7 ms·

Google definitely needs anti-trust scrutiny. The timing is suspicious though. Could political motivation be at play here? And why didn't Facebook get sued too

Google definitely needs anti-trust scrutiny. The timing is suspicious though. Could political motivation be at play here? And why didn't Facebook get sued too? They're just as anti-competitive. Was there an implicit protection agreement reached at one of those private dinners Zuckerberg had at the White House? And what about Amazon? There's a whole laundry list of anti-competitive practices happening with their online sales and marketplace.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
CydeWeys 6y ago
And don't forget the biggest gorilla of the bunch, Apple, with its locked down walled garden that it gets a 30% cut of. Maybe the next administration will give equal scrutiny to all of the big tech companies rather than seemingly targeting just one of them.
- iscrewyou 6y ago
  That’s not a monopoly. It’s something to scrutinize but it’s not a monopoly.
  - grapevan 6y ago
    It really depends on market definition to be honest. If one were to define a market for native app distribution services on iOS smartphones, then I think there is a real argument that Apple is a monopolist that is extracting monopoly rents.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      And there is a strong case for defining the market that way, because it represents a discrete set of customers. Approximately none of the people who use the iOS app store also use Google Play, because it doesn't work on their phones. Whereas if you say "the Walmart market for windshield wipers" that isn't a discrete set of customers, because the same people can walk across the street to Target and buy windshield wipers for the same car over there.
      - edmundsauto 6y ago
        How are customers discrete? I own both android and iOS devices.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        99% of people don't, and even you have to use the store that corresponds to the device you want to use the app with. If one company actually had a monopoly on windshield wipers for cars and another had a monopoly on windshield wipers for trucks, that doesn't change just because there is somebody who has both a car and a truck. When you need windshield wipers for your car, there is still only one place you could get them.
        edmundsauto 6y ago
        But doesn't that mean the basis for the argument is heavily in how you define the market? How people define the market feels entirely arbitrary to me -- supporters of the antitrust investigation scope it to "iOS", while opponents scope it to "smartphones". Both are valid, but it's our personal position that drives how we define market. That seems backwards.
  - foxtr0t 6y ago
    Antitrust enforcers care about anticompetitive behavior not monopolies. They certainly should care about rent seeking behavior that Apple is engaged in. Saying something is or is not a monopoly is distracting from what actually matters. It's deflecting.
    - jhawk28 6y ago
      Anticompetitive behavior only matters when it is a monopoly.
      - CPLX 6y ago
        This is a common misconception but is not correct. Anti-competitive behavior can be illegal all by itself. Price fixing is one obvious example but there are plenty of others.
        jmisavage 6y ago
        Correct Apple and several book publishers got in trouble for doing just that years ago in the fight against Amazon.
        tzs 6y ago
        In addition to most violations of antitrust law being from companies that do not have monopolies, it goes the other way too. You can have an actual monopoly without violating antitrust law. If you got the monopoly without doing anti-competitive behavior, such as by simple having a better product or by getting lucky and having competitors that all made stupid mistakes that sunk them, your monopoly may be legal.
      - foxtr0t 6y ago
        This is a patently false statement from first principles. Anticompetitive behavior to keep a monopoly is illegal, but that is not the only case. Cartels, predatory pricing, and price fixing are all illegal with or without monopolies and are all considered anticompetitive practices.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    Apple has a monopoly on iPhone software, and while it's true that users who dislike the App Store can switch to Android, there is an enormous cost to switching phone ecosystems. If you don't like Comcast, you could move to an area with a different ISP, and there's a certain point where you probably would move, if Comcast's service became egregious enough. But I don't usually see this argument when people refer to Comcast as a monopoly, because it's understood that the switching cost is unreasonably high.
    - MegaButts 6y ago
      How is switching between Android and iOS remotely comparable to moving where you live? I've switched between iOS and Android before. What's the big deal?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - mythz 6y ago
      > Apple has a monopoly on iPhone software Monopoly's are whether or not a product or service dominates a specific sector, industry or market. A company can't have a monopoly over its own products which by definition would cover most product/service companies. Given iOS market share is about ~25% of the Mobile OS Market, it currently doesn't qualify as a Monopoly although it's currently under EU investigation & Epic lawsuit which may rule differently.
      - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
        But isn't iOS software a specific market? iOS might be an Apple product, but "iOS software" is made primarily by third parties. That software is exclusively sold by Apple, but that's exactly what I find anti-competitive! Separately, it's worth noting that iOS has ~60% market share in the United States[1]. It's lower globally, as you pointed out, but I'd argue domestic market-share should be what matters in US-based suits. 1: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
