can simply choose to not even allow alternative browsers, because you know, you aren't a monopoly. Getting the low end market share might be come to seen as more of a headache than required.
- teknopaul 7y ago
  Its an interesting take on things. Other view is that Apple is an abusive monopoly any is getting away with it for the same reasons Google is. America is permitting Monolpolies at the moment because it is scared of China. Presumably the US has doubts that capitalism is best and is betting on state supported Monoplies. ;)
  - kmlx 7y ago
    i don’t understand how Apple is an “abusive monopoly” when their iphone market share is 15.8%, while samsung is at 17.3%. was your characterisation related to their app store by any chance?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
telltruth 7y ago
With Eric Schmidt leaving, the hanging sword has finally came down. He knew how to play lobbyist network in DC even with unfavorable administration if you had almost unlimited money supply. Breitbart publishing recent video leaks on Google execs in tears on election results meant this was inevitable. Google has LOT to lose from this. They had previously made absurd the argument that they are not monopoly and Amazon is their biggest competition. Somehow lobby money made this argument magically acceptable and everybody moved on. Now they would have charges from Yelp, funding services like gmail using search business to bankrupt other players, making arbitrary decisions for advertisers, youtube piracy, website takedowns and de-rankings, Chrome defaults, AMP... However, I wonder what could be the end game here for the government? Google is still very monolithic as far as revenues are concerned, so how do you even break it up in any viable way? My guess is that they would probably impose some fine and settlement agreement.
rzmnzm 7y ago
I am quite creeped out by Google following me about and requesting that I rate random shops
kartikeye 7y ago
HN is Google agent. Two times my comment on Google racketeering was removed. It seems Google besides buying politicians owns HN and Silicon Valley. Pathetic and disgraceful.
lewisj489 7y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18647750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18647750
onetimemanytime 7y ago
and third world countries are corrupt? They are just open about it and give everyone a chance to bid. Imagine the hundreds of billions this decision was worth to Google. Total cost to Google? Probably tens of millions, and a lot of lobbying work was overlapping.
electrotype 7y ago
This should be part of some philosophy course: how can one become evil, even when starting with good intentions.
ilaksh 7y ago
I will go ahead and bring up a related issue. Most people seem to not see it as being related but in my mind it is very closely related. So maybe consider not burying my comment completely. Part of the reason we have these technology monopolies is that they provide ubiquitous platforms and that is very powerful for consumers and businesses (as long as your goals don't conflict with their goals). The issue is that these platforms are being provided by private interests, but have so much scope that they act like public platforms. My suggestion is to try to create public platforms that business or consumers could tap into/build off of. This would allow for us to audit the mechanisms and also provide a base layer that competition could be built on. In my mind the obvious technical direction is decentralization technologies. That's the only way such public networks could be feasible. I actually see this as covering technology in an extremely broad sense. It applies to everything from Google search and ads, to Amazon and online retail, to Uber and taxi apps, maybe even the US dollar and currency, or perhaps even government itself.
kartikeye 7y ago
Google key competitive edge is illegal eavesdropping on third party websites. Thus it is engaged in racketeering and cartel activity. If you replace restaurants with tech, pasta, sausages, sauce with apps, store, api you have Google as Gambino family of big tech.
writepub 7y ago
1. I fully agree with an investigation into Google. 2. Why hasn't any federal agency looked into Apple's behavior, where they sell hardware (and here bestow it's ownership to the consumer), but continue to play middleman in what apps the user is allowed to run. It's contrary to the fundamental concept of ownership, and worse, to the tenets of decades of general purpose computing And before regurgitations of "it's unit sales aren't a majority" gets thrown at me as a justification for monopolistic behavior, please note the truth [1] that iOS install base/usage in the US is almost 10% more than Android, AND iDevices constitute a majority. [1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-stat...

