30 ms·

The antitrust case against Google

248 points by lawrenceyan 6y ago

Avicebron 6y ago
Do antitrust cases normally result in a breakup or sanctions? or Both? I was not around for the Microsoft one, did it have any real impact?
- zonethundery 6y ago
  Breakups are very hard. Microsoft was overturned on appeal.
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    If it can be overturned with an appeal doesn't that only reinforce the underlying problem? If just me as a user of the platform have been feeling increasingly squeezed by AMP, more and more aggressive ads, poorer search results. Large scale data collection, the deeply troubling stance on privacy and anonymity, shouldn't there be a more collective way to say enough? And to just head this off: "Just switch platforms bro, there are tons of other options out there, haven't you heard of DDG?" this isn't a valid response and instinctively I know you know it to, that's why there is talk of anti-trust.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Wait, why doesn't it work? I have a friend who uses Brave and DDG and all that. Brave will block the trackers but you could just as well install Chrom(e|ium) with uBlock Origin (and uMatrix if you're so inclined) and also get one of those Amp-bypass plugins.
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        The issue is that unless a large enough percentage of users do so, Google still controls the market, and runs the table on the other side. Google is an intermediary in the chain between other businesses which run ads and seek search placement, and consumers which see ads and look at searches. As long as Google holds 90% of the market, businesses have to advertise with Google, and websites have to cater to Google's search ranking demands. And users choosing to switch never happens in large enough quantities to change this: Almost everyone uses the default search provider. Which is why Google operates Chrome, Android, and pays for Firefox and Safari search placement. And even if half those platforms weren't first party (and monopolies in their own right), they can't get outbid easily on the other ones because, due to the existing monopoly, they have more money to bid than everyone else. Fundamentally, I think the bare minimum to handle Google is breaking Android and Chrome away from Google and prohibiting the company from operating their own browsers and operating systems. (It might also be prudent to set limits on their ability to bid for default search placement, as a way to encourage browsers to shift to a browser choice model, which would be hard to compel Firefox and Safari, in particular, to do within the confines of a suit against Google.)
        renewiltord 6y ago
        I think that is a non-sequitur in this discussion which is about a user > If just me as a user of the platform have been feeling increasingly squeezed by AMP, more and more aggressive ads, poorer search results. Large scale data collection, the deeply troubling stance on privacy and anonymity, shouldn't there be a more collective way to say enough?
        Avicebron 6y ago
        How is this a non-sequitur? There is a clear issue that led to a question about said issue? Issues with google, why is there not a way to solve this? Straightforward.
        renewiltord 6y ago
        A fair question. I think it comes from the fact that: > If just me as a user of the platform have been feeling increasingly squeezed by AMP, more and more aggressive ads, poorer search results. Large scale data collection, the deeply troubling stance on privacy and anonymity, shouldn't there be a more collective way to say enough? So, we're focusing as a user here. Switching to uBlock Origin Chromium + DDG + Amp bypass extension: * Squeezed by Amp -> Solved * More and more aggressive ads -> No ads, solved * Large scale data collection -> Blocked, solved * Troubling stance on privacy and anonymity -> No data access to your data, solved > And to just head this off: "Just switch platforms bro, there are tons of other options out there, haven't you heard of DDG?" this isn't a valid response and instinctively I know you know it to, that's why there is talk of anti-trust. Everything is dodgeable as a user. Therefore it _is_ a valid response and I do not instinctively know it's not right. There are good arguments, to be clear. If most people are on Gmail and they won't access mail. If Maps data can get Calendar/Mail data for free but no one else can, then that's anti-competitive. If Google uses Chrome to recommend some random tool that's bundling. But not the thing the OP said. I don't think he's right there.
        ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        I would point out that Google believes in AMP first development, that someday websites will be AMP only even. Furthermore, Gmail supports AMP4Email now. This is one of the multiple avenues Google is rewriting the Internet to their own platforms. And the market forces I described are why businesses have to implement AMP. Eventually you and I will get pushed out.
      - AlexandrB 6y ago
        We as users are not really Google's customers. What I'm not hearing much/any of is companies reducing their adword spend or use of Google apps based on Google's business practices.
        renewiltord 6y ago
        > If just me as a user of the platform have been feeling increasingly squeezed by AMP, more and more aggressive ads, poorer search results. Large scale data collection, the deeply troubling stance on privacy and anonymity, shouldn't there be a more collective way to say enough? Well, in that sense you don't have to be their customers. If you're subject to this then you don't have to be.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Yes and no. The judgment against them, requiring breakup, was overturned on appeal. But Microsoft was pretty sure that they were going to suffer a lesser penalty, so they settled the case by accepting some restrictions on their behavior, and some monitoring.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Essentially the big problem is that antitrust has been pretty much neutered for the past couple of decades. We haven't seen properly functional antitrust regulators in a very, very long time.
  - CSSer 6y ago
    Since the 80s. Robert Bork’s ‘The Antitrust Paradox’ was a watershed moment that paved the road for what we have today.
- noir_lord 6y ago
  In the EU we got a pop-up letting us choose a different browser. Beyond that it didn't have much effect directly but it also stopped Microsoft been so hilariously agressive in other ways (though that's a harder effect to pin down, 2000-era Microsoft was a shark with bloodlust).
  - judge2020 6y ago
    > In the EU we got a pop-up letting us choose a different browser Wonder what it'll take for this to come to all of the other OSes with default browsers
    - wmf 6y ago
      Those OSes would have to have monopoly market share.
  - eythian 6y ago
    I'm not sure if it was the same antitrust thing, but there was a lot of stuff in the background that did happen along these lines. I knew some folks working on Samba, and all of a sudden they were going to workshops run my MS and getting documentation and so on to aid integrating with Windows.
- kyrra 6y ago
  (I'm a Googler, opinions are my own. I also have zero desire to directly comment on the original article). My understanding from the original antitrust case against Microsoft is that it DRASTICALLY impacted the internal culture at Microsoft. While the EU got their browser choice option in Windows, the indirect consequences were much further reaching. Based on comments I've read from former MS people, every decision after the antitrust case happened were looked through in a different light. "Will this bring on more scrutiny?". So I'm guessing there were many unseen decisions that came out of the case. I'd imagine how hard certain products were bundled changed. How they were marketed. Even what features were implemented changed. Even Google has some scarring due to the Oracle Java lawsuit. These big cases and rulings have fairly wide reaching impact within a company.
  - ThrowawayB7 6y ago
    > "My understanding from the original antitrust case against Microsoft is that it DRASTICALLY impacted the internal culture at Microsoft. While the EU got their browser choice option in Windows, the indirect consequences were much further reaching. Based on comments I've read from former MS people, every decision after the antitrust case happened were looked through in a different light. 'Will this bring on more scrutiny?'." Pretty much spot on, at least in my recollection. [EDIT] As an aside, it's widely held (e.g. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/learning-from-microsofts-mistakes-g/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/learning-from-micro...) that Microsoft's antitrust woes were because it didn't have political lobbyists in place to counteract it and supposedly Google took a lesson from it and built up it's lobbying efforts considerably. Kinda makes you wonder where their efforts broke down?