  - treis 6y ago
    In every thread someone makes a comment like this. As though a duopoly is somehow meaningfully different than a monopoly.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      And it doesn't even address anything I actually said. It's a deflection at best. The spectrum of corporate misbehavior that needs to be regulated is much broader than "singular monopoly".
    - JKCalhoun 6y ago
      Good point. Cable companies and cell companies should be hoisted up next.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        Cable (or a wire that transmits data) and mobile internet should be a utility. It makes no sense for multiple fibers to be run to a single home for the sake of competition, nor does it make sense to operate multiple cell towers transmitting the same data, just like it doesn't make sense to run multiple pipes for water and electrical lines for the sake of competition.
- CogentHedgehog 6y ago
  Apple's app store policies are probably going to be forced to change, yeah. But that's an easier change than the other ones. Apple is not in a situation where they need to be broken up to ensure a free market like Facebook, Amazon, and perhaps Google are.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    Realistically I don't see forced break-ups being in the cards here. That hasn't happened since, what, AT&T, decades ago? My guess would be it's all consent decrees -- what they hit Microsoft with, and what they could hit Apple/Google/Facebook/Amazon/Microsoft with now.
    - toyg 6y ago
      Dunno about the US, but in Europe several companies in the last few decades have been forced to divest some part of their operations because of antitrust activity, typically (but not limited to) at merger time. Banks and telecom providers, for example, have seen quite a bit of movement in the Uk. It’s just that they don’t make massive headlines.
  - amelius 6y ago
    Unless they gobble up the entire supply chain.
- matwood 6y ago
  Some people online like to complain about Apple, but they are probably the least concerning of the bunch. Android is a viable alternative, and 30% from app stores is the norm right now. FB is being used by foreign powers to shape US elections, and you think Apple is the biggest problem here?
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    30% from app stores is the norm for app stores that have market power in their respective markets, but all that tells you is that's the amount of the monopoly rent. Compare this to the Microsoft store, where the store itself doesn't have market power, and then they don't take 30%: https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/06/microsoft-store-revenue-share/ https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/06/microsoft-store-revenue-share... But still 30% for XBOX/games where they once again have market power in that market.
  - Mindwipe 6y ago
    Facebook is a viable alterative to Google from an advertising perspective. This action is taking place despite there being far more competition in search and advertising than there is about the abuse of code signing permissions by Apple. Antitrust action has never required the lack of an alternative. > FB is being used by foreign powers to shape US elections, and you think Apple is the biggest problem here? Apple is being used to attack democracy campaigners in Hong Kong, mainland China and Belarus, and has a long history of attacking sexual minorities and sex education efforts. Yes, Apple is 100% the biggest problem here.
- nafey 6y ago
  Would you make the same argument for PS/XBox/Salesforce marketplaces? They have similar restrictions.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    Yes, but they're of lower priority. Gaming has increasingly moved away from the PC (the only truly open/competitive platform) towards the walled gardens of consoles and mobile devices. This has a censorious effect in what's actually allowed to be released, the big platforms get to do a lot of rent-seeking, and crucially, games are increasingly going digital, which eliminates a consumer's right to resale and loan games to their friends. The gaming marketplace would be a lot more competitive and interesting without gatekeeping. About the only downside you'd see is that the up-front cost for some consoles would need to be higher, because selling them as a loss-leader and making the money up in back-end licensing fees would no longer be allowable. I would love to see some sort of regulated 10% rake cap on digital marketplaces (both mobile and gaming) and ticket sales. Note that this would apply only to games being distributed through the platform owner's marketplace, and that consumers would be allowed to install by right software from other sources as well.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  Apple is barely a monopoly, despite their horrible behaviour. Googles complete stranglehold of advertising is much more damaging. - Sent from my android
tomnipotent 6y ago
> Could political motivation be at play here That's usually how this stuff works. > And why didn't Facebook get sued too You can't make one case against multiple companies, and resources are finite. It will take many years for each of these cases to play out.
- pydry 6y ago
  I remember with Microsoft the antitrust lawsuit got dropped as soon as Bush entered office. I wouldn't be surprised if a Biden administration drops this too.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    My largest issue with the Obama administration was their incredibly corrupt and cozy relationship with Google. It's one of the reasons I was really hoping nearly anyone else would win the primary. So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if Biden drops it, but only because he was likely part of the problem to begin with. Google wouldn't be the problem it is today if the Obama/Biden administration was doing their job. (Still voting for him, mind you. It's not like we have better options.)
