13 ms·
Justice Department meeting state AG offices Tuesday to discuss Google: sources
- Despegar 7y agoOf all the Big Tech antitrust scrutiny, this one seems like the most straightforward case.
- vkou 7y agoIs it? Where would you make the cut, and which anti-customer behaviour (Which seems to drive anti-trust legislature in the US) would it combat?
- joe_the_user 7y agoWhatever problems I have with Google pales with what problems I'd have with whatever the US would want to carve Google into.
- paulddraper 7y agoHow would you even know that?
- dr_dshiv 7y agoBecause right now Google has enormous value because people trust it. I believe they won't do something horrible with my data because if they did, it would potentially erase billions of dollars of value from their share price. Yet. If I start feeling like Google operates as a compromise with the Trump administration, it super freaks me out. Kind of like what happened with Facebook?
- Karunamon 7y agoAt the risk of sounding overly snarky, what exactly has google done to secure or gain, rather than piss away trust at every conceivable turn? Maintain solid products? Google kills more products than they run. Stewardship of customer information? They're the biggest advertiser and have had multiple scandals. Good customer service? Not in this universe. Clear rules? Ask anyone that's lost their entire google account, email included, for a BS accusation of click fraud. I think I trust my phone company more than I trust Google.
- temporalparts 7y agoI'll bite. > Maintain solid products? Google kills more products than they run. Google Search, Youtube, Gmail, Google Maps are all amazing free products that have immensely benefited the world. Yeah, they kill a bunch of products, but that doesn't mean they don't maintain solid, if not amazing, products. > Stewardship of customer information? They're the biggest advertiser and have had multiple scandals. Do you have any evidence that Google sells non-anonymized customer data to advertisers? Can you cite a Google scandal about selling your data? Complying with subpoenas or government authority notwithstanding. > Good customer service? Not in this universe. Yeah, I agree with this one lol. > Clear rules? Ask anyone that's lost their entire google account, email included, for a BS accusation of click fraud. Yeah, I agree on the rules being opaque. > I think I trust my phone company more than I trust Google. I don't know what country you live in, but if you're in the US, do you mean the people making your phone (Huawei, Xiaomi, ... or you know Google) or the carriers who have been selling your location data [0]? [0] https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/31/carriers-violated-federal-law-by-selling-your-location-data-fcc-tells-congress/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/31/carriers-violated-federal-...
- Karunamon 7y agoGmail can't be trusted to actually deliver messages to the recipient's inbox (one of the reasons I left them), YouTube is in the process of imploding with insane content restrictions and copyright claim abuse. Maps is actually really good, I'll give you that. By carriers, I meant the mobile carriers. I can at least avoid them. Avoiding Google is significantly more difficult. >Do you have any evidence that Google sells non-anonymized customer data to advertisers? That's a rather specific subset of "multiple scandals" that I didn't say or imply. As to what they've been doing wrong, we could start with the recently uncovered uniquely generated tracking ID in Chrome (currently on the front page), or the Google+ data leak that led to the service being shut down, or the email scanning for ad targeting that was happening as late as 2017, or when they had to fire an engineer for snooping through people's gmail accounts. All of these tell me that their internal controls are not that great. What puts the topping on the shit sundae for me is that they're an advertising company at the end of the day. Their user's privacy interests and their own interests will be perpetually at odds. That by itself makes them unworthy of trust in my eyes.
- birdyrooster 7y agoNo, they have enormous value because people have limited choice.
- pb7 7y agoFor which Google products do people have limited choice in alternatives?
- birdyrooster 7y agoAdSense, Search, and YouTube
- pb7 7y agoAll of those have alternatives. Bing? DuckDuckGo? Qwant? Vimeo? DailyMotion? MetaCafe? Even Facebook Video. As for ads, there are so many I don’t even know what their relative ordering is.
- birdyrooster 7y agoYou've made my point for me. Incredibly limited offerings for alternatives.
- pb7 7y agoAnd this is Google’s fault, how? How many options do you need? There are more options for each than I have Internet providers but no one is talking anti-trust there.