    - alex_young 6y ago
      Didn't Google successfully kill the previous round of anti-trust efforts this way? Seems like a success to me.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- robbrown451 6y ago
  It seemed to have a huge impact, Microsoft stopped doing the really awful stuff they had been doing following the case. It was overturned for pretty stupid reasons, in my opinion, but regardless, it had an impact.
akersten 6y ago
I'm confused about what the remedy is supposed to be, or what outcome the AGs are seeking. Actually, it sounds like they haven't made up their mind yet either: > And then the states are going to presumably file a complaint also at some juncture, probably after that. So then we will see what those complaints say, what kind of conduct they allege as being anti-competitive. Is it normal for suits like this to be touted out in public for so long ahead of an actual complaint being filed? Seems like intimidation to me.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  s/intimidation/politics/. The AGs are trying to look good in the press, so they look good to the voters. As far as actual lawsuits go... there may be one, someday, maybe.
- RockIslandLine 6y ago
  Yes, it's not at all clear what remedy would be effective. Some limit on total percentage of searches, similar to the limit in the 1996 Telecommunications Act that no company can own stations reaching more than 35% of the national audience? That would seem to break google into roughly a triumvirate, but does that actually solve any of the problems in any useful way?
- robbrown451 6y ago
  "Intimidation" is a pejorative, of course, but I don't see anything wrong with alerting Google that they are risking an antitrust lawsuit if they keep doing things the way they are doing things. I'm not sure I see the need to be so worried about a nearly trillion-dollar company being intimidated.
- ponker 6y ago
  Telling someone that they are breaking the law and giving them a chance to stop before they are punished is not "intimidation." It's like a cop telling you that you're parked in an illegal spot and that you're going to get towed if you leave your car there.
- jedberg 6y ago
  The most likely remedy would be to split their ads business from everything else. Make the ads business have to buy search data, and make the search business have to sell search data (and maybe make some money showing ads too). This would allow other companies to buy the search data and also to try and bid on selling ads next to google searches.
megamix 6y ago
Google is just that big bullying gang on the school yard. We all know what we need to do
- remarkEon 6y ago
  Get straight As, go to a better school, and eventually become its boss?
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    The bully can shut down your better school and hide you're report card. Doesn't track.
  - megamix 6y ago
    Probably a plan. Just realise the bullies were never that confident in the first place.
fanatic2pope 6y ago
I look forward to Microsoft passionately coming to Google's defense in order to protect the "freedom to innovate". https://news.microsoft.com/1998/04/09/microsoft-advertisements-promote-freedom-to-innovate-in-the-software-industry/ https://news.microsoft.com/1998/04/09/microsoft-advertisemen...
nojito 6y ago
After Google got caught compensating scholars for friendly content, people should be extremely skeptical of anything read until the case the formally revealed. Regardless of how critical or supportive it is of Google.
- tantalor 6y ago
  Link?
  - nojito 6y ago
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/paying-professors-inside-googles-academic-influence-campaign-1499785286 https://www.wsj.com/articles/paying-professors-inside-google...
    - dlubarov 6y ago
      As a sibling points out, News Corp is notorious for Google hit pieces. I would take anything they say with a grain of salt. This piece makes some bold claims, like > Google has paid professors whose papers, for instance, declared that the collection of consumer data was a fair exchange for its free services But the only specific paper they reference is [1], a copyright paper with doesn't seem very relevant to Google's core business. If their claim had any merit, why couldn't they produce a more relevant example? They claim that Google "pays professors", when in reality Google is giving out research grants. Professors are getting "paid" only in a very indirect sense, since the funding goes to their departments. As their example paper says, > The authors would also like to thank Google for a grant that enabled us to hire research assistants, to compensate human subjects, and to travel to present our findings. And this isn't some secretive operation, despite the WSJ's attempts to frame it that way. You can see a list of these grants in [2], along with more background about the grant program. The referenced paper is listed there under Policy. Edit: Also wanted to call out this amazing bit of spin: > Mr. Sokol, though, had extensive financial ties to Google, according to his emails obtained by the Journal. He was a part-time attorney at the Silicon Valley law firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, which has Google as a client. Wikipedia says WSGR has ~1850 attorneys. In what world does this constitute "extensive financial ties"? [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2130008&mod=article_inline https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2130008&... [2] https://research.google/outreach/past-programs/faculty-research-awards/?category=2011 https://research.google/outreach/past-programs/faculty-resea...
netcan 6y ago
This is very well written. If antitrust laws do not define google as a monopoly, it's obviously the antitrust laws that are wrong. Google is obviously a monopoly. The 2018 case against Google in the EU (€1.5bn fine) made very similar points and won. The real problem is what comes next. If recent history is a guide, it will be a cost-of-doing-business fine. This does nothing. At best, they'll adapt practices slightly. Maybe they've adapted enough post 2018 to make this case difficult. We need a new approach. There is no way antitrust courts can act as regulators effectively. They find that a monopoly exists, but... the goal is not regulated monopolies. The whole premise of antitrust is that monopolies are harmful in lots of systemic ways. We must assume that most are unknown. A prosecutor & court can't track down every monopolistic mechanism or dynamic and fine google for it. We need to avoid and void monopolies. This is why there are mechanisms to void mergers. Adwords could IPO independently. They'd be a great, profitable company. So would Google search, youtube, android... All these could be financially viable companies independently. Total share price would be lower. This reflects the fact that monopolies are more profitable. OTOH, the Google monopoly is an easy one to solve. It's so profitable that financial viability is easily achieved.
- jldugger 6y ago
  > Google is obviously a monopoly. Of which market though? Search: maybe. Ads: no.
  - netcan 6y ago
    First, I think that once a strong monopoly exists monopolistic dynamics persist throughout the integrated layers. This is a premise of anti monopoly legislation. Search, mobile, adwords, "advertiser tools" like google analytics, play store, youtube. Google have huge market share in each layer. These reenforce each other, amplifying the monopoly dynamics. Second, I think adwords could qualify as a monopoly on its own. Online ad markets have grown a lot recently, but circa 2008 (I think) adwords market share peaked pretty high even if you define "market" as "all online ads". The market can be defined more narrowly too. Third, EU courts have already found against Google for monopsonistic behaviour in their adwords market. Competing search engines monetizing via adwords faced some dirty tricks, but adwords was the only buyer.
andromeduck 6y ago
What's even the point of adding a bunch of rules to break up a player with less than a third of the market and already in decline? It seems pretty clear that competitors have stepped it up. Meanwhile in Mobile ma bell has reassembled itself and in cable we're stuck with regional monopolies; in healthcare we're happy with the same or greater dominance by total monopolies like for insulin or glasses amongst other goods; likewise in payments with Visa and Mastercard. Smells like political rent seeking to me.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- yingw787 6y ago
  "Why cut my fingernails? They'll grow back." - Ephraim, "Munich" (2005)