    - dataminer 6y ago
      Can you reference some reading material about the corrupt relationship you mentioned, interested to learn more about what happened and how.
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        I recommend, generally, people do their own research, it's not a difficult or obscure truth to locate. Here's one article though: https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close-relationship-with-the-obama-white-house-in-two-charts/ https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close... But basically, a massive number of Google employees were installed in high-level positions of the Obama administration, and a lot of Obama administration folks got great jobs at Google. Obama installed a professor who wrote studies about how Google shouldn't face antitrust scrutiny (who was paid by Google to do so) as the FTC Commissioner (Joshua Wright, who is now a lawyer at Google's preferred law firm... he went from Google shill to government official and now back to Google work), and an FTC case against Google where staffers recommended litigation inexplicably got shoved under the rug. Then you'd see things like a former Googler in Obama's administration announce an initiative to budget billions of taxpayer dollars to buy computers for schoolchildren... unshockingly, these were intended to be Chromebooks, which get kids started early as Google account holders. (I believe Congress ended up rejecting this particular budgetary line item, or reducing it significantly.)
Mountain_Skies 6y ago
Trump's dislike of Jeff Bezos is well known. I doubt Amazon is getting any special favors from the White House. Given how blatant and extensive Amazon's scummy practices are, I've got to wonder if the feds and the state attorneys general are letting Amazon keep collecting more and more of the rope that will eventually be used the hang them with.
reaperducer 6y ago
The timing is suspicious though. Could political motivation be at play here? A reasonable thought on the surface, but this has been pushed by many people on both sides of the aisle, including Elizabeth Warren.
- CogentHedgehog 6y ago
  If lots of people see a clear pattern forming, doesn't that make it MORE credible rather than less?
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    If there was no conflicting evidence, then maybe. But if you read the newspaper, you know this has been in the works for a very long time, and again from both Republicans and Democrats.
    - shakethemonkey 6y ago
      AG Barr has been pushing to get this out before the election, over objections of his own attorneys: "He [Barr] pushed career Justice Department attorneys to bring the case by the end of September, prompting pushback from lawyers who wanted more time and complained of political influence."[1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/technology/google-antitrust.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/technology/google-antitru...
      - reaperducer 6y ago
        You are correct. But that doesn't mean all of the Democrats and other Republicans who have been pushing for this for years have suddenly vaporized from history.
  - croon 6y ago
    I think he's saying that many people on a bi-partisan basis has been pushing for this for a long time, which would make the timing less suspicious as it has been picking up steam for a long time. Ie lots of people pushing a change, not pushing a theory.
matwood 6y ago
Announcing Google today does not preclude others from being announced later. Cases take time. Also, based on the story I saw the Google one is pretty straight forward. The deals they have made to force their search onto things like the iPhone (with Apple) and Android (with the carriers/manufacturers) is the issue.
- testplzignore 6y ago
  Yeah, I feel like the case against Google is easy. So many different ways to go after them. For Apple, Amazon, and Facebook, I think similar accusations can be made, but it's not as "shooting fish in a barrel" easy as Google.
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    Considering we haven’t had effective anti-trust for some time... I agree I think focusing on one and seeing where the modern limits are is a better move than a shotgun to anyone you feel may have skirted a fair system.
- cloudwalking 6y ago
  Honest question, what is anti-competitive about the iPhone deal?
  - matwood 6y ago
    I don't know, but that's what one of the articles I read said the government was looking into.
glenstein 6y ago
>And why didn't Facebook get sued too? >And what about Amazon? I completely agree, and this has been my main headscratcher since we first heard about a possible anti-trust case. For starters, I still think things like banks, telecom, and probably oil, and defense industry companies probably need to be broken up, and that they should be much higher priorities. To say nothing of the obscure industries we wouldn't normally think of (Luxxotica with glasses) that are monopolized. There's probably others for obscure things I'm not even thinking of. And even within tech, I wouldn't even rank Google ahead of Amazon, and I'm not 100% that I would rank them ahead of Facebook either. And, if that's not all, I think Google at least serves as a check on the other Frightful Five, and subtracting Google will serve to further consolidate tech. And if that's not enough, I feel that the tech industry has served as a useful check against other entrenched industries. Their clash with cable, and occasional work to protect an open internet are a healthy counterbalance to voices of other monopolized industries.
- mfer 6y ago
  An announcement on one does not mean announcements and cases aren't coming against the others. In the book, The Age Surveillance Capitalism, the case is made the Google is actually worse than FB but lesser known for many of the things people complain about. Google may be the easier monopoly case to go after given the Doubleclick merger, the way Chrome is used, etc.
