4 ms·

> separate Google the company selling ads on Google properties from Google the ad exchange for half the Internet This is where I think the Justice Department a

> separate Google the company selling ads on Google properties from Google the ad exchange for half the Internet This is where I think the Justice Department and state Attorneys General can win. I don't know why the Justice Department is rushing a case on search dominance, and it definitely doesn't make sense to target Chrome. Go after the ad tech stack.

adventured 6y ago
> I don't know why the Justice Department is rushing a case on search dominance, and it definitely doesn't make sense to target Chrome. Because Google has an abusive search monopoly that harms consumers by providing a shitty experience and there are very few alternatives. First they built their monopoly, through a combination of producing an exceptional product and then gradually building moats around it; then once it was entrenched they started squeezing out competitors in their results (eating the ecosystem) and providing an ever worsening service as they focused on maximizing revenue extraction at the cost of service quality. Google is providing a mediocre service by their own early (and correct) definition. They're aggressively violating numerous things they spelled out as hallmarks of bad search engines in the beginning of the company. Their product sucks by their own words. Google has a browser monopoly and it has been integral to providing a moat for their search monopoly (which is one of the reasons they did it; as with Android). It absolutely makes sense to target that gigantic moat protecting their search monopoly. The search monopoly requires the moats to survive long-term at this point, since their search service is getting worse by the year. Peel off the moats shielding it from competition and the search engine either has to improve considerably, or competition will start eating its market share. IE, Edge, Firefox and Opera are all de facto dead. The only browsers remaining that have a user base of significant size are Chrome and Safari mobile. It's not enough competition to only have two companies (both trillion dollar companies at that) providing the browsers for nearly all Internet users globally.
- granzymes 6y ago
  > harms consumers by providing a shitty experience But where are the search engines providing a better experience? I've tried Bing. I've tried Duck Duck Go (although DDG is mostly Bing). I've found Google to be better which is why I still use it. Microsoft even tried paying me to use Bing! Moreover, I am no expert on antitrust law but I can't see how it helps the Justice Department's case to rush to file before the election.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  Because Google has an abusive search monopoly that harms consumers by providing a shitty experience and there are very few alternatives. There are a number of alternative search engines (Bing, Duck Duck Go, etc). These tend to have the same crap (to me) approach. But they're drive by the same exigencies - to help deliver advertising, to foil the most garbagy SEO and monetize the rest, to provide "answers" rather than just key-word search (IE, dumb things down for the masses). Google has a browser monopoly and it has been integral to providing a moat for their search monopoly I'm writing on Firefox, I love firefox and I've heard good things about Edge. Of course, Firefox is supported by Google and uses Google by default but I spent a year on Duck Duck Go and unlike Firefox, it really does suck. To expand, it's suckiness isn't lack of money but because it's clearly trying to do everything, all the bad things interface-wise, that Google does ("answers", weight-to-new-and-recent result, etc) but worse. Edit: It's really terrible that all interfaces have become interfaces for morons, that the paradigm for any company is "we give you few choices and use sophisticated AI to give you the choice we think you'd want 'cause giving you choices and tools means you might not decide what we want you to decide". But this paradigm doesn't actually relate to companies being monopolies. It really is what some portion of people want/need and it serves any company that doesn't have organized nerds as their customer base. I'd love to get past this but "break up Google" doesn't address this.

adventured 6y ago

> I don't know why the Justice Department is rushing a case on search dominance, and it definitely doesn't make sense to target Chrome. Because Google has an abusive search monopoly that harms consumers by providing a shitty experience and there are very few alternatives. First they built their monopoly, through a combination of producing an exceptional product and then gradually building moats around it; then once it was entrenched they started squeezing out competitors in their results (eating the ecosystem) and providing an ever worsening service as they focused on maximizing revenue extraction at the cost of service quality. Google is providing a mediocre service by their own early (and correct) definition. They're aggressively violating numerous things they spelled out as hallmarks of bad search engines in the beginning of the company. Their product sucks by their own words. Google has a browser monopoly and it has been integral to providing a moat for their search monopoly (which is one of the reasons they did it; as with Android). It absolutely makes sense to target that gigantic moat protecting their search monopoly. The search monopoly requires the moats to survive long-term at this point, since their search service is getting worse by the year. Peel off the moats shielding it from competition and the search engine either has to improve considerably, or competition will start eating its market share. IE, Edge, Firefox and Opera are all de facto dead. The only browsers remaining that have a user base of significant size are Chrome and Safari mobile. It's not enough competition to only have two companies (both trillion dollar companies at that) providing the browsers for nearly all Internet users globally.

granzymes 6y ago
> harms consumers by providing a shitty experience But where are the search engines providing a better experience? I've tried Bing. I've tried Duck Duck Go (although DDG is mostly Bing). I've found Google to be better which is why I still use it. Microsoft even tried paying me to use Bing! Moreover, I am no expert on antitrust law but I can't see how it helps the Justice Department's case to rush to file before the election.
joe_the_user 6y ago
Because Google has an abusive search monopoly that harms consumers by providing a shitty experience and there are very few alternatives. There are a number of alternative search engines (Bing, Duck Duck Go, etc). These tend to have the same crap (to me) approach. But they're drive by the same exigencies - to help deliver advertising, to foil the most garbagy SEO and monetize the rest, to provide "answers" rather than just key-word search (IE, dumb things down for the masses). Google has a browser monopoly and it has been integral to providing a moat for their search monopoly I'm writing on Firefox, I love firefox and I've heard good things about Edge. Of course, Firefox is supported by Google and uses Google by default but I spent a year on Duck Duck Go and unlike Firefox, it really does suck. To expand, it's suckiness isn't lack of money but because it's clearly trying to do everything, all the bad things interface-wise, that Google does ("answers", weight-to-new-and-recent result, etc) but worse. Edit: It's really terrible that all interfaces have become interfaces for morons, that the paradigm for any company is "we give you few choices and use sophisticated AI to give you the choice we think you'd want 'cause giving you choices and tools means you might not decide what we want you to decide". But this paradigm doesn't actually relate to companies being monopolies. It really is what some portion of people want/need and it serves any company that doesn't have organized nerds as their customer base. I'd love to get past this but "break up Google" doesn't address this.