13 ms·

List of companies that I'd like to be investigated for corruption and anti trust abuses: 1. Alphabet/Google 2. Apple 3. Facebook 4. Match Group Match group

List of companies that I'd like to be investigated for corruption and anti trust abuses: 1. Alphabet/Google 2. Apple 3. Facebook 4. Match Group Match group is lucky they're not getting much attention, but they own all major dating apps. They need a bit of smacking. Reasons: For Google, the biggest problem is their bundling of Chrome, YouTube, Gmail if you want to have Google certified android phone that has the Google play store. Google should be prevented from having their own WWW crawler too. The crawler should be made into it's own company and data should be purchased by Google and any other company that want to purchase it at the same costs. For Apple, it's their app store. The app store needs to be eliminated. Apple has a problem with not allowing competing browser engines on iOS and misleading people by saying it's for privacy reason. Eliminating the control of the App store from Apple is going to fix the problem. For Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp should be spun off to their own entities. For Match group, break off tinder into a separate company. And prevent any future dating app accusations by Match group or Tinder. NO MERGERS. --- From the Chinese side: I'd like to see Alibaba group and Tencent being investigated. ----------- Edit: replying to calls below for travel industry. The travel industry is already competitive enough, and the situation in these areas should be reviewed after a year or two. For now, these are the critical problems for tech. Their control is taking the breath away from smaller companies and reducing innovation.