- seattletech 6y ago
  The vertical integration and domination in the eyeglasses space has been a blind spot for anti-trust regulators.
  - trentnix 6y ago
    I see what you did there. Have an upvote.
- agustif 6y ago
  Sports in USA have a lot of monopolies which affect it's captive users much greater than google/fb/amazon prob From MMA/WWE to Varsity/Gimnastics
djanogo 6y ago
It's not any more suspicious than announcing it 3 months earlier or 3 months later. There is no right "non-suspicious" timing for this type of scrutiny.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  And yet the article says: "Attorney General William P. Barr, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, has played an unusually active role in the investigation. He pushed career Justice Department attorneys to bring the case by the end of September, prompting pushback from lawyers who wanted more time and complained of political influence. Mr. Barr has spoken publicly about the inquiry for months and set tight deadlines for the prosecutors leading the effort."
013a 6y ago
Could there be political motivations in politics? I'd expect so. The issue with doing anything during an election is that people on the other side accuse the administration of suspicious timing. The issue with doing nothing during an election is that everyone accuses you of being a lame duck. This is, more or less, business as usual for the administration; they've been on Big Tech's ass for at least a year now, and finally something is coming of it. Every big tech company needs looked at, and potentially split up. And, maybe, they'll all get their turn. But resources are limited; when the US went to war with Germany, we didn't airdrop troops in Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne, Munich, and Frankfurt on the same day. Actually, we didn't even start with Germany. Starting with Google allows some legal precedent to be set on some of the very weird, novel antitrust issues the case is going to face, which will make future cases easier. I tend to think Amazon should have been the first, but Google is certainly up there, and probably (IMO) a more potentially harmful monopoly than Apple, Microsoft, or Facebook.
- csharptwdec19 6y ago
  You've got this right IMO. I'll agree that Amazon is Scarier. But I also think that Google's behavior is a lot easier to scrutinize/prove in court thanks to their actions in/around Android and Search
yokto 6y ago
> And why didn't Facebook get sued too? "The rumor is that a suit against Facebook will soon follow" [1] said Matt Stoller in his latest BIG, a newsletter about the politics of monopoly and finance. It takes a lot of resources to file those suits, so don't expect them to be announced at exactly the same time. [1] https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/how-would-president-biden-approach https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/how-would-president-biden... PS: Since it contains quite a bit of interesting and relevant information about the cases against GAFA, I submitted this particular newsletter at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24837931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24837931
ashtonkem 6y ago
I agree that the timing is weird, but the lack of action against Amazon actually weakens the argument that this is political in nature. Trump hates Bezos and has been threatening him for a while, so to leave his company out is noteworthy.
paradox242 6y ago
It's not unreasonable to question the motivation of this DOJ, nonetheless, that does not mean that there is nothing here, even if the green light was given for bad reasons. If we are seeing action on Google it could be that they have been preparing something for some time now and it was simply the case furthest along. I would agree that while Google is not entirely clean the behavior of Facebook and Amazon are much more egregious.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  How so? I mean, Amazon definitely has issues, but apart from some incredibly good acquisitions and sharp business practices, I don't see the anti-trust case against Facebook. Full disclosure: I own one share of FB.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Agreed. I think that FB is simultaneously one of the least liked tech companies among the general public, but also probably the one with the weakest anti-trust case against them. The rent-seeking by Google + Apple seems pretty clear to me.
    - mrkramer 6y ago
      They want to reverse Facebook's Instagram acquisition but Zuck is merging all backend infrastructure of Facebook and Instagram to make it harder for them.
      - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        Instagram had like 10mn users when they were acquired, and had literally just launched an Android app (like the week before the acquisiton). It's incredibly successful because of the FB acquisition, so I'm not sure what the anti-trust concern is. Now, Whatsapp is a completely different matter, and that should probably never have been allowed to happen (and if Whatsapp had been popular in the US, I'm not sure that it would have been).
eplanit 6y ago
I think they're going to go after FB and Twitter (and YouTube?) with a Section 230 case/argument.
prichino 6y ago
Of course there's politics involved. Who do you think Google's owners would prefer to win? Just yesterday came out an expose of how Google skews searches of political terms for each party in the US.
abvdasker 6y ago
"Could political motivation be at play here?" It's wild to me that this is even a question. A lawsuit like this a couple weeks before the election from a DOJ which might not exist in 4 months is nakedly political. Why is anyone taking this seriously?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