870 points by Despegar 7y ago

Thank God! It's time to control this unethical and ruthless internet-suppressing evil corporation. Google took over the internet and it thinks it is theirs. Google took over the search. Google took over advertising, a real currency of the internet. And they believe that this currency belongs to them. Google hampers creation and creators on the internet. Google is a world wide surveillance machine. Google controls too much. It's time to break this evil behemoth. And now let's listen to the Google fans and apologists about how everything is just one click away...

dang 7y ago
We've already asked you several times not to post like this. It breaks the site guidelines. We're here for curiosity, not flamey rants. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Ronnie_Dipple 7y ago
I have news for you, most corporations are unethical because they are not people they do not care for ethics they are literally money making machines and Google is great at making money. I'm not a Google fan and welcome this investigation but you need perspective.

mdorazio 7y ago

If true, this will be a landmark case and should scare FB and Amazon as well. Personally, I think this is a good thing and it's past time for the government to at least set some boundaries, but there's no telling how it will play out with the current administration and amount of lobbying dollars flying around.

hdieonds 7y ago
Considering how the current administration has - or at least feels it has - been treated by social media companies, I’d give good odds that the administration is the impetus behind the investigation.
d1zzy 7y ago
Why would this have any relevance to FB and Amazon? I realize a lot of people on HN don't like what these companies are doing with their data, but this lawsuit is not about privacy at all so I don't see how it relates to those 2 companies.
- deytempo 7y ago
  All you need to do is look at their respective stock price histories to see how they are related.
- chris_wot 7y ago
  Both of these companies are very good at extinguishing competition.
- GuardianCaveman 7y ago
  Ant-competitive practices? Facebook buying up any and all rivals like WhatsApp and Instagram? They are a juggernaut and shouldn’t be able to own all social media.
  - kakaorka 7y ago
    They also tried to buy Snapchat but their bid was rejected.
  - yeukhon 7y ago
    What’s wrong with buying competitions?
    - thanatos_dem 7y ago

minimaxir 7y ago

Relevant tweet from a Yelp SVP, who propagated many allegations of anticompetitive behavior in Google Search: > :) https://twitter.com/lutherlowe/status/1134621790720995328 https://twitter.com/lutherlowe/status/1134621790720995328

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Zhenya 7y ago
Maybe someone will investigate their mafia-like treatment of small businesses as well.
- eanzenberg 7y ago
  Two wrongs.. whataboutism.. etc. Maybe yelp had to resort to these monetizing tactics because their results were buried by google promoting their own business-ratings copy-cat service?
whoisjuan 7y ago
Happy emoji faces coming from a company whose business model is basically extortion. Nice.

neonate 7y ago

http://archive.is/PHSfY http://archive.is/PHSfY

daenz 7y ago

Can someone knowledgeable in this area lay out some of the potential anti-trust points that could be shown by the probe?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Despegar 7y ago
This WSJ story has details about the FTC recommendation to sue Google (overruled by the commissioners at the time). They accidentally sent the WSJ every other page in a botched FOIA request. https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-of-google-1426793274 https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-...
- joseph298 7y ago
  How do I read it? Do I have to subscribe?
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Archive.is / archive.fo generally works.
  - neonate 7y ago
    http://archive.is/TsG4K http://archive.is/TsG4K
Covzire 7y ago
This is just speculation, but I read somewhere recently that alleged that Youtube wasn't the gift to the world it appears to be. While I love Youtube for the most part (Free, High Quality), it is strange that we haven't seen much competition. Maybe it's a loss leader for Google and nobody else can afford the expense, or maybe they're doing something shady to make sure nobody else can afford to compete.
- 7y ago

duxup 7y ago

>closely examine Google’s business practices related to its search and other businesses Not a lot of detail.

aleister_777 7y ago

Good. To quote an old friend who worked for Google: "I'm worried that if the rest of America knew what we were actually doing here they would literally come here and kill us..."