- Karunamon 7y agoOptions existing doesn't make them viable. Excluding Google in favor of advertising on also-ran search engines like Bing or DDG loses you a huge amount of visibility, for example. Searching? Again, Google in clear first place, everyone else tied for last. Video? Nobody uses Vimeo, and their content rules are even more strict than YouTube's. A couple of those names I've never even heard of before.
- kick 7y agoThe USA's history on this hasn't been stellar. The breakup of AT&T is testament to that.
- Teever 7y agoCan you elaborate on that?
- lioeters 7y agoPerhaps it's a reference to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
- kick 7y agoSure! Most of the RBOCs were purchased...by other RBOCs, or AT&T itself. The research output of AT&T halved. The well-regulated monopoly was sacrificed for what is now more or less unregulated yet governmentally-defended triopolies in every area AT&T was touching, and then some. The quality of the service has dropped dramatically, even if there was cost reduction (which arguably is tied to said decline in quality). There was a great book written by two engineers working on the Bell System a few decades ago with a rather rotten title, but a subtitle that'll allow you to find the book just the same: The Criminal Wrecking of the Best Telephone System in the World. I found it really fascinating in many ways, although I'll admit that it served to justify my own beliefs, rather than making me change them, so I could be biased.
- sailfast 7y agoSo, the Standard Oil and Bell breakups didn't work out? Do you still have to pay to rent your telephone handset hardware each month? Also I don't think in this case that the determination that something requires action to mitigate anti-competitive behavior means that the government declares what happens. Not a lawyer, and have not read any precedent but I'd imagine a first step would be to ask these companies about a structure that would work best if business units were separated, with some guidance, rather than some declaratory thing.
- 7y ago
- killface 7y agowell, when you lack all trust in the current government to do anything that doesn't directly benefit them, that's how.
- TuringNYC 7y agoI would be more worried about giving up market share to overseas competitors and the US losing strategic advantage.
- rifung 7y agoI work for Google, opinions are my own. In theory, breaking up monopolies increases competition which allows better companies/products to spring up that would otherwise be crushed by anti competitive practices. If you agree with that theory, then the act of breaking up monopolies actually makes the US more competitive.
- guidedlight 7y agoIs this because Trump says Google search results disadvantage him?
- Fauntleroy 7y agoNow that it's clear that the Senate won't remove an impeached Donald Trump, isn't it natural for this administration to try and extract value by threatening antitrust action?
- michannne 7y agoMy question is what comes after? Look at AT&T, which was once part of the aftermath of Bell. It now owns so much of the telecom market, that it's only challengers own pretty much all major network stations and entertainment companies. And Verizon is no slouch either. They can split these companies up but eventually some piece/s will gobble up the rest through dark mergers and aggressive business dealings and become bigger than their predecessor.
- gimmeThaBeet 7y agoTbf Verizon was also Bell Atlantic (with GTE), and participation from Vodafone in the wireless side. Your point stands moreso.
- zpallin 7y agoAgreed. We can't just break apart Google and call it a day. There are plenty of gigantic corporations who are probably looking forward to eventually acquiring parts of Google. I wouldn't put it past Verizon, who has not only partnered with Google but also fought for telecom control against them. Don't we also need to break these companies up as well? Or do they have too much influence in the government? Ajit Pai, for example, famously worked for Verizon before government. I'm not trying to protect Google. But I just think that the government needs to find a way to enforce these breakups more evenly or else it just leads to further consolidation, as you pointed out.
- wostusername 7y ago>Ajit Pai, for example, famously worked for Verizon before government. Pai worked at Verizon for two years between 2001 and 2003. He was appointed as FCC member in 2012. How much loyalty do you have to a job you held for two years, nine years ago?
- falcor84 7y agoIt's not so much about loyalty as it is about connections, aka cronyism.
- 7y ago
- tyingq 7y agoThe paper the FTC did back in 2012 around Google is an interesting read. http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/ http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/
- Donald 7y agoVery savage to “leak” this when Alphabet’s earnings are released. Probably a predictor of a bad outcome for Google. Or, everyone in this administration is an inside trader.
