12 ms·

Antitrust oversight of Google, similiar to what was done to Microsoft in the 2000s, will do more than spinning off any properties from Google. Google is able t

by Emendo 6y ago

Antitrust oversight of Google, similiar to what was done to Microsoft in the 2000s, will do more than spinning off any properties from Google. Google is able to invest in and made Chrome popular using cash from their advertising business, and Chrome's popularity allows Google to shape the web environment for their advertising business. If Google were to lose Google Chrome, there is nothing that would prevent them from directly or indirectly evolving Chromium. If Google is prevented from making a browser, then they could even move the focus of computing away from the web browser with power from their search business. Therefore, antitrust oversight is required to curb the types of behavior that lead to the antitrust situation in the first place.

switch11 6y ago
this is an excellent point Google pushes Chrome EVERYWHERE Now that Chrome is the leading browser they are turning off targeting for everyone else, so that only Google has access to target users The solution is to STOP the monopoly of Search So that a new thing like Google Chrome can't happen i.e. Search can't be used to take over another space
- henriquez 6y ago
  Why not split search and AdWords while they’re at it? There are too many perverse incentives created by the combination of Google’s ad monopoly with their search monopoly.
  - irrational 6y ago
    Don’t the ads fund the search engine? If search was its own company, where would its funding come from?
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      Advertising. Advertising companies (one of which would be Google Ads) would pay them for access to add displayed on Search.
      - shajznnckfke 6y ago
        If Ex-Google Ads has the best ad marketplace and can use the space most efficiently, they will bid the most and buy most of the space. So we will still have Ex-Google Ads on Google searches, but they will be owned separately. What difference will it make?
        CydeWeys 6y ago
        They would be owned, operated, and governed separately, and Search could have the different ad providers compete amongst each other to provide the best rates. Add it all up together and it'd be a huge difference. Each of the two separate companies would have separate management and a fiduciary duty to maximize their own profit independently, even at the expense of the other. Consider that Verizon and AT&T, the two largest mobile phone providers in the US, are both Baby Bells resulting from the break-up of Bell Telephone Company in an anti-trust action. They compete strongly against each other, in a way that would absolutely not be true if they were still the same company.
        shajznnckfke 6y ago
        Agreed that breaking up a company horizontally into two competing companies creates competition between the two companies. Here we’re talking about breaking up Google vertically into two companies with a supplier-client relationship. The supplier and the client aren’t going to be competing with each other because they are in two different businesses.
        CydeWeys 6y ago
        It frees up the supplier and client to compete against each other by patronizing other suppliers/clients in the industry. Right now no one else can sell ads on Google Search; after a break up, other competitors would now be able to.
        shajznnckfke 6y ago
    - eitland 6y ago
      They could sell ad spots like everyone else has to ;-)
    - mancerayder 6y ago
      Why not offer two Googles, one for people who don't mind sifting through three pages of SEO results when they search for actual information, and another subscription that cuts out ads for those willing to shell the cash?
      - paulcole 6y ago
        On average, if you’ve got enough money to pay to not see ads you’re exactly the kind of person who people will pay handsomely to show ads to.
        dannyw 6y ago
        For example. If you’re looking to refinance a home loan; you’re easily worth $100-$300 of revenue to Google; with a decent number of searches and clicks (eg “refinance”, “mortgage interest calculators”, etc)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- nl 6y ago
  > Now that Chrome is the leading browser they are turning off targeting for everyone else, so that only Google has access to target users What - in detail - does this mean? Because it doesn't appear true in anyway I can see. I can still buy ads exactly the same way targeting the same characteristics I've always been able to.
  - dannyw 6y ago
    They are blocking third party cookies. This doesn’t impact Google because they track visits directly from chrome://history
    - nnt38 6y ago
      Something you as a user can disable.
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
"If Google is prevented from making a browser, then they could even move the focus of computing away from the web browser..." If that ever happened, I think that would be a vast improvement. There is much more to the internet than just the web and a handful of ports used by browsers. Internet advertising mainly lives on the web; it's maninly delivered through those ports opened for the web/apps.
- kace91 6y ago
  Internet advertising also lives in the YouTube apps, social networks like instagram, or pop ups in free apps, to name a few. And those are way more annoying, since they're baked into thected by ad blockers...
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
    And they use the same ports a web browser does. The ones that are always open on all networks. Because the internet is so focused on the web browser.
Waterluvian 6y ago
You reminded me how impressive it is, in a way, that Google made the Chrome play knowing it would take years and years to bear any fruit. I’d be interested to learn internally how that got incentivized and managed.
readams 6y ago
Google makes the browser because they are profoundly vulnerable otherwise to platform owners demanding payment for access to their platforms. Android exists because Google wanted protection against a Microsoft mobile monopoly that seemed inevitable (of course it turned out to be the Apple mobile monopoly that was the real threat; notice that Google has to pay Apple billions annually for access to their platforms). Internet explorer was a similar threat. Chrome was the response to that threat. If Google can't influence this, then there will be other platform owners who will the ones with all the margins. A world where Microsoft and Apple just squeeze all the profit out of the internet is not obviously (at least to me) better than one where they can't.
- wyattpeak 6y ago
  I agree, but feel like this is only a problem because antitrust rulings are blue-moon events. In a healthy system I would expect Google to be restricted from dominating the browser landscape, and in turn Apple from restricting access to their platform. Market power is a difficult thing to wrangle. There isn't going to be any policy which can't eventually be worked around by some party. The policy has to evolve with the landscape.
  - cageface 6y ago
    That's the thing that makes me uneasy about this. I'm ok with some regulation of Google and perhaps even some kind of breakup. What I don't want to see is regulators picking winners and losers. I'm concerned about Google's control over the web but at least their interested are aligned with the survival of the web and not completely locked down & proprietary platforms like iOS.
    - mcny 6y ago
      > breakup If you look at the breakup of Ma Bell, I think you’ll doubt the government’s ability to break up a company properly.
      - cageface 6y ago
Lammy 6y ago
> similar to what was done to Microsoft in the 2000s Meaning there will be a ton of news about their case but the whole thing will disappear in a puff of settlement-smoke ten months after an incoming president takes office?
- Natsu 6y ago
  As someone who managed to be a class member to multiple state-level anti-trust actions against Microsoft, I'm still disgusted how one of the class representatives sold us out. I remember trying to figure out how to intervene as a non-lawyer and eventually giving up without filing anything. After giving a pitiful offer of a few dollars per class member, they had it such that the rest would be donated to the schools (Apple's last stronghold at the time) and could only be used for new, whole computers, not peripherals or other stuff. This was such a bogus restriction to put on the money that it made my jaw drop. But not being a lawyer, all I knew was that a pro se filing was likely to be ignored. If I had to do it over again, I would love to have argued about how the settlement was calculated to create a new anti-trust injury and would have requested relief by having a guardian ad litem for the class, after rejecting the current offer. Still not sure it would've gone anywhere, but maybe it would've at least pushed back at the nonsense.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    You can opt out of a class and you can ask a lawyer to file a new lawsuit for the new injury.
    - Natsu 6y ago
      Yeah, but then there's no one left in the class, essentially. What am I going to do in court as someone with a single copy of Windows 95 and Windows 98?
      - roel_v 6y ago
        "What am I going to do in court as someone with a single copy of Windows 95 and Windows 98?" Entertain the rest of us, of course!