infinity0 7y ago
Can you elaborate? I left Google years ago but it wasn't that bad.
daenz 7y ago
Suddenly, any regret from not pursuing a Google interview is gone...
- fizwhiz 7y ago
  Will you consider interviewing should the case ultimately turn out in Google's favor?
  - PenguinCoder 7y ago
    At least in my opinion, no. Many reasons but the underlying ones that make me not want to interview with or work for, Google are the same as for Microsoft. I can't trust them. I can already hear the argument, 'who can you trust'. That's subjective depending on your criteria. For me, I won't work for a company I do not trust to keep their promises, be it to the community or its employees.
mav3rick 7y ago
There are many many people who do good work at Google. Quote a random to suit your pitch forks. No name, no context , no source.
oldjokes 7y ago
I wonder how severe the backlash is going to be, not just for Google but all the tech giants. Our anti-trust laws were mostly written around monopolies abusing pricing power to rip off consumers, but with the intersection of data and hosting and analytics and everything else the potential to abuse people is far greater than just raising prices. And they have expanded their ability to profile and experiment on individuals worldwide, regardless of whether you create a Google account. It's just getting scary at this point.

ok_coo 7y ago

Finally.

raleigh_user 7y ago

Yep. Been coming. Platforms are super interesting with laws/regulations. Going to be interesting to watch what is decided.

781 7y ago

I'd be more interested in Google/Amazon/FB paying taxes than in anti-trust actions.

bwb 7y ago
They pay a ton of taxes :), payroll, property, etc. Corporate taxes they pay on profits if you invest a ton you can deduct it from profits. Nothing nefarious going on here.
- ajdlinux 7y ago
  > Corporate taxes they pay on profits if you invest a ton you can deduct it from profits. Nothing nefarious going on here. One's definition of "deductions" and "profits" can, of course, depend on how much one spends on tax lawyers, one's appetite for testing the untested boundaries of the relevant tax laws, and one's willingness to do fun and interesting things with structuring international subsidiaries. The ultimate result may or may not correlate with what the average citizen would accept as legitimate. Whether you think this is okay is a matter of opinion.
  - acct1771 7y ago
    We need to care about governance beforehand. Tax laws are what you're looking to change.
adventured 7y ago
Facebook's corporate income tax rate in 2018 was 12.8% ($3.2b) and for 2017 it was 22.6%. About 2/3 of their income taxes are paid domestically. Historically Facebook has paid high income tax rates. In 2014 and 2015 it was near 40%, in 2016 it fell to 19%. Google's corporate income tax rate in 2018 was 11.9% (2017 had an abnormally high domestic tax payment due to repatriation accounting; 2016 had a 19% rate). About 1/2 of their income taxes are paid domestically. Europe's average corporate income tax rate in 2018 was 18%, the EU was 21%, the world was 23%. There are eight European nations with corporate income tax rates equal to or lower than what Google and Facebook are paying. Their rates are low, no doubt about it. They're neither zero (paying no taxes), nor shockingly low given the very low tax rate jurisdictions available to them (eg in Europe). Amazon is however avoiding taxes successfully. They've managed to temporarily delay the tax hit on their new profit machine. That won't last much longer.

fizwhiz 7y ago

For everyone here squealing with glee: This will be just another Tuesday for the legal team at Big G ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

partiallypro 7y ago
You can't seriously believe this. The US bringing a case a vastly more a BFD than Europe's prodding at companies for cash.
- acct1771 7y ago
  See USA's FTC etc - we take our fair share of drive by fines, and change nothing afterwards. Doubt it'll happen in this case...people want blood from Google or FB, and they're going to get it. Other commenters had it right, though - ISPs, and lobbyists should be hanging next to them.

m0zg 7y ago

As an ex-Googler: good. Google has done a lot of good in the past, and that continues today, but it's pretty clear nobody should have as much control over "making information universally accessible and useful" as Google does. Especially after they give up any pretense of "don't be evil". I also very much hope FB is next.