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > in healthcare we're happy Are we, though? It sounds like you're saying why go after google when there are so many other companies with similar levels of control over their own markets who we also don't go after. That's not a reasonable objection, unless you can find somebody who thinks that we should go after google, but not go after these other companies.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > That's not a reasonable objection, unless you can find somebody who thinks that we should go after google, but not go after these other companies. But you can -- the US Department of Justice, who are apparently preparing a case against Google and not companies in those other markets.
    - ModernMech 6y ago
      So in order to go after one monopolist they must go after all monopolists are once? Can’t they prioritize?
pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
I love the cover art on the paper. Sums up the issue perfectly. For those who will not read the PDF: Google completed a series of transactions that allowed it to participate in every level of the ad stack. (#1) Google leveraged its power in search advertising, in which it holds monopoly power to coerce advertisers to use Google products to access the display market as well. (#2) Google advantaged itself through arbitrage and cross-subsidization opportunities made possible by the fact that it, and it alone, operates at all levels of the value chain. (#3) Google withheld interoperability in order to disadvantage, foreclose, and punish its ad stack rivals. (#6) Google designed auction processes that cement its own market power and raise rivals costs. (#10) Google kept key market information hidden to shield itself from scrutiny from publishers, advertisers, and potential new entrants, suppressing otherwise natural competitive forces. (#14) Google leveraged its control over the ad tech stack and Google Analytics to weaken rival sources of display supply. (#18) 1. Acquiring Independent Companies To Cement Its Role Across the Ad Stack 2. Leveraging Market Power in General Search into Display 3. Designing Auctions That Facilitate Arbitrage and Rent Seeking 4. Cross-Subsidizing Competitive Functions of the Ad Tech Stack with Monopolized Functions In Order to Rise Rivals' Costs and Foreclose 5. Deceptive Gathering and Integration of Data 6. Strategic Disabling of Interoperability To Disadvantage Rivals 7. Withholding Interoperability to Steer Demand and Supply Through Its Own Exchange 8. Providing Exclusive Programmatic Access to YouTube Though Google's DSP 9. Retiring the Third-Party Cookie 10. Disadvantaging Rival Exchanges by Google s Publisher Ad Server 11. Undermining Header Bidding Through the Development of So-Called Open Bidding 12. Undermining Header Bidding Through Exclusionary Features of AMP 13. Designing Analytics to Steer Market Participants to Google Products and Prevent Entry 14. Resisting Transparency at All Levels of Ad Tech Stack 15. Obscuring Fees So That Competitors Cannot Enter and Compete Effectively 16. Using Privacy Laws as an Excuse to Hide Performance Data 17. Thwarting Publisher Efforts to Understand Source of Payments 18. Designing Attribution to Favor Search and Disadvantage Publishers 19. Raising Rivals Costs and Foreclosure of Existing and Potential Horizontal Competitors 20. Capturing Publisher Data in Order to Monetize Their Audiences They are not looking at Facebook, Amazon, or other walled gardens as viable alternatives for those who want to place ads on the open web. There is only one "choice". "All roads lead through Google".
laser 6y ago
With Google taking 32%-49% of ad spends [1], and perhaps even more as AdMob appears to be undisclosed (although let's assume in this range), if competition could cut this take in half while maintaining equal targeting efficiency, we might see an explosion in growth of niche businesses. If the cost reduction resulted in a 50-50 split between higher publisher revenue and decreased ad costs, then that ~12-24% higher revenue plus 9-16% advertising cost reduction would make a ton of businesses with LTV:CAC ratios on the margins vastly more profitable. Even more importantly, they would be able to reinvest earnings on a far tighter cycle back into their businesses. The vast, vast majority of young businesses do not have access to institutional capital, fueling their growth through positive unit economics. Relatively small changes in costs and revenue relative to margins can have huge effects. For example, an ad-based business with $1 CAC and $2 LTV, where 50% of the LTV is earned over the first 12 months, 25% in the first 3 months, takes a year to see it's ad spend returned and break even, at which point it can reinvest that dollar for new customers and start the cycle again. With 15% lower ad costs and 20% higher revenue, the LTV:CAC becomes $0.85:$2.40, and assuming the same earnings-curve, at three months in $0.60 has been earned, and $0.85 in under five months. That means this business, and those like it, are suddenly able to grow at over 2x the rate as they could prior to such a breakup. As much as many people hate advertising, it is still one of the primary channels for people's wants/needs (often unknown) to get matched to supply, and thus removing a monopoly and increasing the efficiency of this matchmaking could stimulate explosive growth in new and existing products and services that can't currently cost-effectively reach their customers. Ultimately, this would be a great benefit to everyone. As a final note, this is relatively loose thinking and doesn't account for second-order effects like increased ad spend competition with increased revenue, but I think still an interesting thought to get out there, as I think the gist of it still holds. [1] https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en
hogFeast 6y ago
Wow, this is very poorly written. Even ignoring the fact that they appear to have just sourced all their info from the CMA(note below), they really need to tighten this up considerably. In particular, you cannot mix conclusions and introduction/background into the same section (when this happens, it is usually because someone is writing to a conclusion). Also, the overuse of lawerly adjectives (i.e. hyperbolic) and catch phrases really shouldn't fly. Either way, I don't think the case is made particularly well. Anytime you talk about prices, you are on very shaky ground indeed. If advertisers can't make money at a certain price, they don't buy it. Equally, Google's marginal cost is zero so they have every incentive to move inventory. Equally, publishers make money when Google does so the gross price is roughly correct (in other words, focus on fees...that is where the issues are). There is conspiracy theory stuff here - Google are fiddling attribution measurement to favour search ads, they are hiding prices (no, publishers say this but advertisers are very aware of what they are paying...it is leaving their account), arbitrage...clutch pearls. There is inaccurate stuff here - imposing rigid market definitions (for example, the difference between exchange and Adsense is the publisher...most small publishers want a simple product like Adsense). There is directly contradictory stuff here - Google uses data to steal from publishers...but taking away third-party cookies will lower prices and publishers won't be able to bid efficiently...okay, which is it? I think there is quite a clear case, it isn't made here. It needs to be far more concise. Google shouldn't operate exchanges and publish, it shouldn't operate exchanges and advertise, the exchange should be transparent. The core business here isn't complicated: I have something to sell, I need a venue to create a clearing price, there are other people who need to buy it. There is a long history of people creating venues that aren't fair, the solution is: create a fair venue. All the stuff about trying to prove harm and say that Google is a bad actor who is doing all these secret, ultra illegal things (that no-one has any proof for) is, quite frankly, nonsense. It doesn't matter if Google is doing bad things or not. The point is that their market position gives them that opportunity, and most humans are greedy. Watching a lawyer try to moralise is an unedifying sight (this paper comes from a billionaire's think tank, watching someone try to moralise about other people's behaviour with their pockets weighed down with gold is...really not a great sight, particularly as this content is just copied from the work done by the govt in another country...a charmed life indeed). CMA Note - I am from the UK and the CMA are terrible...mainly very well-connected Brits who either worked in business and ran their company into the ground or people who can't get a job in business at all. In particular, relying on CMA's market definition is perilous. Their logic is usually: what definition do we need to get the right decision? It is bafflingly inconsistent.
afrojack123 6y ago
This antitrust case seems very beneficial to Amazon's ad tech platform. Very suspicious
- scarmig 6y ago
  One of the more... interesting... conspiracy theories about this is that Donald Trump is trying to punish Google for being insufficiently supportive and helping the business of his noted political ally... Jeff Bezos?
  - afrojack123 6y ago
    I don't think Bezos is Trump's political ally.