by Emendo 6y ago

switch11 6y ago

this is an excellent point Google pushes Chrome EVERYWHERE Now that Chrome is the leading browser they are turning off targeting for everyone else, so that only Google has access to target users The solution is to STOP the monopoly of Search So that a new thing like Google Chrome can't happen i.e. Search can't be used to take over another space

henriquez 6y ago
Why not split search and AdWords while they’re at it? There are too many perverse incentives created by the combination of Google’s ad monopoly with their search monopoly.
- irrational 6y ago
  Don’t the ads fund the search engine? If search was its own company, where would its funding come from?
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    Advertising. Advertising companies (one of which would be Google Ads) would pay them for access to add displayed on Search.
    - shajznnckfke 6y ago
      If Ex-Google Ads has the best ad marketplace and can use the space most efficiently, they will bid the most and buy most of the space. So we will still have Ex-Google Ads on Google searches, but they will be owned separately. What difference will it make?
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        They would be owned, operated, and governed separately, and Search could have the different ad providers compete amongst each other to provide the best rates. Add it all up together and it'd be a huge difference. Each of the two separate companies would have separate management and a fiduciary duty to maximize their own profit independently, even at the expense of the other. Consider that Verizon and AT&T, the two largest mobile phone providers in the US, are both Baby Bells resulting from the break-up of Bell Telephone Company in an anti-trust action. They compete strongly against each other, in a way that would absolutely not be true if they were still the same company.
        shajznnckfke 6y ago
        Agreed that breaking up a company horizontally into two competing companies creates competition between the two companies. Here we’re talking about breaking up Google vertically into two companies with a supplier-client relationship. The supplier and the client aren’t going to be competing with each other because they are in two different businesses.
        CydeWeys 6y ago
        It frees up the supplier and client to compete against each other by patronizing other suppliers/clients in the industry. Right now no one else can sell ads on Google Search; after a break up, other competitors would now be able to.
        shajznnckfke 6y ago
  - eitland 6y ago
    They could sell ad spots like everyone else has to ;-)
  - mancerayder 6y ago
    Why not offer two Googles, one for people who don't mind sifting through three pages of SEO results when they search for actual information, and another subscription that cuts out ads for those willing to shell the cash?
    - paulcole 6y ago
      On average, if you’ve got enough money to pay to not see ads you’re exactly the kind of person who people will pay handsomely to show ads to.
      - dannyw 6y ago
        For example. If you’re looking to refinance a home loan; you’re easily worth $100-$300 of revenue to Google; with a decent number of searches and clicks (eg “refinance”, “mortgage interest calculators”, etc)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
nl 6y ago
> Now that Chrome is the leading browser they are turning off targeting for everyone else, so that only Google has access to target users What - in detail - does this mean? Because it doesn't appear true in anyway I can see. I can still buy ads exactly the same way targeting the same characteristics I've always been able to.
- dannyw 6y ago
  They are blocking third party cookies. This doesn’t impact Google because they track visits directly from chrome://history
  - nnt38 6y ago
    Something you as a user can disable.