rayiner 7y ago

While I think an antitrust suit against Google would be a waste of time, they really need to stop recommending Chrome every time you do a Google search with a different browser. Just stop, that will not play well to a jury.

ggm 7y ago
Your reply almost immediately says you think a jury could be swayed by argument, sentiment or both. Does that not mean an antitrust suit may actually be reasonable, judged by a potently prosecutor? I think you meant "I don't want them found guilty" which is a different thing. If you really think there is no case to answer I don't think you understand what an antitrust case is about. It's about market dominance and anti competitive behaviour. Something alphabet has already demonstrated they are capable of doing, as in when google, Facebook and apple agreed not to poach Staff and altered the pay rates accordingly, something of which they have already been found guilty.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >Your reply almost immediately says you think a jury could be swayed by argument, sentiment or both... If this goes to a jury, Google will definitely get off. I seriously hope that doesn't happen.
  - atomical 7y ago
    I wouldn't be so sure. Juries can be convinced of anything if you look at past judgements against Monsanto. I'm not saying that I think Google is innocent but often the evidence is very difficult for the lay person to interpret (especially when it is absent).
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      >Juries can be convinced of anything... Which is exactly why they'd get off.
  - sjy 7y ago

0xcde4c3db 7y ago

Questions from someone who doesn't know a lot about antitrust law, in case someone knowledgeable cares to chime in: To what extent does antitrust law require specific intentional or knowing conduct? Is there some "knew or should have known" standard that would require Google to explain why they didn't anticipate or investigate some suspiciously favorable placement of Google products/services/affiliates? Or can Google basically shrug and say "algorithm" a lot and the Justice Department would have an uphill battle to prove intent?

KirinDave 7y ago
It requires no intent, and iirc the argument of Standard Oil before their censure was precisely that they didn't mean to stifle trade, they were just better than everyone else at it. The Supreme Court said they didn't really care why or how, they cared that it was a monopoly in fact. But historically anti-trust suits have usually been about what happens when negative sentiment towards American mega-corporations grows too high. Essentially the rules are different for big companies. In reality, most of the things companies need to do to avoid anti-trust cases are performative. Even more ironically, the super rich at the tops of corporate pyramids often end up profiting from these sorts of actions. All an anti-trust suit can do is mandate companies fracture into multiple legal entities. Usually the same owners retain their ownership, only now over dozens or more of companies which each individually pay upwards. What's even more distressing about these laws is that they're quite unusable against entities that are at least as frightening, like Amazon (and historically Walmart). Amazon is the omni-company, and now they're gonna get into consumer telecom too. And because they're lateral as opposed to vertical and they choked out the competition during a recession, they don't even have to pretend the're offering a square deal to their resellers.
- threezero 7y ago
  Amazon could very well be the next target. Their practice of driving out smaller resellers in a category and then jacking up prices could be looked at as an antitrust issue.
asr 7y ago
Monopolization requires anticompetitive conduct. To prove this, intent evidence is often helpful. For example, in the recent Qualcomm case the judge cited evidence that Qualcomm executives knew their business model created antitrust risk. But intent evidence is not required. A corporation doesn't have a state of mind. Also, wanting to beat your competitors is fine (and good). So it's tricky to distinguish bad intent from good intent.

justinph 7y ago

Dear Justice Department: Take a look at google AMP and how they use it to strong-arm publishers by linking it to search placement. You'll find some stuff.

sdan 7y ago
AMP is just the start. I won't be surprised if we find out Google is promoting websites for using Google Analytics.
- duskwuff 7y ago
  There's already some questionable aspects, like the way that Google search query strings are only available if you sign up for Google Analytics. And I would be very interested to hear what Google does with the other data they collect with Analytics...
- tantalor 7y ago
  No, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLmO1GE4GvI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLmO1GE4GvI > search quality in general does not use Google Analytics in ranking > it won't affect your ranking
  - lohszvu 7y ago
    Do you actually believe them? I don't.
    - sdan 7y ago
      I agree with lohszvu and given this was made nearly a decade ago, I'm pretty sure their tactics have changed (I don't even think AMP was made in 2010).
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  If Google we’re truly committed to building a search engine that is useful they would give the user control of ranking. I hope one day we see a search engine not driven by ad incentives....