FreakyT 6y ago
I'd still put Facebook as the #1 issue, since WhatsApp and Instagram clearly should exist separately. Google seems iffier, since Chrome at least would never be viable as a standalone product (as the fates of Mozilla and Opera have taught us). Totally agree that Match group is an interesting under-the-radar one. It's shocking how much of the market they control with all their "competing" apps.
- apexalpha 6y ago
  Mozilla is still around, though?
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    For now...
- majewsky 6y ago
  > Chrome at least would never be viable as a standalone product (as the fates of Mozilla and Opera have taught us). Firefox has been viable as a standalone product for over a decade because Google pays for being the default search engine. This is roughly viable with Chrome being around, it would be even more viable if Chrome was not around.
  - est31 6y ago
    And Google pays far more to Apple because they have more users. This would probably be dwarfed by what they'd pay to a hypothetical independent Chromium Inc. that develops the browser.
  - FreakyT 6y ago
    Hard to say -- In Apple's case, there are so many potential users it's worth Google's money to get their search engine as the default. However, Mozilla doesn't have a massive userbase like that, which leads me to suspect that Google only pays Mozilla to stave off pressure form regulators who would otherwise accuse them of having a monopoly on browsers.
    - gpm 6y ago
      If chrome didn't exist, I'd say that it's more likely than not that Firefox would have the majority of windows uses...
- appleflaxen 6y ago
  You can't draw any conclusions about Chrome based on Moz and Opera, because it was the reason the other two could not survive.
  - FreakyT 6y ago
    Interesting thought -- but IIRC, before Chrome, Firefox was already facing an uphill battle, since most people just tended to use the browser bundled with their OS. I mostly remember only tech savvy people tending to download Firefox back in those days.
    - username90 6y ago
      Yeah, I used internet explorer until chrome. People said firefox was so much better than internet explorer, but they always felt comparable to me and I'm not a person who just switches because others tells me to. Chrome however really felt different, I switched to it when it was just a beta and had less site compatibility simply because I liked it so much more.
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      Firefox usage was slowly but steadily increasing pre-chrome though.
    - gehatare 6y ago
      Depends on your location. In 2010 Firefox had 60% market share in Germany.
- m000 6y ago
  Mozilla and Opera aren't viable because of Chrome. Chrome is arguably more polished because Google pours more money into its development, more readily available because Google can lobby/buy/enforce its inclusion as the default browser, and free because Google makes money from the information it collects through it. You can't compete with Chrome when your primary merit is simply not being Google. Forcing Google to spin-off Chrome should have been done earlier though, before Microsoft had a stake on the engine. Now additional steps need to be taken to ensure that spinning off Chrome will not actually kill competition; with an independent Chrome, we can count on Google cutting down on Mozilla's funding since Google wouldn't be any longer in danger of being ruled as a browser monopoly.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  >Totally agree that Match group is an interesting under-the-radar one. It's shocking how much of the market they control with all their "competing" apps. I wonder if this means that we should all start starting dating app companies, given that apparently it's a guaranteed sale if you can attract enough users. We could start the "match group group," stamping out standardized dating apps and putting proven amounts of brand-building effort into each one, and selling them to Match Group at a repeatable price.
contingencies 6y ago
I would like an investigation in to data sharing in the travel industry. Airlines and cartels thereof, credit card companies, airports, hotels, oldschool booking networks (Amadeus, Galileo, etc.), newschool booking websites and governments. While we're at it, how about making shady practices about "last seat available" and "secure your seat" and "sit with your family!" and so forth illegal. "Upgrade to clue!"
agust 6y ago
Something must absolutely be done to allow competing browser engines on iOS, such an anti-competitive behaviour is astonishing. How much money did Apple make thanks to not allowing the Web to be a viable alternative to native apps on its platform? Over the past 10 years, how many companies chose to build native apps for iOS instead of web apps running everywhere? How many people bought iOS devices instead of competing products because of that rich app ecosystem (working only on iOS devices)? How much money did they make through the App Store fee that app developers could have saved if Web Apps had been a viable option? How much money was poured in the native industry instead of the Web? Apple has been preventing the growth of the Web as an app platform for years, it's time for a change, and it's time they pay for it.
- flenserboy 6y ago
  Only if Apple can have two versions of iOS on offer: one that is locked down and possibly/putatively safe; the other that is wild-west, Android-like in quality of store offerings, with all the tracking issues that goes with that. I know which one I'd choose, and it isn't the latter; my suspicion is that the market would make the same decision.
  - toyg 6y ago