momokoko 6y ago
The problem with US antitrust laws is that they ignore global competition. Breaking up a Facebook or Google does not provide for more competition, it actually will provide less competition as another large global competitor with get even bigger by swallowing up their users.
- threeseed 6y ago
  That doesn't make any sense. Any company trying to build a US social network or social engine through acquiring Facebook or Google would need US advertisers. Otherwise what is the point of having these users. And if you have US advertisers you will need to have an official US presence. This in turns means you are subject to US law including antitrust. Also a deal of that size would need the US government to sign off on it.
  - alexashka 6y ago
    > Any company trying to build a US social network or social engine through acquiring Facebook or Google would need US advertisers. Otherwise what is the point of having these users. The point would be collecting data on them and spreading propaganda. Not every country operates using quarterly profits as their one and true God.
- gman83 6y ago
  If Facebook or Google are seriously hobbled through regulation I expect their place will be taken by companies like Bytedance (TikTok) which is already the most downloaded app in the US. TikTok is actually just a loss-leading tool for Bytedance to get data for their main product, their AI research.
remote_phone 6y ago
Google is definitely exhibiting anti-competitive behavior and they should be broken up. What kind of company can get away with a critical product, such as advertising platform, email services, etc and provide ZERO SUPPORT. Literally they have no customer support that you can contact. This is the behavior of a monopoly. If they were in a competition, they would invest more and more into things like customer support. But they save billions by not investing In customer service and having no way of contacting them. This is monopolistic behavior, because that’s how they squeeze more and more money out of their customers. Instead of raising prices like traditional monopolies, they do it in other ways like having a product that is easy and cheap for them to maintain but hellish for their customers who are dependent on it. They hide behind algorithms to detect fraud, they close accounts immediately based on bad information and there is no recourse. If they were in a competition they would have customer support but since they don’t have competition, they eliminated it entirely with impunity. Google should be broken up or forced to spend a certain percentage of their revenue to customer support the way any other company would be forced to in a regularly competitive environment.
- logicchains 6y ago
  >What kind of company can get away with a critical product, such as advertising platform, email services, etc and provide ZERO SUPPORT. Literally they have no customer support that you can contact. This is the behavior of a monopoly. They're giving away a product to you literally for free, and you're complaining about a lack of support? Do you expect any company to offer you support for free? People have other choices; there are plenty of paid email services, but people pick GMail anyway because it's free. Clearly these people would rather have a free unsupported service than pay for a supported one, who are you to take that choice away from them? If somebody leaves an old piece of furniture out on the curb for anybody to pick up, do you think the person who takes that furniture home is owed support by the original owner? Free is free; what kind of a sense of entitlement does it take for somebody to expect support for something they're not paying for? They do actually offer support for their paid services.
  - robbrown451 6y ago
gorgoiler 6y ago
At this stage in human history, Google search is so engrained into the web that surely the only moral action is for Google to calve off the free part of their business and place it in public trust. The upside would be they would have more time to focus on their premium paid-for services like G Suite, Google Cloud Print, and Cobra Kai.
greggman3 6y ago
> You mentioned in the paper that Google is going to be blocking third-party cookies in its Chrome browser, which is the biggest browser in the world. This has been presented as a victory for privacy, but you suggest actually it’s another way for Google to shut out other people who want to do digital advertising. I find it interesting that the HN crowd loved that Apple was blocking 3rd party cookies in Safari but now that Chrome is about to do the same suddenly it's evil. If it is evil then it was evil even when Apple started doing it. If it's good that Apple did it then it's good that Google is following. The article basically argues it's evil and both Google and Apple should stop blocking 3rd party cookies because having 3rd party cookies provides opportunity for more competition > We need to explain that the information about you can be passed among 25 different ad tech companies or it can be passed among 25 parts of Google. Which one of those is better or safer? That’s hard to know. I know which one of them is cheaper—the one where there’s competition. And it’s also better for consumers in the sense of stimulating the content that they want to consume on the internet.
- greggman3 6y ago
  It would seem to be blocking 3rd party cookies is good and it's a net negative for Google because their analytics stop working. The article suggests google has more data than their competitors so it's a net positive to them. That might be true for small competitors. It's not true for big ones like Facebook or Amazon or Microsoft or possibly even Apple who have or potentially have a similar amount of info on you via the services they offer
  - josefx 6y ago
    as far as i remember chrome actually sends an additional and probably unique xclient-data property when it connects to google owned addresses. This is a feature its competitors do not have access to.
    - chipperyman573 6y ago
      I just looked through the headers of a request to google.com, expecting this to be wrong, but it does look like this is there! Right at the bottom, x-client-data. The value ends with == which makes me think it's some kind of hash. Crazy. It does not exist when I use ungoogled chromium, firefox, or even edge.
lordlic 6y ago
> We need to explain that the information about you can be passed among 25 different ad tech companies or it can be passed among 25 parts of Google. Which one of those is better or safer? That’s hard to know. Really? Neither option is great but if you absolutely have to choose the lesser of two evils it seems obvious that Google is going to be a better steward of your data than 25 random ad companies. At least Google isn't going to sell your data. Those 25 other ad companies are going to turn into 2500 real fast.
switch11 6y ago
Here is an example of the type of anti trust stuff Google does One of the industries we work in is a classic New Startups Vs Established Silicon Valley Company/Companies type of industry In this case the Established companies are Google and a few others * Here are some of the things Google does A) Whenever any company grows beyond a certain threshold, it drops that company drastically in organic search The #1 and #2 companies are at #41 and #42 in search results B) IN parallel, fills up organic search with every possible negative result they can find about these companies C) Adwords RoI drops from 1:4 to 1:8 range to 1:1 range D) Click Fraud increases + some of the click fraud is from Google Cloud and Google servers Either -> Google can't stop click fraud from ITS OWN SERVERS, or it is doing it itself E) One of the startups was growing very fast in Android - App STore - 1,500 people a day (pretty fast for our industry) Within ONE WEEK of this information becoming public, each and every app from every company in this space got kicked out of Android store F) Drops email open rate by putting emails in Social Folder, Newsletter Folder, Junk Folder Of course, they are so blatant about it they did it to all the companies in the space in the same week and dropped it by the almost exact same amount So everyone's Gmail open rates fell from 11% roughly to 5%. In the SAME WEEK G) YouTube comments are hidden All the positive comments on YouTube videos get hidden and can only be seen by finding the option to show all comments (which 99% of people don't even know) * A lot of people are making arguments without actually being the target of the antitrust Keep in mind this (Google) is a company that has The largest browser share The largest search engine share The largest OS share The largest video platform share and many other advantages They also are a trillion dollar company HOWEVER, they play very dirty If you are in an area where you are competing against them they will use EACH AND EVERY of their levers and they will go all out and do straight up illegal stuff Things like dropping the two largest companies in a space to FOURTH PAGE of search results