fyoving 7y ago

I don't see how after the FTC came up empty the DOJ would fare any better as arguable the sherman act is a much tougher route, and the competition landscape has changed to google's detriment (amazon ads, facebook, etc). Anyway the article is quite scarce and the source is the WSJ so they might be trying to amplify some stuff or even advocate for it.

pm90 7y ago
The DOJ has significantly more resources and investigative power.
- fyoving 7y ago
  The FTC act has broader powers in these cases as they can consider effect on competitors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_of_1914 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_o... The DOJ enforces the sherman act, which is useless here (no consumer harm).
partiallypro 7y ago
The FTC backed off because the administration at the time (2012-2013) were friendly with Google.
- eanzenberg 7y ago
  Don't forget that social media, FB & GOOG helped elect the administration at the time.
- acct1771 7y ago
  Source is probably controversial, but I'm interested in refutations: https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

benologist 7y ago

In the last ~year Google has admitted to accidentally-but-knowingly stealing $75 million from Adwords customers, and settled a case they had fought four years for $11 million to avoid revealing what happens to a banned Adsense account's unpaid revenue. There is likely several hundred million dollars of fraud just in these two 'edge cases' they ignored handling for decades, so it's definitely time for someone to dig deep into this company. https://www.businessinsider.com/google-emails-adtrader-lawsuit-refund-ad-click-fraud-2019-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-emails-adtrader-lawsu... https://www.searchenginejournal.com/adsense-lawsuit/248135/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/adsense-lawsuit/248135/

soup10 7y ago
lets not forget their latest and greatest of releasing chrome for free until it saturated the market and became a monopoly then maliciously making changes to reduce the effectiveness of adblockers like ublock origin
- xkgt 7y ago
  And they did all they could to kill Windows Phone (a viable alternative ecosystem at that time) by blocking access to Youtube[1] and providing sub-par experience for their other services. Now I fear Firefox has a similar sisyphean task at hand, trying to keep their browser usable on google services. And for many of the users, that is same as usability of the browser as a whole. [1]https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/microsoft_on_the_issues/2013/08/15/the-limits-of-googles-openness/ https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/microsoft_on_the_issues/...
  - Zigurd 7y ago
    Microsoft managed to kill Windows Phone by itself and take Nokia, and a more mature more viable smartphone OS, down with it. Windows phone was a "viable alternative" by the end, but in the beginning it was uncompetitive without any hindrances. Also recall that mobile carriers and OEMs were opposed to Android because it would further degrade their ability to create walled gardens. The carriers lost control of apps, not for lack of trying. Imagine what a world that would be. The FANG succeed largely instead of a carrier-controlled mobile ecosystem. You may think that replaces one kind of oppression with another, but if you weaken the internet platforms, you strengthen the carriers who are now off the net neutrality leash, and who see 5G as an opportunity to gain control of a lot of what we now enjoy as an open internet.

GeekyBear 7y ago

The career officials at the FTC recommended antitrust action against Google back in 2012, but the political appointees shut them down. >When the Federal Trade Commission neared a momentous decision on whether to charge Google with violating antitrust laws in January 2013, the White House was watching closely. New emails uncovered by the Campaign for Accountability, a public interest watchdog organization, show that a White House advisor met with top Google lobbyist Johanna Shelton and top Google antitrust counsel Matthew Bye twice in the weeks before the FTC announcement. And minutes prior to the final decision – in which FTC commissioners took the unusual step of overriding their staff’s recommendation to sue, and voted to settle the case instead – the White House official even sought Google’s talking points in the matter. https://theintercept.com/2016/08/18/white-house-official-cozied-up-to-google-before-antitrust-lawsuit-was-shelved/ https://theintercept.com/2016/08/18/white-house-official-coz...