    That's a false dichotomy. Apple itself is famous for picking good defaults, I'm sure they can implement a decent compromise that simply moves the needle a bit more towards consumers. Free browsers and a simple option to allow 3rd party appstores, set to off by default and somewhat bothersome to switch (i.e. buried into iTunes account screens, behind password, possibly with a periodic reminder every few months) would be more than enough. People who want to stay safe in the Appstore garden have nothing to do, and everyone else can go the extra mile if they want to. Anything else, like two iOS versions, is simply a provocation on the level of "we cannot unbundle IE".
    - zepto 6y ago
      “People who want to stay safe in the Appstore garden have nothing to do, and everyone else can go the extra mile if they want to.“ This is where this line of reasoning goes wrong. People will be persuaded to go out of the App Store ecosystem regardless of whether it is good for them or not. Tens of billions of dollars and the most valuable advertising real estate on Facebook, Amazon, and the front page of Google, not to mention Epic and the other TenCent owned games companies will all be used to convince users to install alternative App Store. Facebook and Amazon will presumably bundle stores directly into their apps. Why wouldn’t many other companies do this. Presumably TikTok would.
amelius 6y ago
Regarding Apple, just break it into a hardware + software company. All issues will automatically resolve. And it will be better for the environment as a bonus, because devices can be used for a longer time and with multiple purposes.
- M4v3R 6y ago
  As an Apple device user that's precisely the last thing I want. The whole reason I buy their product is because how tightly the hardware and software is integrated and for all the benefits that this gets me, as opposed to Android.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - amelius 6y ago
    Can you give an example? What features does it bring specifically?
    - AlexandrB 6y ago
      The M1 chip, which seems designed to run reference counted software written in Swift or Objective-C. But there are plenty of other examples (ever wonder why no one seems to be able to replicate Apple's great trackpads?).
      - amelius 6y ago
        > The M1 chip, which seems designed to run reference counted software written in Swift or Objective-C. You'll have to explain why a dedicated hardware company wouldn't be able to come up with such a chip given sufficient competition. If many people use language X, then it makes sense for an IC design company to optimize for that language (unless there is a near-monopoly situation and they don't care about what the market wants). > But there are plenty of other examples (ever wonder why no one seems to be able to replicate Apple's great trackpads?). I'm afraid you'll have to provide some more context, because the connection between your argument and both hardware and software seems missing.
axegon_ 6y ago
> 4. Match Group > Match group is lucky they're not getting much attention, but they own all major dating apps. They need a bit of smacking. I had never heard that name and just googled them. HOOOOLLLYYY COW!!!!!!! That's what I call monopoly.
- megous 6y ago
  Badoo?
- teeray 6y ago
  Dating apps are such a monoculture now, and it’s almost certain this is why
  - cabalamat 6y ago
    or maybe it's just that we've hit upon what works given current technology and human psychhology.
    - Dirlewanger 6y ago
      Works for who? Sure, there are success stories of online dating, but I wager a large amount that most people's experiences with them are negative.
      - Matticus_Rex 6y ago
        Negative compared to what, though? A fictional imagined experience? Other kinds of dating? That's not a fair comparison.
- hobofan 6y ago
  Bumble, Coffee Meets Bagel, Grindr, Once, Happn, and a few other apps that are probably unique to Europe come to mind as alternatives just from the top of my head. Doesn't seem terribly monopolized to me, especially if you factor in that one person often uses multiple of those apps.
mFixman 6y ago
How about Microsoft? They own Windows + Internet Explorer/Edge + Bing and a lot of internet services. I think it's problematic that Skype gets auto-installed eery time Windows updates.
- absolutelyrad 6y ago
  I don't think it's a problem. Developers that develop for Windows collectively make far more money than Microsoft does. Windows is a platform and Microsoft does a good job of being a platform. While Microsoft bundles, it's not problematic like Google or Apple. Their way of doing things is different. The problem with the smart phone world is that apps are distributed through stores not websites. There isn't any worthy exclusive Windows Store app I can find. Every useful software is available from the websites. In the smart phone world, as a device manufacturer you have to get Google's blessings. They control the play store. And as a device manufacturer, no play store = no sales. The app store parasite model needs to end. I get no viruses in years, and I download software from websites all the time on Windows 10.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  if microsoft is abusing their OS market share to push edge and bing, they are doing an awfully bad job of it.
  - anoraca 6y ago
    Based on the frequency with which Windows 10 decides to reset my default browser to Edge "because reasons" I disagree.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      that does sound very annoying (although as a Win10 user myself, I can't say I've ever experienced this), but it's not exactly an antitrust issue when edge and IE combined have captured only ~10% of the browser market.
    - throwaway-8c93 6y ago
technotarek 6y ago
