8 ms·

At risk of nitpicking, why do say "controls" rather than e.g. "services" or "handles"? When you say "controls" it's like you're saying Google has some kind of m

• djsumdog 6y ago
  They do in fact control Android. The open headset alliance means Android is open source in name only. Only tinkerers/hackers use ASOP derivatives by itself (or some foreign manufactures that cannot to offer Google Play services .. or Amazon Fire makers). They dominate the software ecosystem. Although it's not difficult to load 3rd party applications, it's certainly not common. Their removal of the Podcast Addicts app is a great example. Also you cannot interface with things like Android Auto without getting Google's golden approval (so no Android Auto for F-Drop apps) I did a full post on all the gripes I had with Android a few years back, and I think they all still apply: https://battlepenguin.com/tech/android-fragmentation/ https://battlepenguin.com/tech/android-fragmentation/
  • IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
    Simple add on - i can no longer uninstall any google apps from my droid phone. Best i can do is disable. On this topic. WSJ states DoJ is readying antitrust vs google ij near future. May turn out to be quite an accomplishment if done
    • mrtweetyhack 6y ago
      Then you can buy a different phone without droid
  • rat9988 6y ago
    The sentence he was specifically talking about: Google controls 91.89% of the search market [1]
  • BrandoElFollito 6y ago
    I think Podcast Addict is back on G Play. Google apologized for the removal.
    • sireat 6y ago
      Only reason it worked is because of public shaming (here on HN and elsewhere). If some less popular app is banned they have little recourse except hope for their story to go viral.
• three_seagrass 6y ago
  This is the perennial discussion on HN as HN'ers get popularity confused with monopoly. I get the anti-Google sentiment but outside of the Play services agreements that Google got dinged for with Android manufacturers, they're not being anti-competitive. If Google were to block search results to DuckDuckGo for example, that would be monopolistic and warrant antitrust action. As it is now, Google isn't blocking competition, consumers are choosing to use Google despite the privacy-oriented preferences here on HN.
  • dylan604 6y ago
    >consumers are choosing to use Google despite the privacy-oriented preferences here on HN. I'm not sure I'd agree with the word "despite". I still think the majority of the non-tech world is still oblivious to the privacy implications of G,FB,etc. Sure, I'm sure there's a percentage of people that have made the decision they don't care and are fine with it, but there are definitely don't know/understand.
    • renewiltord 6y ago
      No. It's in all the news. But the truth is people love Google. Google gives them so many services for free that they didn't have before. In many 3rd world countries, smartphones were the "couple months salary" iPhone or an Android that's literally a tenth the cost. To most of these people, Google has been an unalloyed good. Google is probably one of the most resilient brands worldwide. Even in America it's well trusted. For good reason.
      • dylan604 6y ago
        Huh? So we're supposed to thank them for the cancer they have wrought? Search was a good thing, then it got bastardized into a gaming system. Free email? Sounds great until the day you find out you're not the only one reading the email. Android is an interesting side project that has proven a useful alt to some. Again until you realize it, along with all of the other "useful" products, was just the long con into gathering all of the data to make Ads viable. If these products were just the products they appear on the surface, then maybe I'd say Google was reputable.
• gumby 6y ago
  I don’t think it’s a nitpick at all. I agree that google is a private company and searchers have the option of using a different search at the click of an icon. Usually I consider terms like “control” to be hotheaded but if you substitute “is in control of Which results are returned” you can see the consequence could be nefarious. This understanding informed antitrust theory up to the 1980s. I don’t use Google for anything myself except for communicating with my gf’s kids’ scout troop. That doesn’t mean I think they have a bunch of evil geniuses cackling and rubbing their hands in building 42. The rehetoric makes me think some people do think this.
  • pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
    The cackling and rubbing of hands is an exaggeration of course but if anyone were going to be doing that it would be Google's customers, not Google's employees.
• esotericn 6y ago
  Thought experiment: Google controls 90% of the search market, the 10% (or 1%, whatever) they don't serve being made up of people who are oppressed in some way by the 90%, deliberately or otherwise. Google censors information relating to that 10% for everyone else. They don't care enough to switch. Centralization is an issue _a priori_. It's giving power to a single entity that we have no reason to trust will act in everyone's best interests.
  • JAlexoid 6y ago
    And who gets to decide what is "best interests"? Google Search is a consumer focused product, if they don't serve up the stuff that the users want - they loose viewers. No viewers - no revenue. Their bottom line depends on giving each person the best search results possible. Pretending that they'll just decide to cut off even 1% of users is insane.
    • int_19h 6y ago
      The citizens get to decide what their best collective interests are. They do that by, among other things, electing representatives that appoint officials to anti-trust committees.
      • JAlexoid 6y ago
        Yes... I love when the "majority" decides to limit freedoms, under penalty of violence. Because apparently that is "the collective interest". The most annoying bit is that it's never the majority. It's at best plurality that "gets" to decide.
        • int_19h 6y ago
          I don't like it, but it's even worse when the minority decides to limit freedoms.
    • Applejinx 6y ago
      No. You're assuming that a particular sort of imaginary market dynamic overrides any and every other motivation anyone might have. That is nonsense. If they can make 2% more by selling out half their users and giving them inferior results to serve the interests of somebody or something willing to pay Google money to screw over the users, they will do that without an instant of hesitation, in the absence of oversight. They are in an absence of oversight. You are wildly in error to believe that people magically can tell they're not being harmed. People absolutely have no idea whether they are being 'given the best' anything possible, much less something like search results (or information in general). It is highly profitable to screw over mass audiences for one's own benefit and there's largely no mechanism to prevent this… again, in the absence of oversight.