fyoving 7y ago
That's one interpretation by interested parties another would be that enforcement lawyers are always aggressive and those who make the decision in the end would have to weigh the odds of winning in court and unanimously they decides not. Regardless, the FTC would have had a much better chance than the DOJ as they have specific broad powers more suitable to this case.
- monocasa 7y ago
  Google was also very positively connected to the Obama administration. It was some googlers that stepped in and turned around healthcare.gov for instance. I've heard a lot of rumors that they gave a lot of data access to the campaigns too.
  - fyoving 7y ago
    I don't know about data accesse rumors but the fact that a bunch of Googlers did government work during the Obama years is well documented, that said the FTC is an independent agency with commissioners from both parties and they unanimously voted against going to court.

scotchio 7y ago

Stop the bubbling Stop the personalization engines

KirinDave 7y ago

Distressingly absent from this list is the company that cheerfully collects and sells even more data that Google about the average American's life and collects MUCH more of their money: Amazon.

untog 7y ago
Collects money, yes. But collects more data? I'm dubious.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  Everyone who uses AWS essentially gives data signals to Amazon. As they're by far the biggest cloud provider, that's a lot of data. Add that to their physical goods store, their shipping, their payments, their music store, their player apps, their subscription data, their identity and payment data. Amazon's looking at getting into the consumer communications business too. If I were a bad person asking, "Who's more valuable to Hack for consumer data" I don't know how I could conclude it's anything but Amazon. Google might have your credit card and purchasing patterns, Amazon will. Google might know about your phone, Amazon will.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
    The idea that data stored on AWS is equal to data collected by Amazon is ludicrous. There are contracts and laws to govern such relationships. Hundreds of people inside Amazon would know about it, and any one of them could expose them to existentially threatening lawsuits whenever they are even slightly upset with their employer.
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      That's not what I said though. I said as the biggest CSP they have signals no one else has access to. I didn't say they were reading your RDS boxes.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    I may be mistaken but every major cloud provider, from AWS to Azure to Google, has dictated in their SLA that they don't mine your data (as a cloud customer).

orev 7y ago

Look, I get it — the issues with Google, Facebook, Amazon. But I can’t help but think about how AT&T and other ISPs banded together to claim they shouldn’t be regulated because they are Internet companies just like FANG during the Net Neutrality discussions. When I see just how bad ISPs are acting, in lack of competition, price gouging, content ownership, data monitoring, it really seems they were successful in shifting the focus to FANG and convincing everyone to forget about Net Neutrality. This is not meant to whataboutism, but the truth is the public/news cycles can only handle so many “tech” related items at one time. People are not “locked in” to any of the FANG companies nearly as much as they are their physical ISPs where they really do not have an option.

wybiral 7y ago
It shouldn't be a whataboutism, it's true. They gave too much of a pass to ISPs and that needs to stop. But it doesn't stop by relaxing on tech companies like Google, that would only further normalize it.
creato 7y ago
I think more importantly, ISPs made a (in my opinion, bullshit) free market argument that resonated with conservatives. At the same time, FANG made themselves an enemy of conservatives. Conservatives are now in power.
- jeremyjh 7y ago
  You could make the free market argument here too, but it won't appeal to them. Conservatives have a sort of pact with business interests that are otherwise neutral on social issues. They can look after each other because neither care much about the other's priorities. FANG are not reliably neutral in that same way, they are more like Hollywood in terms of "values". Of course their money is just as good as anyone else's and conservatives will take a lot of it where there is a tactical advantage but there can't be a long-term alliance.
- RandomTisk 7y ago
  What would be different today had NN passed?