Love this idea. “ Google should be prevented from having their own WWW crawler too. The crawler should be made into it's own company and data should be purchased by Google and any other company that want to purchase it at the same costs.” I know someone working on DOJ’s case vs G search, yet I haven’t heard any decent proposals to solve the problem. This is one. Simple and could spark a lot of innovation. (Probably has drawbacks that I haven’t considered yet.)
- GradientAssent 6y ago
  I'm not sure splitting off the crawler would have the effect you want it to. Crawling is hard, but actually one of the easier parts of building a search engine. There are less complete, but still pretty impressive public crawls available already, like Common Crawl. The harder problem is what you do with the result of the crawl once you have it. You need to index it. This is one of Google's deepest moats. Being able to serve any of hundreds of billions of documents in milliseconds requires an enormous amount of infrastructure and hundreds of careers worth of difficult software engineering. I don't see a good way to split indexing out as a separate company from the rest of the search engine. It's tightly integrated with ranking. Generally a new ranking technique requires some new information to be associated with each document in the index, e.g. some precomputed scores that describe the document's quality or fitness for different kinds of queries. At query time, you're often just weighting and comparing these scores across documents. If you had Google's index, you'd be a long way towards being able to replicate Google's results, but I don't think that would lead to the kind of innovation you're hoping for.
  - absolutelyrad 6y ago
    > Common Crawl Not even close. I've used Common Crawl, it has nowhere near the breadth that Google has in their index. Problem no. 1 is that website owners block non Google crawlers because of limited bandwidth. So you can't reliably even get started on creating your own search engine. Once we have the data available, we can figure out the other bits and what they require. But to get to that door, you need access to the crawl. You don't need to have everything in the Google index to beat Google. You need to be better than Google in the search niche that you'll serve. And for that, at the bare minimum, you need access to all the crawl data that Google has to get started, then throw away the bits that you don't need.
CivBase 6y ago
> For Google, the biggest problem is their bundling of Chrome, YouTube, Gmail if you want to have Google certified android phone that has the Google play store. I think it's much more than that. Google makes apps and services. Google makes the platforms apps run on (Android, ChromeOS, Chrome [web + electron], Stadia). Google makes the services used to monetize apps (AdSense). Google makes the services used to distribute apps (Google Play Store, Stadia). Google makes the services used to find apps and services (Google Search, Google Maps, Google Play Store). And that's not to mention the deployment platforms, communication platforms, payment platforms, analytics platforms, development tools, content hosting services, etc. They have so much control that you can't hope to compete with any of their established apps or services - no matter how much better your own product might be. All you can to is try to make something new and get big enough that Google can't take you on directly.
- gibolt 6y ago
  To play Devil's advocate, how many of those would exist if they had been separate. How much innovation is restricted by splitting entities. Android was motivated to compete with Apple. The Play Store and Chrome Web Store required platform ownership for integration and optimization. Intertwined services demand mutual optimization. Many other Google products would likely struggle as startups, requiring massive scale to become profitable, if even possible. Most only exist because ads pay for them and they may contribute to improving ads.
  - cool_dude85 6y ago
    If these products genuinely can't survive as their own viable products, we all agree that something like each individual product is necessary, and the entire suite can be reliably used to crush any competition, I'd say you're looking at a good case for state ownership. That's not to say I agree that all these predicates are met in Google's case, but if you really do find yourself in a situation where a company can't be broken up because the constituent products are necessary to society but can't function without one another, then that company probably can't be effectively regulated by any government.
  - 6y ago
agilob 6y ago
ebay and paypal
- absolutelyrad 6y ago
  I'd wait and watch. Cryptocurrencies are rising, and PornHub is going all in on crypto now that they've been cut off from VISA and MasterCard. They might be the ones who finally push it for mainstream adoption, then PayPal can go kick rocks. If it fails, then maaaybe we could think about it. Still not as bad as these 4 major offenders.
  - ikiris 6y ago
    Paypal existed because they allow disputes. Until a cryptocurrency or some broker on it can handle fraud other than "haha you're screwed" its a non starter.
gibolt 6y ago
Alibaba and Tencent would be great candidates. There is no chance China will do anything though, as these companies are their best chance to compete on a global stage. The EU could make a case against them that actually has legs, rather than the U.S. flip flopping on TikToking
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  Do Alibaba and Tencent have a significant number of users in the EU?
franga2000 6y ago
Add whoever owns all those hotel booking sites. Pretty much the same kind of monopoly as Match Group, but with 10x the dark patterns.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  It’s split between Expedia and Priceline.