• Rerarom 6y ago
  I can't switch to duckduckgo. I do the kind of intricate searches that don't find what I need there.
• belorn 6y ago
  > If that's a monopoly, it's not quite the kind of a monopoly we should generally be worried about. It the same monopoly that a town center has in term of political activities. Anyone could easily choose to switch to hold demonstrations somewhere else, but the result of holding it where only 8% of people will see it will make that less of a choice for the ones organizing the event. As a society where I live we recognize the benefit of political diversity, and we acknowledge that the disruption that such political activity bring is usually minor. As long it does not cause prolong and significant disruption to everything else then the benefit of giving everyone equal right to demonstrate in the town square is a benefit. I do agree however that Browsers are more similar to regular monopolies worries. One company in control of the market will increase prices, decrease innovation and create perverse market incentives.
  • JAlexoid 6y ago
    That's a horrible analogy. While people can be physically only in one location, they do get their information from a variety of source online. Comparing Google to a town square is dumb, when you account that Facebook has much more engaged users than YouTube. At the time of writing I'm reading stuff on Facebook, Reuters, Yahoo Finance, Twitter, Reddit and watching YouTube videos in between.(HN as well) I'm present on all of those "squares" at the same time.
    • belorn 6y ago
      I guess people has a bit different view about how sticky platforms are. If I imagine that google would take a political side in the US election and ban all site and comments of the other side, my belief is that it would have a direct impact on the election results and there would be nothing that the banned party could do. Politics right now depend highly on being visible on google search, Youtube and google ad network. A small but noticeable portion of users would move out, but it would not be close enough to compensate the loss and the impact on the political climate would take years to recover. I would like to be wrong on this and that google do not have this kind of power.
      • 6y ago
• smsm42 6y ago
  > When you say "controls" it's like you're saying Google has some kind of monopoly power that makes it hard to switch No, "controls" means decides the rules and what is happening on that part of the market. Any number that is not 100% automatically implies it's not a perfect monopoly and it's possible to switch, but once you are within the area controlled by Google, it's Google's rules. Including removal any content Google doesn't like for any reason, blocking any action Google doesn't like for any reason, etc. So for 91% of the searches, Google decides what you can and can't see. Google hasn't leveraged their ownership of the browser to enact censorship (frequently on behalf of most vile dictatorships) yet as far as I know (surveillance is another mater) but it certainly did and is using its control over search, advertising, video hosting, etc. markets to do that.
• ksk 6y ago
  > And yet anyone can easily switch to e.g. DuckDuckGo. If that's a monopoly, it's not quite the kind of a monopoly we should generally be worried about. Because people are conditioned by defaults. Google knows this, and so does every other business. Google had a good product, but Google also bought market share by bundling their products with random software (like adobes flash player, which later they unsurprisingly tried to kill), making a deal with Dell to bundle their software/toolbar, etc. Yes anyone in theory can switch, but its not really how people think. People are not as informed as we think they are, or aware of the pros and cons of various competing services and products. That includes most people, even people on this site, so its really not an elitist thing.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• pmiller2 6y ago
  Try hiding your business’s website from Google and see how that goes for you.
  • pb7 6y ago
    Exactly, Google provides a lot of value. Stop acting like this is a one sided transaction. If you don't like the value proposition, you're free to leave anytime.
    • adamsea 6y ago
      LOL.
    • greycol 6y ago
      Just like everyone is free to leave their power company and install solar panels, just like everyone can leave their water company and have water tankered in. Just like you can leave your telecom company and use satellite data. Just because a company is providing value that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be regulated. Just because you can technically leave a service doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't realistically locked into it and that that service isn't going to exploit that fact.
      • pb7 6y ago
        Google is not essential to live. You can also use Bing or any of the numerous alternatives. It’s not the same thing at all.
• shripadk 6y ago
  Okay let me explain why this is a "control" rather than "service" or "handles". Say I am running an Ad using Google Ads. I get to reach all those people who are using Google services. And since Google has majority marketshare I can easily reach my customers and scale them as much as my budget allows. But at the same time I am bound by an ever-changing Google Policy that dictates what I should put in the Ad and what I shouldn't. Imagine that I or someone in my team pushes out an Ad that violates their policy somewhere. Depending on the scale of violation they can ban you form Advertising on Google platforms ever again. Now, you say that is a good thing. It keeps the bad guys out. I agree with you there. But it is not fool proof. I have seen Ads get rejected for frivolous reasons (like you can't have two different links in the same ad group). Now these rejections stack up and can get you a ban too. Have missed a payment because of some issue with your credit card or bank? Account suspension is a real possibility. Have you used the same credit card for two different Ad accounts? Be prepared to get suspended. Same mobile number for two different Ad accounts? Be prepared to get suspended. There are so many ways you can go wrong and get banned from ever using Google Ads again. Now this is where the danger is. If your business is highly dependent on Google Ads you will lose out on that huge marketshare you had earlier. I don't want my business to be affected because of some stupid policy violation that caused my account to be banned.
• hardsoftnfloppy 6y ago
  Found the google clown, I’ve been pissed at google for nearly a decade, and yet still continue to use my gmail address, because it would take me literal weeks to detach from it... and I’m actually technically capable of understanding what I need to do to separate.. 99% are not, they “control” these markets.
• weare138 6y ago
  But how is that different than one company owning over 91% of the newspapers in the country? I think most people would agree that's a bad thing.
• monadic2 6y ago
  > If that's a monopoly, it's not quite the kind of a monopoly we should generally be worried about. All available search engines run on ads and offer roughly the same service. There is no competition in the market from the perspective of the consumer. How is this healthy?