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

"If Google is prevented from making a browser, then they could even move the focus of computing away from the web browser..." If that ever happened, I think that would be a vast improvement. There is much more to the internet than just the web and a handful of ports used by browsers. Internet advertising mainly lives on the web; it's maninly delivered through those ports opened for the web/apps.

kace91 6y ago
Internet advertising also lives in the YouTube apps, social networks like instagram, or pop ups in free apps, to name a few. And those are way more annoying, since they're baked into thected by ad blockers...
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
  And they use the same ports a web browser does. The ones that are always open on all networks. Because the internet is so focused on the web browser.

Waterluvian 6y ago

You reminded me how impressive it is, in a way, that Google made the Chrome play knowing it would take years and years to bear any fruit. I’d be interested to learn internally how that got incentivized and managed.

readams 6y ago

Google makes the browser because they are profoundly vulnerable otherwise to platform owners demanding payment for access to their platforms. Android exists because Google wanted protection against a Microsoft mobile monopoly that seemed inevitable (of course it turned out to be the Apple mobile monopoly that was the real threat; notice that Google has to pay Apple billions annually for access to their platforms). Internet explorer was a similar threat. Chrome was the response to that threat. If Google can't influence this, then there will be other platform owners who will the ones with all the margins. A world where Microsoft and Apple just squeeze all the profit out of the internet is not obviously (at least to me) better than one where they can't.

wyattpeak 6y ago
I agree, but feel like this is only a problem because antitrust rulings are blue-moon events. In a healthy system I would expect Google to be restricted from dominating the browser landscape, and in turn Apple from restricting access to their platform. Market power is a difficult thing to wrangle. There isn't going to be any policy which can't eventually be worked around by some party. The policy has to evolve with the landscape.
- cageface 6y ago
  That's the thing that makes me uneasy about this. I'm ok with some regulation of Google and perhaps even some kind of breakup. What I don't want to see is regulators picking winners and losers. I'm concerned about Google's control over the web but at least their interested are aligned with the survival of the web and not completely locked down & proprietary platforms like iOS.
  - mcny 6y ago
    > breakup If you look at the breakup of Ma Bell, I think you’ll doubt the government’s ability to break up a company properly.
    - cageface 6y ago

Lammy 6y ago

> similar to what was done to Microsoft in the 2000s Meaning there will be a ton of news about their case but the whole thing will disappear in a puff of settlement-smoke ten months after an incoming president takes office?

Natsu 6y ago
As someone who managed to be a class member to multiple state-level anti-trust actions against Microsoft, I'm still disgusted how one of the class representatives sold us out. I remember trying to figure out how to intervene as a non-lawyer and eventually giving up without filing anything. After giving a pitiful offer of a few dollars per class member, they had it such that the rest would be donated to the schools (Apple's last stronghold at the time) and could only be used for new, whole computers, not peripherals or other stuff. This was such a bogus restriction to put on the money that it made my jaw drop. But not being a lawyer, all I knew was that a pro se filing was likely to be ignored. If I had to do it over again, I would love to have argued about how the settlement was calculated to create a new anti-trust injury and would have requested relief by having a guardian ad litem for the class, after rejecting the current offer. Still not sure it would've gone anywhere, but maybe it would've at least pushed back at the nonsense.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  You can opt out of a class and you can ask a lawyer to file a new lawsuit for the new injury.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    Yeah, but then there's no one left in the class, essentially. What am I going to do in court as someone with a single copy of Windows 95 and Windows 98?
    - roel_v 6y ago
      "What am I going to do in court as someone with a single copy of Windows 95 and Windows 98?" Entertain the rest of us, of course!