boh 6y ago
The expectation that the EU can have this much influence over American firms, to the point that they can break them up and change their business models is a pretty shocking development. We're beginning to see the limitations of globalization. For all the anti-trust rhetoric from the US, it's unlikely it'll accept this level of over-reach without pushing back. Imagine a US company getting approval for a merger from the US and not getting approval from the EU, what happens then? Can China also grant itself this level of influence over American business? We're definitely in the beginning stages of a new world order that's far less cohesive, with distributed levels of influence.
- jashmatthews 6y ago
  It’s already happened. GE-Honeywell was rejected. The answer depends on how important the EU or China market is to that business.
- lutoma 6y ago
  > Imagine a US company getting approval for a merger from the US and not getting approval from the EU, what happens then? Can China also grant itself this level of influence over American business? Both of these are already the status quo even before this law
- etripe 6y ago
  Are they really "American" firms in anything but name? Once they go multinational, they lose their allegiance to their "native" countries. I don't see any evidence of loyalty to their home countries, per se. Not even in the most basic sense of paying their fair due of taxes. I don't think it's shocking at all. Every market is free to regulate itself however it sees fit, regardless of what "nationality" players on it have. It's interesting hardly anyone blinks an eye when that regulation allows "American" companies to save costs in developing countries but there are complaints when it disadvantages those companies, often for the same kinds of regulation: labour and environmental.
dustinmoris 6y ago
Your list not seeing the forest for the trees: Microsoft
aitait 6y ago
Travel apps never managed a "The winner takes it all" approach. Regarding "match". You would be surprised how much fraud exits in the dating industry. How many people get payed to keep paying customers engaged with the app. Also, just wait until your Tinder gold expries. You will get tons of (hidden) likes.
Brushfire 6y ago
They don’t own: - Bumble - Badoo - Eharmony - Zoosk - ChrstianMingle - JDate - tons of international and niche sites and apps - many, many others The idea that there is monopoly power being leveraged here to prevent other dating sites from being started and grown and be successful has very little evidence behind it.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  Apple owns far less of the phone and mobile app market than Match Group owns of the dating market. Should Apple be on the list? If you agree that Apple should be on the list, then Match Group should without question be on the list.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    The reasons why monopolies are bad isn't automatically due to the size of the market that a company controls. Instead, the reason why they are bad, is due to things like barriers to entry, and the anti competitive practices that they enact. For dating apps, I don't see how match group is putting up anything that could be described as a barrier to entry, for other dating apps. Whereas Apple is absolutely doing things that effect competition in the market, by, for example, preventing competing app stores on the Iphone. Therefore, Apple's actions are much worse than Match Groups, even though they have a smaller percentage of the market.
Razengan 6y ago
> The app store needs to be eliminated. Oh fuck NO. Apple has saved me from scummy apps more times than I can remember. They always refund without question, including when I fell for Match.com's "Pay up to see how many bots like you" scam. Right now I'm fighting to get my money back from Couchsurfing.com (they started throwing a "COVID contribution" prompt on the app and the website that blocks you from doing anything, can't even delete your account until you pay) and they're flat out ignoring me. They use a custom payments system. If it was a regular In-App Purchase, Apple would have refunded me within hours by now. Anyone clamoring for the protections of the App Store to be abolished is very likely someone salivating to prey upon users.
chaostheory 6y ago
I love how these tech companies are under scrutiny, yet the telecoms with US duopolies are being conveniently ignored. imo this is a lesson for those companies to massively increase their investment in lobbying.
- Dirlewanger 6y ago
  This story is about the EU. What is the point of making it about US-specific problems?
  - chaostheory 6y ago
    I was responding to a specific comment. I wasn't making a general one regarding the article. Is my comment not a relevant response? Let's not forget that this is a US based website. It's only natural that US based issues and US based viewpoints will always surface.
visarga 6y ago
> The crawler should be made into it's own company and data should be purchased by Google I like this idea, but more precisely I'd put the index with the crawler as well and only keep the ranking/filtering and display part separate. I'd like to see many "heads" on top of the crawler/indexer.
tekknik 6y ago
> For Apple, it's their app store. The app store needs to be eliminated. Apple has a problem with not allowing competing browser engines on iOS and misleading people by saying it's for privacy reason. Eliminating the control of the App store from Apple is going to fix the problem. In your opinion, what is the real reason for no allowing alternative browsers?
yangvz 6y ago
Funniest thing, Alibaba was just recently denied its merger attempt in the grocery delivery market.