248 points by lawrenceyan 6y ago

Do antitrust cases normally result in a breakup or sanctions? or Both? I was not around for the Microsoft one, did it have any real impact?

zonethundery 6y ago
Breakups are very hard. Microsoft was overturned on appeal.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  If it can be overturned with an appeal doesn't that only reinforce the underlying problem? If just me as a user of the platform have been feeling increasingly squeezed by AMP, more and more aggressive ads, poorer search results. Large scale data collection, the deeply troubling stance on privacy and anonymity, shouldn't there be a more collective way to say enough? And to just head this off: "Just switch platforms bro, there are tons of other options out there, haven't you heard of DDG?" this isn't a valid response and instinctively I know you know it to, that's why there is talk of anti-trust.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Wait, why doesn't it work? I have a friend who uses Brave and DDG and all that. Brave will block the trackers but you could just as well install Chrom(e|ium) with uBlock Origin (and uMatrix if you're so inclined) and also get one of those Amp-bypass plugins.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      The issue is that unless a large enough percentage of users do so, Google still controls the market, and runs the table on the other side. Google is an intermediary in the chain between other businesses which run ads and seek search placement, and consumers which see ads and look at searches. As long as Google holds 90% of the market, businesses have to advertise with Google, and websites have to cater to Google's search ranking demands. And users choosing to switch never happens in large enough quantities to change this: Almost everyone uses the default search provider. Which is why Google operates Chrome, Android, and pays for Firefox and Safari search placement. And even if half those platforms weren't first party (and monopolies in their own right), they can't get outbid easily on the other ones because, due to the existing monopoly, they have more money to bid than everyone else. Fundamentally, I think the bare minimum to handle Google is breaking Android and Chrome away from Google and prohibiting the company from operating their own browsers and operating systems. (It might also be prudent to set limits on their ability to bid for default search placement, as a way to encourage browsers to shift to a browser choice model, which would be hard to compel Firefox and Safari, in particular, to do within the confines of a suit against Google.)
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        I think that is a non-sequitur in this discussion which is about a user > If just me as a user of the platform have been feeling increasingly squeezed by AMP, more and more aggressive ads, poorer search results. Large scale data collection, the deeply troubling stance on privacy and anonymity, shouldn't there be a more collective way to say enough?
        Avicebron 6y ago
        How is this a non-sequitur? There is a clear issue that led to a question about said issue? Issues with google, why is there not a way to solve this? Straightforward.
        renewiltord 6y ago
        A fair question. I think it comes from the fact that: > If just me as a user of the platform have been feeling increasingly squeezed by AMP, more and more aggressive ads, poorer search results. Large scale data collection, the deeply troubling stance on privacy and anonymity, shouldn't there be a more collective way to say enough? So, we're focusing as a user here. Switching to uBlock Origin Chromium + DDG + Amp bypass extension: * Squeezed by Amp -> Solved * More and more aggressive ads -> No ads, solved * Large scale data collection -> Blocked, solved * Troubling stance on privacy and anonymity -> No data access to your data, solved > And to just head this off: "Just switch platforms bro, there are tons of other options out there, haven't you heard of DDG?" this isn't a valid response and instinctively I know you know it to, that's why there is talk of anti-trust. Everything is dodgeable as a user. Therefore it _is_ a valid response and I do not instinctively know it's not right. There are good arguments, to be clear. If most people are on Gmail and they won't access mail. If Maps data can get Calendar/Mail data for free but no one else can, then that's anti-competitive. If Google uses Chrome to recommend some random tool that's bundling. But not the thing the OP said. I don't think he's right there.
        ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        I would point out that Google believes in AMP first development, that someday websites will be AMP only even. Furthermore, Gmail supports AMP4Email now. This is one of the multiple avenues Google is rewriting the Internet to their own platforms. And the market forces I described are why businesses have to implement AMP. Eventually you and I will get pushed out.
    - AlexandrB 6y ago
      We as users are not really Google's customers. What I'm not hearing much/any of is companies reducing their adword spend or use of Google apps based on Google's business practices.
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        > If just me as a user of the platform have been feeling increasingly squeezed by AMP, more and more aggressive ads, poorer search results. Large scale data collection, the deeply troubling stance on privacy and anonymity, shouldn't there be a more collective way to say enough? Well, in that sense you don't have to be their customers. If you're subject to this then you don't have to be.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Yes and no. The judgment against them, requiring breakup, was overturned on appeal. But Microsoft was pretty sure that they were going to suffer a lesser penalty, so they settled the case by accepting some restrictions on their behavior, and some monitoring.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Essentially the big problem is that antitrust has been pretty much neutered for the past couple of decades. We haven't seen properly functional antitrust regulators in a very, very long time.
- CSSer 6y ago
  Since the 80s. Robert Bork’s ‘The Antitrust Paradox’ was a watershed moment that paved the road for what we have today.
noir_lord 6y ago
In the EU we got a pop-up letting us choose a different browser. Beyond that it didn't have much effect directly but it also stopped Microsoft been so hilariously agressive in other ways (though that's a harder effect to pin down, 2000-era Microsoft was a shark with bloodlust).
- judge2020 6y ago
  > In the EU we got a pop-up letting us choose a different browser Wonder what it'll take for this to come to all of the other OSes with default browsers
  - wmf 6y ago
    Those OSes would have to have monopoly market share.
- eythian 6y ago
  I'm not sure if it was the same antitrust thing, but there was a lot of stuff in the background that did happen along these lines. I knew some folks working on Samba, and all of a sudden they were going to workshops run my MS and getting documentation and so on to aid integrating with Windows.
kyrra 6y ago
(I'm a Googler, opinions are my own. I also have zero desire to directly comment on the original article). My understanding from the original antitrust case against Microsoft is that it DRASTICALLY impacted the internal culture at Microsoft. While the EU got their browser choice option in Windows, the indirect consequences were much further reaching. Based on comments I've read from former MS people, every decision after the antitrust case happened were looked through in a different light. "Will this bring on more scrutiny?". So I'm guessing there were many unseen decisions that came out of the case. I'd imagine how hard certain products were bundled changed. How they were marketed. Even what features were implemented changed. Even Google has some scarring due to the Oracle Java lawsuit. These big cases and rulings have fairly wide reaching impact within a company.
- ThrowawayB7 6y ago
  > "My understanding from the original antitrust case against Microsoft is that it DRASTICALLY impacted the internal culture at Microsoft. While the EU got their browser choice option in Windows, the indirect consequences were much further reaching. Based on comments I've read from former MS people, every decision after the antitrust case happened were looked through in a different light. 'Will this bring on more scrutiny?'." Pretty much spot on, at least in my recollection. [EDIT] As an aside, it's widely held (e.g. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/learning-from-microsofts-mistakes-g/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/learning-from-micro...) that Microsoft's antitrust woes were because it didn't have political lobbyists in place to counteract it and supposedly Google took a lesson from it and built up it's lobbying efforts considerably. Kinda makes you wonder where their efforts broke down?
  - alex_young 6y ago
    Didn't Google successfully kill the previous round of anti-trust efforts this way? Seems like a success to me.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
robbrown451 6y ago
It seemed to have a huge impact, Microsoft stopped doing the really awful stuff they had been doing following the case. It was overturned for pretty stupid reasons, in my opinion, but regardless, it had an impact.