CydeWeys 6y ago

And don't forget the biggest gorilla of the bunch, Apple, with its locked down walled garden that it gets a 30% cut of. Maybe the next administration will give equal scrutiny to all of the big tech companies rather than seemingly targeting just one of them.

iscrewyou 6y ago
That’s not a monopoly. It’s something to scrutinize but it’s not a monopoly.
- grapevan 6y ago
  It really depends on market definition to be honest. If one were to define a market for native app distribution services on iOS smartphones, then I think there is a real argument that Apple is a monopolist that is extracting monopoly rents.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    And there is a strong case for defining the market that way, because it represents a discrete set of customers. Approximately none of the people who use the iOS app store also use Google Play, because it doesn't work on their phones. Whereas if you say "the Walmart market for windshield wipers" that isn't a discrete set of customers, because the same people can walk across the street to Target and buy windshield wipers for the same car over there.
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      How are customers discrete? I own both android and iOS devices.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        99% of people don't, and even you have to use the store that corresponds to the device you want to use the app with. If one company actually had a monopoly on windshield wipers for cars and another had a monopoly on windshield wipers for trucks, that doesn't change just because there is somebody who has both a car and a truck. When you need windshield wipers for your car, there is still only one place you could get them.
        edmundsauto 6y ago
        But doesn't that mean the basis for the argument is heavily in how you define the market? How people define the market feels entirely arbitrary to me -- supporters of the antitrust investigation scope it to "iOS", while opponents scope it to "smartphones". Both are valid, but it's our personal position that drives how we define market. That seems backwards.
- foxtr0t 6y ago
  Antitrust enforcers care about anticompetitive behavior not monopolies. They certainly should care about rent seeking behavior that Apple is engaged in. Saying something is or is not a monopoly is distracting from what actually matters. It's deflecting.
  - jhawk28 6y ago
    Anticompetitive behavior only matters when it is a monopoly.
    - CPLX 6y ago
      This is a common misconception but is not correct. Anti-competitive behavior can be illegal all by itself. Price fixing is one obvious example but there are plenty of others.
      - jmisavage 6y ago
        Correct Apple and several book publishers got in trouble for doing just that years ago in the fight against Amazon.
      - tzs 6y ago
        In addition to most violations of antitrust law being from companies that do not have monopolies, it goes the other way too. You can have an actual monopoly without violating antitrust law. If you got the monopoly without doing anti-competitive behavior, such as by simple having a better product or by getting lucky and having competitors that all made stupid mistakes that sunk them, your monopoly may be legal.
    - foxtr0t 6y ago
      This is a patently false statement from first principles. Anticompetitive behavior to keep a monopoly is illegal, but that is not the only case. Cartels, predatory pricing, and price fixing are all illegal with or without monopolies and are all considered anticompetitive practices.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Apple has a monopoly on iPhone software, and while it's true that users who dislike the App Store can switch to Android, there is an enormous cost to switching phone ecosystems. If you don't like Comcast, you could move to an area with a different ISP, and there's a certain point where you probably would move, if Comcast's service became egregious enough. But I don't usually see this argument when people refer to Comcast as a monopoly, because it's understood that the switching cost is unreasonably high.
  - MegaButts 6y ago
    How is switching between Android and iOS remotely comparable to moving where you live? I've switched between iOS and Android before. What's the big deal?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - mythz 6y ago
    > Apple has a monopoly on iPhone software Monopoly's are whether or not a product or service dominates a specific sector, industry or market. A company can't have a monopoly over its own products which by definition would cover most product/service companies. Given iOS market share is about ~25% of the Mobile OS Market, it currently doesn't qualify as a Monopoly although it's currently under EU investigation & Epic lawsuit which may rule differently.
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      But isn't iOS software a specific market? iOS might be an Apple product, but "iOS software" is made primarily by third parties. That software is exclusively sold by Apple, but that's exactly what I find anti-competitive! Separately, it's worth noting that iOS has ~60% market share in the United States[1]. It's lower globally, as you pointed out, but I'd argue domestic market-share should be what matters in US-based suits. 1: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