- gman83 7y agoSo what's the remedy, separate companies for Search, Ads, Youtube, Cloud/Firebase, GSuite, Android/Chrome, Pixel, Maps?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Muuuchem 7y agoThat would never work because only one of those things is profitable, the Ads. I guess also Cloud can be profitable.
- jaynetics 7y agoMany of these products already carry ads or would be a convenient place to put ads, even if they'd have to be bought for each product individually. Also the Pixel stuff is very pricy for hardware that isn't top of the line.
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoThe best divide is actually far less aggressive: Platforms should be split from services. Android and Chrome are IMHO the primary things Google should be forced to divest. I am not sure you could (or even should) split Search and Ads, but there may need to be some significant rules laid down on Google's ability to tie their other products and services to search. Strict rules should be laid down on allowing ads to sell placement above trademark holders for their own trademark, as that kind of shakedown is insane.
- lapnitnelav 7y agoThe best move would be to revert the Doubleclick acquisition and spin out the AdTech part as its own separate entity. But also make Google Search an open auction system (like it sort of is on Display) where other players can integrate with and Google (search) takes a fixed % for each click. Pipe dream I suppose but best way to avoid Google from being able to be truly dominant.
- judge2020 7y agoOutside of Chrome being the default browser on Android, I don't see what antitrust Google could be hit with. Their market dominance in almost all of their sectors seems to only exist due to either it easily integrating into other Google products or their product being better than the rest, and nearly every time there are other comparable players you can easily migrate to.
- grey-area 7y agoSearch and ads. They have abused their dominance of search to privilege their own products (places, hotel ads, shopping results).
- proximitysauce 7y agoThere are other ways Google "leverages" its market share that are questionable. Look at the recent controversy about making all search results look like ads. They are also making it harder for ad blockers to exist in Chrome with every release. Favoring sites that implement AMP, removing urls... I think our industry as a whole would benefit from Google being broken up.
- halfjoking 7y agoIf AMP favoritism isn't an Antitrust violation I don't know what is. It'd be like if Microsoft rigged Windows to run .NET applications twice as fast as anything else, and made it very difficult to open any other type of application... where second-class applications are unavailable from being found in desktop search, can't have custom icons or be in Program Files.
- lern_too_spel 7y agoAMP is faster by design, and it is impossible to get a generic HTML page to load as fast from a SERP (even a non-Google SERP), so your .NET analogy doesn't fit. Is it an antitrust violation that other search engines (Bing, Baidu, and Yahoo! Japan) also prefer AMP results?
- abvdasker 7y agoNormally I would say that investigating Google for antitrust violations would be a good idea, but I do not trust this administration and it's Justice Department to do it without having nefarious ulterior motives. It isn't hard to imagine what they may be: using the threat of a DOJ investigation to extort either money or political favors from the enormously powerful multinational technology conglomerate that is Google. The people who run the current administration have demonstrated countless times that they are not afraid to use the powers of the federal government for personal benefit and enrichment, so it has become impossible to trust any legal action they may undertake.
- throwaway13337 7y agoMaking this another polar political discussion would be shameful and unproductive for hacker news.
- rahuldottech 7y agoTech and politics cannot always be separated. This appears to be one of those cases.
- dang 7y agoFor sure they can't—but discussions don't need to degenerate into predictable partisan sniping. That stuff is always the same, so though it may be intense and exciting (to some), it's not intellectually interesting. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- creddit 7y agoThis is an inherently political topic.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoIt is. The interesting part of the politics, though, is not how it intersects with the current president. There are much more interesting topics: Should Google be under investigation? For antitrust, I presume (and the article mentions), but anything else? What's the relation between the state AGs and the US DOJ in this?
- throwaway13337 7y agoThe best remedy for these tech giants is to force the use of open standards or to allow integration with other products on their platforms and products without profit sharing (e.g. 30% take) or any other share-cropper tactics. Their big unfair advantage comes from the network effect of consumers using their products and the closed access to those customers. Open integration benefits everyone except those with the monopolies.