akersten 6y ago

I'm confused about what the remedy is supposed to be, or what outcome the AGs are seeking. Actually, it sounds like they haven't made up their mind yet either: > And then the states are going to presumably file a complaint also at some juncture, probably after that. So then we will see what those complaints say, what kind of conduct they allege as being anti-competitive. Is it normal for suits like this to be touted out in public for so long ahead of an actual complaint being filed? Seems like intimidation to me.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
s/intimidation/politics/. The AGs are trying to look good in the press, so they look good to the voters. As far as actual lawsuits go... there may be one, someday, maybe.
RockIslandLine 6y ago
Yes, it's not at all clear what remedy would be effective. Some limit on total percentage of searches, similar to the limit in the 1996 Telecommunications Act that no company can own stations reaching more than 35% of the national audience? That would seem to break google into roughly a triumvirate, but does that actually solve any of the problems in any useful way?
robbrown451 6y ago
"Intimidation" is a pejorative, of course, but I don't see anything wrong with alerting Google that they are risking an antitrust lawsuit if they keep doing things the way they are doing things. I'm not sure I see the need to be so worried about a nearly trillion-dollar company being intimidated.
ponker 6y ago
Telling someone that they are breaking the law and giving them a chance to stop before they are punished is not "intimidation." It's like a cop telling you that you're parked in an illegal spot and that you're going to get towed if you leave your car there.
jedberg 6y ago
The most likely remedy would be to split their ads business from everything else. Make the ads business have to buy search data, and make the search business have to sell search data (and maybe make some money showing ads too). This would allow other companies to buy the search data and also to try and bid on selling ads next to google searches.

megamix 6y ago

Google is just that big bullying gang on the school yard. We all know what we need to do

remarkEon 6y ago
Get straight As, go to a better school, and eventually become its boss?
- Avicebron 6y ago
  The bully can shut down your better school and hide you're report card. Doesn't track.
- megamix 6y ago
  Probably a plan. Just realise the bullies were never that confident in the first place.

fanatic2pope 6y ago

I look forward to Microsoft passionately coming to Google's defense in order to protect the "freedom to innovate". https://news.microsoft.com/1998/04/09/microsoft-advertisements-promote-freedom-to-innovate-in-the-software-industry/ https://news.microsoft.com/1998/04/09/microsoft-advertisemen...

nojito 6y ago

After Google got caught compensating scholars for friendly content, people should be extremely skeptical of anything read until the case the formally revealed. Regardless of how critical or supportive it is of Google.

tantalor 6y ago
Link?
- nojito 6y ago
  https://www.wsj.com/articles/paying-professors-inside-googles-academic-influence-campaign-1499785286 https://www.wsj.com/articles/paying-professors-inside-google...
  - dlubarov 6y ago
    As a sibling points out, News Corp is notorious for Google hit pieces. I would take anything they say with a grain of salt. This piece makes some bold claims, like > Google has paid professors whose papers, for instance, declared that the collection of consumer data was a fair exchange for its free services But the only specific paper they reference is [1], a copyright paper with doesn't seem very relevant to Google's core business. If their claim had any merit, why couldn't they produce a more relevant example? They claim that Google "pays professors", when in reality Google is giving out research grants. Professors are getting "paid" only in a very indirect sense, since the funding goes to their departments. As their example paper says, > The authors would also like to thank Google for a grant that enabled us to hire research assistants, to compensate human subjects, and to travel to present our findings. And this isn't some secretive operation, despite the WSJ's attempts to frame it that way. You can see a list of these grants in [2], along with more background about the grant program. The referenced paper is listed there under Policy. Edit: Also wanted to call out this amazing bit of spin: > Mr. Sokol, though, had extensive financial ties to Google, according to his emails obtained by the Journal. He was a part-time attorney at the Silicon Valley law firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, which has Google as a client. Wikipedia says WSGR has ~1850 attorneys. In what world does this constitute "extensive financial ties"? [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2130008&mod=article_inline https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2130008&... [2] https://research.google/outreach/past-programs/faculty-research-awards/?category=2011 https://research.google/outreach/past-programs/faculty-resea...

netcan 6y ago

This is very well written. If antitrust laws do not define google as a monopoly, it's obviously the antitrust laws that are wrong. Google is obviously a monopoly. The 2018 case against Google in the EU (€1.5bn fine) made very similar points and won. The real problem is what comes next. If recent history is a guide, it will be a cost-of-doing-business fine. This does nothing. At best, they'll adapt practices slightly. Maybe they've adapted enough post 2018 to make this case difficult. We need a new approach. There is no way antitrust courts can act as regulators effectively. They find that a monopoly exists, but... the goal is not regulated monopolies. The whole premise of antitrust is that monopolies are harmful in lots of systemic ways. We must assume that most are unknown. A prosecutor & court can't track down every monopolistic mechanism or dynamic and fine google for it. We need to avoid and void monopolies. This is why there are mechanisms to void mergers. Adwords could IPO independently. They'd be a great, profitable company. So would Google search, youtube, android... All these could be financially viable companies independently. Total share price would be lower. This reflects the fact that monopolies are more profitable. OTOH, the Google monopoly is an easy one to solve. It's so profitable that financial viability is easily achieved.

jldugger 6y ago
> Google is obviously a monopoly. Of which market though? Search: maybe. Ads: no.
- netcan 6y ago
  First, I think that once a strong monopoly exists monopolistic dynamics persist throughout the integrated layers. This is a premise of anti monopoly legislation. Search, mobile, adwords, "advertiser tools" like google analytics, play store, youtube. Google have huge market share in each layer. These reenforce each other, amplifying the monopoly dynamics. Second, I think adwords could qualify as a monopoly on its own. Online ad markets have grown a lot recently, but circa 2008 (I think) adwords market share peaked pretty high even if you define "market" as "all online ads". The market can be defined more narrowly too. Third, EU courts have already found against Google for monopsonistic behaviour in their adwords market. Competing search engines monetizing via adwords faced some dirty tricks, but adwords was the only buyer.

andromeduck 6y ago

What's even the point of adding a bunch of rules to break up a player with less than a third of the market and already in decline? It seems pretty clear that competitors have stepped it up. Meanwhile in Mobile ma bell has reassembled itself and in cable we're stuck with regional monopolies; in healthcare we're happy with the same or greater dominance by total monopolies like for insulin or glasses amongst other goods; likewise in payments with Visa and Mastercard. Smells like political rent seeking to me.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
yingw787 6y ago
"Why cut my fingernails? They'll grow back." - Ephraim, "Munich" (2005)
pessimizer 6y ago
> in healthcare we're happy Are we, though? It sounds like you're saying why go after google when there are so many other companies with similar levels of control over their own markets who we also don't go after. That's not a reasonable objection, unless you can find somebody who thinks that we should go after google, but not go after these other companies.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > That's not a reasonable objection, unless you can find somebody who thinks that we should go after google, but not go after these other companies. But you can -- the US Department of Justice, who are apparently preparing a case against Google and not companies in those other markets.
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    So in order to go after one monopolist they must go after all monopolists are once? Can’t they prioritize?