mark_l_watson 7y ago

If, and it is an impossible if, the big nine or ten AI companies (mostly in USA and China) could be split into smaller companies like Judge Green did to AT&T so many years ago, then, I think that would overall be a good thing. However, it is not right for the large companies in just one country to be split up. Piketty in Capital in the 21st Century makes good points on how mass amounts of capital earn more money than mass amounts of labor. It is the same winner take all situation in high tech. It is easy conceptually: governments just need to apply the law fairly. But in my country (USA) corporate interests have almost totally co-opted both main political parties and control most of the regulatory institutions.

simplecomplex 7y ago

Google isn’t a monopoly and using a competing search engine is quite easy. Pretty sad that providing an excellent service that customers love is seen as a bad thing, especially on HN. Sad bitter people celebrating the thought of Google being punished for being at the top of their game... get a life.

magicalist 7y ago

I feel like about 2/3rds of hn commentators are going to be very disappointed when we learn this investigation is whether it's an antitrust violation to regularly list new york times and cnn news results above breitbart's. The Trump administration has threatened this a couple of times now... edit: I'm not sure why this is less plausible than the Obama white house personally interceding on the earlier case because they sought Google's "talking points"

mistermann 7y ago
Is this based on insider knowledge of some kind?

tyingq 7y ago

The 2012 leaked memo from the last time they tried this: http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/ http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/

swalsh 7y ago

Imagine what competition in the search space would do for adword prices. I have no idea how one would go about breaking up google search, and the infrastructure/IP behind it. Or changing consumer habits, but there would be a lot of beneifts to everyone.

derscheister 7y ago
How would it benefit everyone? Who exactly and in what way?
ThrustVectoring 7y ago
Adwords prices are based off the bids submitted - whether this is done through one centralized exchange or many competing ones makes little difference. Each search-based digital advertiser will end up charging the maximum it can while avoiding "vacancies".

nsomaru 7y ago

I was the biggest Google fan ever. I recommended all their products to everyone I know. Gone are those days. I now trust Microsoft (heh! M!cr0$0ft, anyone?) more than Google which is strange given I grew up rebelling against MS’s technical desktop hegemony. I wonder when Google decided “doing evil” was okay. I wonder how the SWE’s and other senior people in this thread feel about working for a company that many now consider scum. All their excuses and retorts can honestly take a hike: It is my honest opinion that if you still work for Google you’re selling us all out. After years of serving malware through ads and doing nothing to stop it, they’re now trying to stop us blocking ads?! That’s just the last of many strikes that set me down this road.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
> After years of serving malware through ads and doing nothing to stop it, I occasionally see articles to that effect. But I have never been effected by such malware. And that includes 20+ years on the web, including the seedier corners, and without ever taking special measures like anti-virus. As far as I can tell, this 'ad-distributed malware' are a few cases far between, completely blown out of proportions to justify peoples' use of ad blockers.
jetzzz 7y ago
> I now trust Microsoft more than Google What's so good about Microsoft? They filled their OS with spyware and adware and they seem to be incompetent as a tech company - remember their recent Windows update that deleted user data even though early testers have reported the issue.
- snazz 7y ago
  Lesser of two evils? That's how I interpreted the comment you replied to, anyway.
- ryl00 7y ago
  > They filled their OS with spyware and adware But only after Google, et. al. proved how willing we all are to trade our data for free stuff. This is just the new reality of SaaS, at least as targeted to the general public who now expect free updates for life, isn't it?

enitihas 7y ago

I think the slowly most businesses would realize if you are a big company, it makes much more sense to capture exclusively the high end market (iPhone) and try to stay as much away as possible from the low end market. This gives you a lion's share of the profits, while making sure you don't get labelled a monopoly (and people asking you to make your platform open). This is the exact model of Apple. iPhones dominate the high end market, and the high price ensures both a.) high capture of the profit. b.) less market share due to simply being out of reach for a lot of people. Once you are in the above position, you can do anything on your platform, and since you aren't a monopoly, you have much more leeway than your competitors. Your competitor might be forced to unbundle and compromise the uniformity of their platform, while you can simply choose to not even allow alternative browsers, because you know, you aren't a monopoly. Getting the low end market share might be come to seen as more of a headache than required.