- treis 6y ago
  In every thread someone makes a comment like this. As though a duopoly is somehow meaningfully different than a monopoly.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    And it doesn't even address anything I actually said. It's a deflection at best. The spectrum of corporate misbehavior that needs to be regulated is much broader than "singular monopoly".
  - JKCalhoun 6y ago
    Good point. Cable companies and cell companies should be hoisted up next.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Cable (or a wire that transmits data) and mobile internet should be a utility. It makes no sense for multiple fibers to be run to a single home for the sake of competition, nor does it make sense to operate multiple cell towers transmitting the same data, just like it doesn't make sense to run multiple pipes for water and electrical lines for the sake of competition.
CogentHedgehog 6y ago
Apple's app store policies are probably going to be forced to change, yeah. But that's an easier change than the other ones. Apple is not in a situation where they need to be broken up to ensure a free market like Facebook, Amazon, and perhaps Google are.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  Realistically I don't see forced break-ups being in the cards here. That hasn't happened since, what, AT&T, decades ago? My guess would be it's all consent decrees -- what they hit Microsoft with, and what they could hit Apple/Google/Facebook/Amazon/Microsoft with now.
  - toyg 6y ago
    Dunno about the US, but in Europe several companies in the last few decades have been forced to divest some part of their operations because of antitrust activity, typically (but not limited to) at merger time. Banks and telecom providers, for example, have seen quite a bit of movement in the Uk. It’s just that they don’t make massive headlines.
- amelius 6y ago
  Unless they gobble up the entire supply chain.
matwood 6y ago
Some people online like to complain about Apple, but they are probably the least concerning of the bunch. Android is a viable alternative, and 30% from app stores is the norm right now. FB is being used by foreign powers to shape US elections, and you think Apple is the biggest problem here?
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  30% from app stores is the norm for app stores that have market power in their respective markets, but all that tells you is that's the amount of the monopoly rent. Compare this to the Microsoft store, where the store itself doesn't have market power, and then they don't take 30%: https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/06/microsoft-store-revenue-share/ https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/06/microsoft-store-revenue-share... But still 30% for XBOX/games where they once again have market power in that market.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  Facebook is a viable alterative to Google from an advertising perspective. This action is taking place despite there being far more competition in search and advertising than there is about the abuse of code signing permissions by Apple. Antitrust action has never required the lack of an alternative. > FB is being used by foreign powers to shape US elections, and you think Apple is the biggest problem here? Apple is being used to attack democracy campaigners in Hong Kong, mainland China and Belarus, and has a long history of attacking sexual minorities and sex education efforts. Yes, Apple is 100% the biggest problem here.
nafey 6y ago
Would you make the same argument for PS/XBox/Salesforce marketplaces? They have similar restrictions.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  Yes, but they're of lower priority. Gaming has increasingly moved away from the PC (the only truly open/competitive platform) towards the walled gardens of consoles and mobile devices. This has a censorious effect in what's actually allowed to be released, the big platforms get to do a lot of rent-seeking, and crucially, games are increasingly going digital, which eliminates a consumer's right to resale and loan games to their friends. The gaming marketplace would be a lot more competitive and interesting without gatekeeping. About the only downside you'd see is that the up-front cost for some consoles would need to be higher, because selling them as a loss-leader and making the money up in back-end licensing fees would no longer be allowable. I would love to see some sort of regulated 10% rake cap on digital marketplaces (both mobile and gaming) and ticket sales. Note that this would apply only to games being distributed through the platform owner's marketplace, and that consumers would be allowed to install by right software from other sources as well.
cblconfederate 6y ago
Apple is barely a monopoly, despite their horrible behaviour. Googles complete stranglehold of advertising is much more damaging. - Sent from my android