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago

I love the cover art on the paper. Sums up the issue perfectly. For those who will not read the PDF: Google completed a series of transactions that allowed it to participate in every level of the ad stack. (#1) Google leveraged its power in search advertising, in which it holds monopoly power to coerce advertisers to use Google products to access the display market as well. (#2) Google advantaged itself through arbitrage and cross-subsidization opportunities made possible by the fact that it, and it alone, operates at all levels of the value chain. (#3) Google withheld interoperability in order to disadvantage, foreclose, and punish its ad stack rivals. (#6) Google designed auction processes that cement its own market power and raise rivals costs. (#10) Google kept key market information hidden to shield itself from scrutiny from publishers, advertisers, and potential new entrants, suppressing otherwise natural competitive forces. (#14) Google leveraged its control over the ad tech stack and Google Analytics to weaken rival sources of display supply. (#18) 1. Acquiring Independent Companies To Cement Its Role Across the Ad Stack 2. Leveraging Market Power in General Search into Display 3. Designing Auctions That Facilitate Arbitrage and Rent Seeking 4. Cross-Subsidizing Competitive Functions of the Ad Tech Stack with Monopolized Functions In Order to Rise Rivals' Costs and Foreclose 5. Deceptive Gathering and Integration of Data 6. Strategic Disabling of Interoperability To Disadvantage Rivals 7. Withholding Interoperability to Steer Demand and Supply Through Its Own Exchange 8. Providing Exclusive Programmatic Access to YouTube Though Google's DSP 9. Retiring the Third-Party Cookie 10. Disadvantaging Rival Exchanges by Google s Publisher Ad Server 11. Undermining Header Bidding Through the Development of So-Called Open Bidding 12. Undermining Header Bidding Through Exclusionary Features of AMP 13. Designing Analytics to Steer Market Participants to Google Products and Prevent Entry 14. Resisting Transparency at All Levels of Ad Tech Stack 15. Obscuring Fees So That Competitors Cannot Enter and Compete Effectively 16. Using Privacy Laws as an Excuse to Hide Performance Data 17. Thwarting Publisher Efforts to Understand Source of Payments 18. Designing Attribution to Favor Search and Disadvantage Publishers 19. Raising Rivals Costs and Foreclosure of Existing and Potential Horizontal Competitors 20. Capturing Publisher Data in Order to Monetize Their Audiences They are not looking at Facebook, Amazon, or other walled gardens as viable alternatives for those who want to place ads on the open web. There is only one "choice". "All roads lead through Google".

laser 6y ago

With Google taking 32%-49% of ad spends [1], and perhaps even more as AdMob appears to be undisclosed (although let's assume in this range), if competition could cut this take in half while maintaining equal targeting efficiency, we might see an explosion in growth of niche businesses. If the cost reduction resulted in a 50-50 split between higher publisher revenue and decreased ad costs, then that ~12-24% higher revenue plus 9-16% advertising cost reduction would make a ton of businesses with LTV:CAC ratios on the margins vastly more profitable. Even more importantly, they would be able to reinvest earnings on a far tighter cycle back into their businesses. The vast, vast majority of young businesses do not have access to institutional capital, fueling their growth through positive unit economics. Relatively small changes in costs and revenue relative to margins can have huge effects. For example, an ad-based business with $1 CAC and $2 LTV, where 50% of the LTV is earned over the first 12 months, 25% in the first 3 months, takes a year to see it's ad spend returned and break even, at which point it can reinvest that dollar for new customers and start the cycle again. With 15% lower ad costs and 20% higher revenue, the LTV:CAC becomes $0.85:$2.40, and assuming the same earnings-curve, at three months in $0.60 has been earned, and $0.85 in under five months. That means this business, and those like it, are suddenly able to grow at over 2x the rate as they could prior to such a breakup. As much as many people hate advertising, it is still one of the primary channels for people's wants/needs (often unknown) to get matched to supply, and thus removing a monopoly and increasing the efficiency of this matchmaking could stimulate explosive growth in new and existing products and services that can't currently cost-effectively reach their customers. Ultimately, this would be a great benefit to everyone. As a final note, this is relatively loose thinking and doesn't account for second-order effects like increased ad spend competition with increased revenue, but I think still an interesting thought to get out there, as I think the gist of it still holds. [1] https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en

hogFeast 6y ago

Wow, this is very poorly written. Even ignoring the fact that they appear to have just sourced all their info from the CMA(note below), they really need to tighten this up considerably. In particular, you cannot mix conclusions and introduction/background into the same section (when this happens, it is usually because someone is writing to a conclusion). Also, the overuse of lawerly adjectives (i.e. hyperbolic) and catch phrases really shouldn't fly. Either way, I don't think the case is made particularly well. Anytime you talk about prices, you are on very shaky ground indeed. If advertisers can't make money at a certain price, they don't buy it. Equally, Google's marginal cost is zero so they have every incentive to move inventory. Equally, publishers make money when Google does so the gross price is roughly correct (in other words, focus on fees...that is where the issues are). There is conspiracy theory stuff here - Google are fiddling attribution measurement to favour search ads, they are hiding prices (no, publishers say this but advertisers are very aware of what they are paying...it is leaving their account), arbitrage...clutch pearls. There is inaccurate stuff here - imposing rigid market definitions (for example, the difference between exchange and Adsense is the publisher...most small publishers want a simple product like Adsense). There is directly contradictory stuff here - Google uses data to steal from publishers...but taking away third-party cookies will lower prices and publishers won't be able to bid efficiently...okay, which is it? I think there is quite a clear case, it isn't made here. It needs to be far more concise. Google shouldn't operate exchanges and publish, it shouldn't operate exchanges and advertise, the exchange should be transparent. The core business here isn't complicated: I have something to sell, I need a venue to create a clearing price, there are other people who need to buy it. There is a long history of people creating venues that aren't fair, the solution is: create a fair venue. All the stuff about trying to prove harm and say that Google is a bad actor who is doing all these secret, ultra illegal things (that no-one has any proof for) is, quite frankly, nonsense. It doesn't matter if Google is doing bad things or not. The point is that their market position gives them that opportunity, and most humans are greedy. Watching a lawyer try to moralise is an unedifying sight (this paper comes from a billionaire's think tank, watching someone try to moralise about other people's behaviour with their pockets weighed down with gold is...really not a great sight, particularly as this content is just copied from the work done by the govt in another country...a charmed life indeed). CMA Note - I am from the UK and the CMA are terrible...mainly very well-connected Brits who either worked in business and ran their company into the ground or people who can't get a job in business at all. In particular, relying on CMA's market definition is perilous. Their logic is usually: what definition do we need to get the right decision? It is bafflingly inconsistent.