- sixothree 7y agoOr separate their products. Imagine if Google Maps had to compete as its own company.
- criddell 7y agoIt would probably do quite well with Google Search being it's main customer.
- munk-a 7y agoGoogle News might be a more compelling example - how would that ever hold up against the rest of the internet.
- yoavm 7y agoSorry for not getting it but what exactly do you imagine happening? (My initial thought was "more ads?")
- quest88 7y agoHuh, I've always wondered why someone doesn't start a company with these open integrations. If it benefits everyone, then people will migrate to this new company, right? Instant success?
- Forge36 7y agoIf it benefits everyone, that includes your competitors.
- 7y ago
- hodder 7y agoMaybe we shall find out the fate of the Fitbit deal soon (from the North American side). FYI, the merger arb on that deal is pricing significant risk of failure: Pricing at 6.53 now vs 7.35 all cash offer from GOOG. I like the trade, but it isnt for the faint hearted.
- m0zg 7y agoHN, after years of blaming Google for everything that's wrong with the world: "WTF, I love Google now!"
- m0zg 7y ago>> have demonstrated countless times [...] powers of the federal government for personal benefit and enrichment Same as the previous administrations then? At least Trump doesn't need money.
- corporate_shi11 7y agoSources on previous administration's engaging in antitrust litigation for "personal benefit"?
- m0zg 7y agoSource of this administration's engaging in antitrust litigation for "personal benefit"? The OP doesn't single out antitrust litigation specifically.
- Muuuchem 7y agoyou mean using powers of the federal government for personal benefit, that is what the person you are responding to said. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-admits-to-ukraine-military-aid-quid-pro-quo-tv-2019-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-admits-to-ukraine-mili...
- booboolayla 7y agoInvestigating corruption of a public official who's been in office for most of the last 4 decades is now a "personal benefit" of the President, and not his Constitutionally defined duty?
- LanceH 7y agoGetting elected.
- DeepThoughts 7y agoSource that Trump doesn’t need the money?
- falcor84 7y ago
- api 7y agoI've harbored a counterargument for a while against breaking up Google or Facebook: Both of these are effectively surveillance capitalist companies. Their primary business is spying on people and using that data to target them for ads and other forms of manipulation. When big bloated "Soviet bureau" corporations are broken apart the result is generally an explosion of innovation and growth in a sector. Do we really want an explosion of innovation and growth in that sector? Maybe it would be a good thing if the surveillance capitalist behemoths are allowed to continue to get stagnant and bloated. If and when an alternative paradigm for sustainable business on the Internet emerges it would make them easier to displace. Breaking up these companies would also vastly increase the surface area exposed via surveillance. Instead of two or three companies spying on us we'd suddenly have dozens of former divisions of these companies. Edit: lastly I must echo others in their lack of trust for this justice department. I think this is likely to be a political cudgel deployed to force these companies to stop filtering out or de-prioritizing extreme far right propaganda.
- jcfrei 7y agoOne simple and effective policy change could be to forbid bidding on keywords which are names of a competitors company or brand. A lot of marketing expenses are wasted on these types of keywords and only benefit Google but neither the user nor the advertiser.
- quotemstr 7y agoWhy is that a waste? If you make Foo brand razors and I, making Bar brand razors, think I have a better product, why shouldn't I be able to bid on "Foo" do that I can educate the public about my product? Whence this idea that product or company names deserve special protection from competitors? Competition makes the world go round.
- idoh 7y agoIt's an anti-user practice. As a user, if I google for "x", I'm looking for "x", and it is annoying that someone gets to pay to "educate" me about some alternative that I never said I wanted.
- quotemstr 7y agoThe whole point of advertising is to show people things they wouldn't otherwise see. Yes, some people are against advertising generally. That's a naive perspective. But if you're okay with ads generally, you should be okay with brand keyword ads.