tomnipotent 6y ago

> Could political motivation be at play here That's usually how this stuff works. > And why didn't Facebook get sued too You can't make one case against multiple companies, and resources are finite. It will take many years for each of these cases to play out.

pydry 6y ago
I remember with Microsoft the antitrust lawsuit got dropped as soon as Bush entered office. I wouldn't be surprised if a Biden administration drops this too.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  My largest issue with the Obama administration was their incredibly corrupt and cozy relationship with Google. It's one of the reasons I was really hoping nearly anyone else would win the primary. So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if Biden drops it, but only because he was likely part of the problem to begin with. Google wouldn't be the problem it is today if the Obama/Biden administration was doing their job. (Still voting for him, mind you. It's not like we have better options.)
  - dataminer 6y ago
    Can you reference some reading material about the corrupt relationship you mentioned, interested to learn more about what happened and how.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      I recommend, generally, people do their own research, it's not a difficult or obscure truth to locate. Here's one article though: https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close-relationship-with-the-obama-white-house-in-two-charts/ https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close... But basically, a massive number of Google employees were installed in high-level positions of the Obama administration, and a lot of Obama administration folks got great jobs at Google. Obama installed a professor who wrote studies about how Google shouldn't face antitrust scrutiny (who was paid by Google to do so) as the FTC Commissioner (Joshua Wright, who is now a lawyer at Google's preferred law firm... he went from Google shill to government official and now back to Google work), and an FTC case against Google where staffers recommended litigation inexplicably got shoved under the rug. Then you'd see things like a former Googler in Obama's administration announce an initiative to budget billions of taxpayer dollars to buy computers for schoolchildren... unshockingly, these were intended to be Chromebooks, which get kids started early as Google account holders. (I believe Congress ended up rejecting this particular budgetary line item, or reducing it significantly.)

Mountain_Skies 6y ago

Trump's dislike of Jeff Bezos is well known. I doubt Amazon is getting any special favors from the White House. Given how blatant and extensive Amazon's scummy practices are, I've got to wonder if the feds and the state attorneys general are letting Amazon keep collecting more and more of the rope that will eventually be used the hang them with.

reaperducer 6y ago

The timing is suspicious though. Could political motivation be at play here? A reasonable thought on the surface, but this has been pushed by many people on both sides of the aisle, including Elizabeth Warren.

CogentHedgehog 6y ago
If lots of people see a clear pattern forming, doesn't that make it MORE credible rather than less?
- reaperducer 6y ago
  If there was no conflicting evidence, then maybe. But if you read the newspaper, you know this has been in the works for a very long time, and again from both Republicans and Democrats.
  - shakethemonkey 6y ago
    AG Barr has been pushing to get this out before the election, over objections of his own attorneys: "He [Barr] pushed career Justice Department attorneys to bring the case by the end of September, prompting pushback from lawyers who wanted more time and complained of political influence."[1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/technology/google-antitrust.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/technology/google-antitru...
    - reaperducer 6y ago
      You are correct. But that doesn't mean all of the Democrats and other Republicans who have been pushing for this for years have suddenly vaporized from history.
- croon 6y ago
  I think he's saying that many people on a bi-partisan basis has been pushing for this for a long time, which would make the timing less suspicious as it has been picking up steam for a long time. Ie lots of people pushing a change, not pushing a theory.

matwood 6y ago

Announcing Google today does not preclude others from being announced later. Cases take time. Also, based on the story I saw the Google one is pretty straight forward. The deals they have made to force their search onto things like the iPhone (with Apple) and Android (with the carriers/manufacturers) is the issue.

testplzignore 6y ago
Yeah, I feel like the case against Google is easy. So many different ways to go after them. For Apple, Amazon, and Facebook, I think similar accusations can be made, but it's not as "shooting fish in a barrel" easy as Google.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  Considering we haven’t had effective anti-trust for some time... I agree I think focusing on one and seeing where the modern limits are is a better move than a shotgun to anyone you feel may have skirted a fair system.
cloudwalking 6y ago
Honest question, what is anti-competitive about the iPhone deal?
- matwood 6y ago
  I don't know, but that's what one of the articles I read said the government was looking into.

glenstein 6y ago

>And why didn't Facebook get sued too? >And what about Amazon? I completely agree, and this has been my main headscratcher since we first heard about a possible anti-trust case. For starters, I still think things like banks, telecom, and probably oil, and defense industry companies probably need to be broken up, and that they should be much higher priorities. To say nothing of the obscure industries we wouldn't normally think of (Luxxotica with glasses) that are monopolized. There's probably others for obscure things I'm not even thinking of. And even within tech, I wouldn't even rank Google ahead of Amazon, and I'm not 100% that I would rank them ahead of Facebook either. And, if that's not all, I think Google at least serves as a check on the other Frightful Five, and subtracting Google will serve to further consolidate tech. And if that's not enough, I feel that the tech industry has served as a useful check against other entrenched industries. Their clash with cable, and occasional work to protect an open internet are a healthy counterbalance to voices of other monopolized industries.

mfer 6y ago
An announcement on one does not mean announcements and cases aren't coming against the others. In the book, The Age Surveillance Capitalism, the case is made the Google is actually worse than FB but lesser known for many of the things people complain about. Google may be the easier monopoly case to go after given the Doubleclick merger, the way Chrome is used, etc.
seattletech 6y ago
The vertical integration and domination in the eyeglasses space has been a blind spot for anti-trust regulators.
- trentnix 6y ago
  I see what you did there. Have an upvote.
agustif 6y ago
Sports in USA have a lot of monopolies which affect it's captive users much greater than google/fb/amazon prob From MMA/WWE to Varsity/Gimnastics

djanogo 6y ago

It's not any more suspicious than announcing it 3 months earlier or 3 months later. There is no right "non-suspicious" timing for this type of scrutiny.

