7 ms·

Because the current regulators in the US don’t intervene in anti competitive behavior until it is deemed harmful for consumers. They don’t generally consider ke

Because the current regulators in the US don’t intervene in anti competitive behavior until it is deemed harmful for consumers. They don’t generally consider keeping prices low (in this case, zero) as harmful to consumers. If anyone has an axe to grind it’s other browser developers and web service providers, and if they want they can bring a class action against google for anticompetitive behavior. But I suspect there’s too much for them to lose in a drawn out suit than to gain.

perl4ever 7y ago
Well, there is a such a thing as a non-monetary cost. I'm not sure if you are just describing the viewpoint of those who ignore such things, or whether you haven't thought of that.
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  I'm just parroting what I hear often about the FTC.
badrabbit 7y ago
If google uses this behavior to for example make everyone use and support only chrome and tie their ad-targeting of the chrome user (google account) and dissuade using other search engines, would that not make it hard for other search platforms to compete by offering lower prices to consumers? I also worry how everyone these days has vendor locking on Chrome, if I use firefox I get lower quality content and Google has made it hard for devs to support non-chrome browsers, this hurts me as a consumer, although I find it hard to come up with a cash amount in damages.
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  I think this gets at the crux of it. If consumers aren't harmed directly, how do you quantify the impact of anti-competitive behavior and argue that it's "bad" and not "just business"? I don't have an answer. I don't like Google's behavior here, and I don't like seeing vertical integration that cuts out potential disrupters since it stagnates innovation. But like has been seen for decades, vertical integration like this can often lower prices for consumers, and regulators have a tough time squaring that circle with what they can call tort.

perl4ever 7y ago

Well, there is a such a thing as a non-monetary cost. I'm not sure if you are just describing the viewpoint of those who ignore such things, or whether you haven't thought of that.

unlinked_dll 7y ago
I'm just parroting what I hear often about the FTC.

badrabbit 7y ago

If google uses this behavior to for example make everyone use and support only chrome and tie their ad-targeting of the chrome user (google account) and dissuade using other search engines, would that not make it hard for other search platforms to compete by offering lower prices to consumers? I also worry how everyone these days has vendor locking on Chrome, if I use firefox I get lower quality content and Google has made it hard for devs to support non-chrome browsers, this hurts me as a consumer, although I find it hard to come up with a cash amount in damages.

unlinked_dll 7y ago
I think this gets at the crux of it. If consumers aren't harmed directly, how do you quantify the impact of anti-competitive behavior and argue that it's "bad" and not "just business"? I don't have an answer. I don't like Google's behavior here, and I don't like seeing vertical integration that cuts out potential disrupters since it stagnates innovation. But like has been seen for decades, vertical integration like this can often lower prices for consumers, and regulators have a tough time squaring that circle with what they can call tort.