- idoh 7y agoHey, I'm OK with ads generally. But being OK with a thing generally doesn't mean being OK with every specific instance of that general class. Google is a tool, the user is trying to do something specific with the tool, and Google is deciding to not honor the intention of the user. It's clearly not something good for the user (whereas other uses of ads arguable are). Google can get away with it because they are a monopoly and, shrug, what are you going to do? Google is free to run their business as they please, but let's not pretend that this practice is somehow enriching the user's experience.
- jameslk 7y agoI wonder if US officials will be concerned by the prospect that breaking up these companies may potentially cede market share to tech companies in other countries, such as China. Especially if other countries don't bother breaking up their tech companies if they get too large.
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoI think fear of China is a common bogeyman to throw out to try to avoid tech regulation. And I don't feel it's a very compelling argument: Tech monopolies squash newer, more innovative competitors. The monopolies are holding us back. For all of the innovation you may believe tech monopolies have accomplished, it pales in comparison to what we'd accomplish without them in a competitive environment where the best technology wins, instead of the biggest monopoly. The ability to foster rapid, zealous competition is the strength of capitalism and it's what we have over China. We need to get the established corporate entities using their market power to harm competition out of the way.
- lumost 7y agoThis is only true in a world where the barrier to entry is low, and innovation is "cheap". There is a possibility that true innovation on the internet is becoming expensive e.g. how much does it cost to gain a 1% relevance improvement in search results? how much does it cost to take photos of every street corner twice as often as google?
- jameslk 7y agoWouldn't opening up competition to other companies be exactly the reason why such non-US competitors may be able to acquire more market share? The only way I could see the US being able to regulate non-US competitors who grow too large is to fine them, such as what the EU does. Although that may not be enough to stop them from acquiring market dominance and may cause retaliation (such as the current trade war). To be clear, I'm not a shill for these big tech companies. I don't currently work in any of them nor have stock in any. I'm concerned about their dominance, stifling of competition and their use of market position to render consumers powerless just as much as you may be.
- Valmar 7y agoGoogle has too much power and influence over what people see when they search for things. That, combined with having a massive ad network and the most browser marketshare, Google has the ability to unduly influence the opinions of millions of people, if they so chose. Too much power for a single corporation... I trust them far less than I trust the Trump administration. Google is proven themselves to be pretty evil. They're so much worse than Facebook or Microsoft. So, let them be broken up. I'll feel a little safer.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jstewartmobile 7y agoIt is always a good time to shatter a megacorp. The true innovation in this field was all defense spending in the first place. Not going to shed a tear over a setback to a bunch of grifters who cashed in on the public's investment.
- shadow-banned 7y agoGoogle is a slight red herring here, they need to be going after Facebook.
- iron0013 7y agoOnly they won’t go after Facebook because Facebook has shown that it is willing to kowtow to Republicans by allowing political ads that contain falsehoods. And that’s what makes this investigation a naked act of partisan politics—the absence of genuine good-faith interest in antitrust law on the part of the Trump administration.
- busymom0 7y agoWhat if there was some rule where any company over lets say 10 million users are treated differently (or a public utility)? I am not sure if this is the right solution or not but I think a lot of the monopolistic and anti-trust behavior comes because of the network effect of these products.
- killjoywashere 7y agoThe leaders of Chinese companies like Alibaba, TenCent, and SenseTime must be following these stories with glee. I get the Western position that values will win in the long run, but someone should consider the possibility that some of these Western companies employ Western employees who represent those Western values and actually are being responsible.
- gaius__baltar 7y ago> Western > Western > Western Cool it with the racism, guy.
- killjoywashere 7y agoParent here, I proudly have employees and collaborators of Chinese descent. It has nothing to do with racism. It is the stated position of the self-subscribed group of Western democracies that privacy is a priority, and the leaders of those groups cast their position in opposition to that of the Chinese Communist Party.
- Wooo0pdaddy 7y agokys dipshit
- marmada 7y agoThis blatant bias against the "coastal elite" (let's be real, there's definitely a political bias to this entire thing) scares me. Then again, I'm working at Google this summer, so maybe I'm biased ...