FreakyT 6y ago

I'd still put Facebook as the #1 issue, since WhatsApp and Instagram clearly should exist separately. Google seems iffier, since Chrome at least would never be viable as a standalone product (as the fates of Mozilla and Opera have taught us). Totally agree that Match group is an interesting under-the-radar one. It's shocking how much of the market they control with all their "competing" apps.

apexalpha 6y ago
Mozilla is still around, though?
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  For now...
majewsky 6y ago
> Chrome at least would never be viable as a standalone product (as the fates of Mozilla and Opera have taught us). Firefox has been viable as a standalone product for over a decade because Google pays for being the default search engine. This is roughly viable with Chrome being around, it would be even more viable if Chrome was not around.
- est31 6y ago
  And Google pays far more to Apple because they have more users. This would probably be dwarfed by what they'd pay to a hypothetical independent Chromium Inc. that develops the browser.
- FreakyT 6y ago
  Hard to say -- In Apple's case, there are so many potential users it's worth Google's money to get their search engine as the default. However, Mozilla doesn't have a massive userbase like that, which leads me to suspect that Google only pays Mozilla to stave off pressure form regulators who would otherwise accuse them of having a monopoly on browsers.
  - gpm 6y ago
    If chrome didn't exist, I'd say that it's more likely than not that Firefox would have the majority of windows uses...
appleflaxen 6y ago
You can't draw any conclusions about Chrome based on Moz and Opera, because it was the reason the other two could not survive.
- FreakyT 6y ago
  Interesting thought -- but IIRC, before Chrome, Firefox was already facing an uphill battle, since most people just tended to use the browser bundled with their OS. I mostly remember only tech savvy people tending to download Firefox back in those days.
  - username90 6y ago
    Yeah, I used internet explorer until chrome. People said firefox was so much better than internet explorer, but they always felt comparable to me and I'm not a person who just switches because others tells me to. Chrome however really felt different, I switched to it when it was just a beta and had less site compatibility simply because I liked it so much more.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    Firefox usage was slowly but steadily increasing pre-chrome though.
  - gehatare 6y ago
    Depends on your location. In 2010 Firefox had 60% market share in Germany.
m000 6y ago
Mozilla and Opera aren't viable because of Chrome. Chrome is arguably more polished because Google pours more money into its development, more readily available because Google can lobby/buy/enforce its inclusion as the default browser, and free because Google makes money from the information it collects through it. You can't compete with Chrome when your primary merit is simply not being Google. Forcing Google to spin-off Chrome should have been done earlier though, before Microsoft had a stake on the engine. Now additional steps need to be taken to ensure that spinning off Chrome will not actually kill competition; with an independent Chrome, we can count on Google cutting down on Mozilla's funding since Google wouldn't be any longer in danger of being ruled as a browser monopoly.
whatshisface 6y ago
>Totally agree that Match group is an interesting under-the-radar one. It's shocking how much of the market they control with all their "competing" apps. I wonder if this means that we should all start starting dating app companies, given that apparently it's a guaranteed sale if you can attract enough users. We could start the "match group group," stamping out standardized dating apps and putting proven amounts of brand-building effort into each one, and selling them to Match Group at a repeatable price.

contingencies 6y ago

I would like an investigation in to data sharing in the travel industry. Airlines and cartels thereof, credit card companies, airports, hotels, oldschool booking networks (Amadeus, Galileo, etc.), newschool booking websites and governments. While we're at it, how about making shady practices about "last seat available" and "secure your seat" and "sit with your family!" and so forth illegal. "Upgrade to clue!"

agust 6y ago

Something must absolutely be done to allow competing browser engines on iOS, such an anti-competitive behaviour is astonishing. How much money did Apple make thanks to not allowing the Web to be a viable alternative to native apps on its platform? Over the past 10 years, how many companies chose to build native apps for iOS instead of web apps running everywhere? How many people bought iOS devices instead of competing products because of that rich app ecosystem (working only on iOS devices)? How much money did they make through the App Store fee that app developers could have saved if Web Apps had been a viable option? How much money was poured in the native industry instead of the Web? Apple has been preventing the growth of the Web as an app platform for years, it's time for a change, and it's time they pay for it.