teknopaul 7y ago
Its an interesting take on things. Other view is that Apple is an abusive monopoly any is getting away with it for the same reasons Google is. America is permitting Monolpolies at the moment because it is scared of China. Presumably the US has doubts that capitalism is best and is betting on state supported Monoplies. ;)
- kmlx 7y ago
  i don’t understand how Apple is an “abusive monopoly” when their iphone market share is 15.8%, while samsung is at 17.3%. was your characterisation related to their app store by any chance?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

telltruth 7y ago

With Eric Schmidt leaving, the hanging sword has finally came down. He knew how to play lobbyist network in DC even with unfavorable administration if you had almost unlimited money supply. Breitbart publishing recent video leaks on Google execs in tears on election results meant this was inevitable. Google has LOT to lose from this. They had previously made absurd the argument that they are not monopoly and Amazon is their biggest competition. Somehow lobby money made this argument magically acceptable and everybody moved on. Now they would have charges from Yelp, funding services like gmail using search business to bankrupt other players, making arbitrary decisions for advertisers, youtube piracy, website takedowns and de-rankings, Chrome defaults, AMP... However, I wonder what could be the end game here for the government? Google is still very monolithic as far as revenues are concerned, so how do you even break it up in any viable way? My guess is that they would probably impose some fine and settlement agreement.

rzmnzm 7y ago

I am quite creeped out by Google following me about and requesting that I rate random shops

kartikeye 7y ago

HN is Google agent. Two times my comment on Google racketeering was removed. It seems Google besides buying politicians owns HN and Silicon Valley. Pathetic and disgraceful.

lewisj489 7y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18647750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18647750

onetimemanytime 7y ago

and third world countries are corrupt? They are just open about it and give everyone a chance to bid. Imagine the hundreds of billions this decision was worth to Google. Total cost to Google? Probably tens of millions, and a lot of lobbying work was overlapping.

electrotype 7y ago

This should be part of some philosophy course: how can one become evil, even when starting with good intentions.

ilaksh 7y ago

I will go ahead and bring up a related issue. Most people seem to not see it as being related but in my mind it is very closely related. So maybe consider not burying my comment completely. Part of the reason we have these technology monopolies is that they provide ubiquitous platforms and that is very powerful for consumers and businesses (as long as your goals don't conflict with their goals). The issue is that these platforms are being provided by private interests, but have so much scope that they act like public platforms. My suggestion is to try to create public platforms that business or consumers could tap into/build off of. This would allow for us to audit the mechanisms and also provide a base layer that competition could be built on. In my mind the obvious technical direction is decentralization technologies. That's the only way such public networks could be feasible. I actually see this as covering technology in an extremely broad sense. It applies to everything from Google search and ads, to Amazon and online retail, to Uber and taxi apps, maybe even the US dollar and currency, or perhaps even government itself.

kartikeye 7y ago

Google key competitive edge is illegal eavesdropping on third party websites. Thus it is engaged in racketeering and cartel activity. If you replace restaurants with tech, pasta, sausages, sauce with apps, store, api you have Google as Gambino family of big tech.

writepub 7y ago

1. I fully agree with an investigation into Google. 2. Why hasn't any federal agency looked into Apple's behavior, where they sell hardware (and here bestow it's ownership to the consumer), but continue to play middleman in what apps the user is allowed to run. It's contrary to the fundamental concept of ownership, and worse, to the tenets of decades of general purpose computing And before regurgitations of "it's unit sales aren't a majority" gets thrown at me as a justification for monopolistic behavior, please note the truth [1] that iOS install base/usage in the US is almost 10% more than Android, AND iDevices constitute a majority. [1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-stat...