4 ms·

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.

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.