afrojack123 6y ago

This antitrust case seems very beneficial to Amazon's ad tech platform. Very suspicious

scarmig 6y ago
One of the more... interesting... conspiracy theories about this is that Donald Trump is trying to punish Google for being insufficiently supportive and helping the business of his noted political ally... Jeff Bezos?
- afrojack123 6y ago
  I don't think Bezos is Trump's political ally.

momokoko 6y ago

The problem with US antitrust laws is that they ignore global competition. Breaking up a Facebook or Google does not provide for more competition, it actually will provide less competition as another large global competitor with get even bigger by swallowing up their users.

threeseed 6y ago
That doesn't make any sense. Any company trying to build a US social network or social engine through acquiring Facebook or Google would need US advertisers. Otherwise what is the point of having these users. And if you have US advertisers you will need to have an official US presence. This in turns means you are subject to US law including antitrust. Also a deal of that size would need the US government to sign off on it.
- alexashka 6y ago
  > Any company trying to build a US social network or social engine through acquiring Facebook or Google would need US advertisers. Otherwise what is the point of having these users. The point would be collecting data on them and spreading propaganda. Not every country operates using quarterly profits as their one and true God.
gman83 6y ago
If Facebook or Google are seriously hobbled through regulation I expect their place will be taken by companies like Bytedance (TikTok) which is already the most downloaded app in the US. TikTok is actually just a loss-leading tool for Bytedance to get data for their main product, their AI research.

remote_phone 6y ago

Google is definitely exhibiting anti-competitive behavior and they should be broken up. What kind of company can get away with a critical product, such as advertising platform, email services, etc and provide ZERO SUPPORT. Literally they have no customer support that you can contact. This is the behavior of a monopoly. If they were in a competition, they would invest more and more into things like customer support. But they save billions by not investing In customer service and having no way of contacting them. This is monopolistic behavior, because that’s how they squeeze more and more money out of their customers. Instead of raising prices like traditional monopolies, they do it in other ways like having a product that is easy and cheap for them to maintain but hellish for their customers who are dependent on it. They hide behind algorithms to detect fraud, they close accounts immediately based on bad information and there is no recourse. If they were in a competition they would have customer support but since they don’t have competition, they eliminated it entirely with impunity. Google should be broken up or forced to spend a certain percentage of their revenue to customer support the way any other company would be forced to in a regularly competitive environment.

logicchains 6y ago
>What kind of company can get away with a critical product, such as advertising platform, email services, etc and provide ZERO SUPPORT. Literally they have no customer support that you can contact. This is the behavior of a monopoly. They're giving away a product to you literally for free, and you're complaining about a lack of support? Do you expect any company to offer you support for free? People have other choices; there are plenty of paid email services, but people pick GMail anyway because it's free. Clearly these people would rather have a free unsupported service than pay for a supported one, who are you to take that choice away from them? If somebody leaves an old piece of furniture out on the curb for anybody to pick up, do you think the person who takes that furniture home is owed support by the original owner? Free is free; what kind of a sense of entitlement does it take for somebody to expect support for something they're not paying for? They do actually offer support for their paid services.
- robbrown451 6y ago

gorgoiler 6y ago

At this stage in human history, Google search is so engrained into the web that surely the only moral action is for Google to calve off the free part of their business and place it in public trust. The upside would be they would have more time to focus on their premium paid-for services like G Suite, Google Cloud Print, and Cobra Kai.

greggman3 6y ago

> You mentioned in the paper that Google is going to be blocking third-party cookies in its Chrome browser, which is the biggest browser in the world. This has been presented as a victory for privacy, but you suggest actually it’s another way for Google to shut out other people who want to do digital advertising. I find it interesting that the HN crowd loved that Apple was blocking 3rd party cookies in Safari but now that Chrome is about to do the same suddenly it's evil. If it is evil then it was evil even when Apple started doing it. If it's good that Apple did it then it's good that Google is following. The article basically argues it's evil and both Google and Apple should stop blocking 3rd party cookies because having 3rd party cookies provides opportunity for more competition > We need to explain that the information about you can be passed among 25 different ad tech companies or it can be passed among 25 parts of Google. Which one of those is better or safer? That’s hard to know. I know which one of them is cheaper—the one where there’s competition. And it’s also better for consumers in the sense of stimulating the content that they want to consume on the internet.

greggman3 6y ago
It would seem to be blocking 3rd party cookies is good and it's a net negative for Google because their analytics stop working. The article suggests google has more data than their competitors so it's a net positive to them. That might be true for small competitors. It's not true for big ones like Facebook or Amazon or Microsoft or possibly even Apple who have or potentially have a similar amount of info on you via the services they offer
- josefx 6y ago
  as far as i remember chrome actually sends an additional and probably unique xclient-data property when it connects to google owned addresses. This is a feature its competitors do not have access to.
  - chipperyman573 6y ago
    I just looked through the headers of a request to google.com, expecting this to be wrong, but it does look like this is there! Right at the bottom, x-client-data. The value ends with == which makes me think it's some kind of hash. Crazy. It does not exist when I use ungoogled chromium, firefox, or even edge.

lordlic 6y ago

> We need to explain that the information about you can be passed among 25 different ad tech companies or it can be passed among 25 parts of Google. Which one of those is better or safer? That’s hard to know. Really? Neither option is great but if you absolutely have to choose the lesser of two evils it seems obvious that Google is going to be a better steward of your data than 25 random ad companies. At least Google isn't going to sell your data. Those 25 other ad companies are going to turn into 2500 real fast.

switch11 6y ago

Here is an example of the type of anti trust stuff Google does One of the industries we work in is a classic New Startups Vs Established Silicon Valley Company/Companies type of industry In this case the Established companies are Google and a few others * Here are some of the things Google does A) Whenever any company grows beyond a certain threshold, it drops that company drastically in organic search The #1 and #2 companies are at #41 and #42 in search results B) IN parallel, fills up organic search with every possible negative result they can find about these companies C) Adwords RoI drops from 1:4 to 1:8 range to 1:1 range D) Click Fraud increases + some of the click fraud is from Google Cloud and Google servers Either -> Google can't stop click fraud from ITS OWN SERVERS, or it is doing it itself E) One of the startups was growing very fast in Android - App STore - 1,500 people a day (pretty fast for our industry) Within ONE WEEK of this information becoming public, each and every app from every company in this space got kicked out of Android store F) Drops email open rate by putting emails in Social Folder, Newsletter Folder, Junk Folder Of course, they are so blatant about it they did it to all the companies in the space in the same week and dropped it by the almost exact same amount So everyone's Gmail open rates fell from 11% roughly to 5%. In the SAME WEEK G) YouTube comments are hidden All the positive comments on YouTube videos get hidden and can only be seen by finding the option to show all comments (which 99% of people don't even know) * A lot of people are making arguments without actually being the target of the antitrust Keep in mind this (Google) is a company that has The largest browser share The largest search engine share The largest OS share The largest video platform share and many other advantages They also are a trillion dollar company HOWEVER, they play very dirty If you are in an area where you are competing against them they will use EACH AND EVERY of their levers and they will go all out and do straight up illegal stuff Things like dropping the two largest companies in a space to FOURTH PAGE of search results