JKCalhoun 6y ago
And yet the article says: "Attorney General William P. Barr, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, has played an unusually active role in the investigation. He pushed career Justice Department attorneys to bring the case by the end of September, prompting pushback from lawyers who wanted more time and complained of political influence. Mr. Barr has spoken publicly about the inquiry for months and set tight deadlines for the prosecutors leading the effort."

013a 6y ago

Could there be political motivations in politics? I'd expect so. The issue with doing anything during an election is that people on the other side accuse the administration of suspicious timing. The issue with doing nothing during an election is that everyone accuses you of being a lame duck. This is, more or less, business as usual for the administration; they've been on Big Tech's ass for at least a year now, and finally something is coming of it. Every big tech company needs looked at, and potentially split up. And, maybe, they'll all get their turn. But resources are limited; when the US went to war with Germany, we didn't airdrop troops in Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne, Munich, and Frankfurt on the same day. Actually, we didn't even start with Germany. Starting with Google allows some legal precedent to be set on some of the very weird, novel antitrust issues the case is going to face, which will make future cases easier. I tend to think Amazon should have been the first, but Google is certainly up there, and probably (IMO) a more potentially harmful monopoly than Apple, Microsoft, or Facebook.

csharptwdec19 6y ago
You've got this right IMO. I'll agree that Amazon is Scarier. But I also think that Google's behavior is a lot easier to scrutinize/prove in court thanks to their actions in/around Android and Search

yokto 6y ago

> And why didn't Facebook get sued too? "The rumor is that a suit against Facebook will soon follow" [1] said Matt Stoller in his latest BIG, a newsletter about the politics of monopoly and finance. It takes a lot of resources to file those suits, so don't expect them to be announced at exactly the same time. [1] https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/how-would-president-biden-approach https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/how-would-president-biden... PS: Since it contains quite a bit of interesting and relevant information about the cases against GAFA, I submitted this particular newsletter at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24837931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24837931

ashtonkem 6y ago

I agree that the timing is weird, but the lack of action against Amazon actually weakens the argument that this is political in nature. Trump hates Bezos and has been threatening him for a while, so to leave his company out is noteworthy.

paradox242 6y ago

It's not unreasonable to question the motivation of this DOJ, nonetheless, that does not mean that there is nothing here, even if the green light was given for bad reasons. If we are seeing action on Google it could be that they have been preparing something for some time now and it was simply the case furthest along. I would agree that while Google is not entirely clean the behavior of Facebook and Amazon are much more egregious.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
How so? I mean, Amazon definitely has issues, but apart from some incredibly good acquisitions and sharp business practices, I don't see the anti-trust case against Facebook. Full disclosure: I own one share of FB.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Agreed. I think that FB is simultaneously one of the least liked tech companies among the general public, but also probably the one with the weakest anti-trust case against them. The rent-seeking by Google + Apple seems pretty clear to me.
  - mrkramer 6y ago
    They want to reverse Facebook's Instagram acquisition but Zuck is merging all backend infrastructure of Facebook and Instagram to make it harder for them.
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      Instagram had like 10mn users when they were acquired, and had literally just launched an Android app (like the week before the acquisiton). It's incredibly successful because of the FB acquisition, so I'm not sure what the anti-trust concern is. Now, Whatsapp is a completely different matter, and that should probably never have been allowed to happen (and if Whatsapp had been popular in the US, I'm not sure that it would have been).

eplanit 6y ago

I think they're going to go after FB and Twitter (and YouTube?) with a Section 230 case/argument.

prichino 6y ago

Of course there's politics involved. Who do you think Google's owners would prefer to win? Just yesterday came out an expose of how Google skews searches of political terms for each party in the US.

abvdasker 6y ago

"Could political motivation be at play here?" It's wild to me that this is even a question. A lawsuit like this a couple weeks before the election from a DOJ which might not exist in 4 months is nakedly political. Why is anyone taking this seriously?