flenserboy 6y ago
Only if Apple can have two versions of iOS on offer: one that is locked down and possibly/putatively safe; the other that is wild-west, Android-like in quality of store offerings, with all the tracking issues that goes with that. I know which one I'd choose, and it isn't the latter; my suspicion is that the market would make the same decision.
- toyg 6y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. Apple itself is famous for picking good defaults, I'm sure they can implement a decent compromise that simply moves the needle a bit more towards consumers. Free browsers and a simple option to allow 3rd party appstores, set to off by default and somewhat bothersome to switch (i.e. buried into iTunes account screens, behind password, possibly with a periodic reminder every few months) would be more than enough. People who want to stay safe in the Appstore garden have nothing to do, and everyone else can go the extra mile if they want to. Anything else, like two iOS versions, is simply a provocation on the level of "we cannot unbundle IE".
  - zepto 6y ago
    “People who want to stay safe in the Appstore garden have nothing to do, and everyone else can go the extra mile if they want to.“ This is where this line of reasoning goes wrong. People will be persuaded to go out of the App Store ecosystem regardless of whether it is good for them or not. Tens of billions of dollars and the most valuable advertising real estate on Facebook, Amazon, and the front page of Google, not to mention Epic and the other TenCent owned games companies will all be used to convince users to install alternative App Store. Facebook and Amazon will presumably bundle stores directly into their apps. Why wouldn’t many other companies do this. Presumably TikTok would.

amelius 6y ago

Regarding Apple, just break it into a hardware + software company. All issues will automatically resolve. And it will be better for the environment as a bonus, because devices can be used for a longer time and with multiple purposes.

M4v3R 6y ago
As an Apple device user that's precisely the last thing I want. The whole reason I buy their product is because how tightly the hardware and software is integrated and for all the benefits that this gets me, as opposed to Android.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- amelius 6y ago
  Can you give an example? What features does it bring specifically?
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    The M1 chip, which seems designed to run reference counted software written in Swift or Objective-C. But there are plenty of other examples (ever wonder why no one seems to be able to replicate Apple's great trackpads?).
    - amelius 6y ago
      > The M1 chip, which seems designed to run reference counted software written in Swift or Objective-C. You'll have to explain why a dedicated hardware company wouldn't be able to come up with such a chip given sufficient competition. If many people use language X, then it makes sense for an IC design company to optimize for that language (unless there is a near-monopoly situation and they don't care about what the market wants). > But there are plenty of other examples (ever wonder why no one seems to be able to replicate Apple's great trackpads?). I'm afraid you'll have to provide some more context, because the connection between your argument and both hardware and software seems missing.

axegon_ 6y ago

> 4. Match Group > Match group is lucky they're not getting much attention, but they own all major dating apps. They need a bit of smacking. I had never heard that name and just googled them. HOOOOLLLYYY COW!!!!!!! That's what I call monopoly.

megous 6y ago
Badoo?
teeray 6y ago
Dating apps are such a monoculture now, and it’s almost certain this is why
- cabalamat 6y ago
  or maybe it's just that we've hit upon what works given current technology and human psychhology.
  - Dirlewanger 6y ago
    Works for who? Sure, there are success stories of online dating, but I wager a large amount that most people's experiences with them are negative.
    - Matticus_Rex 6y ago
      Negative compared to what, though? A fictional imagined experience? Other kinds of dating? That's not a fair comparison.
hobofan 6y ago
Bumble, Coffee Meets Bagel, Grindr, Once, Happn, and a few other apps that are probably unique to Europe come to mind as alternatives just from the top of my head. Doesn't seem terribly monopolized to me, especially if you factor in that one person often uses multiple of those apps.

mFixman 6y ago

How about Microsoft? They own Windows + Internet Explorer/Edge + Bing and a lot of internet services. I think it's problematic that Skype gets auto-installed eery time Windows updates.

absolutelyrad 6y ago
I don't think it's a problem. Developers that develop for Windows collectively make far more money than Microsoft does. Windows is a platform and Microsoft does a good job of being a platform. While Microsoft bundles, it's not problematic like Google or Apple. Their way of doing things is different. The problem with the smart phone world is that apps are distributed through stores not websites. There isn't any worthy exclusive Windows Store app I can find. Every useful software is available from the websites. In the smart phone world, as a device manufacturer you have to get Google's blessings. They control the play store. And as a device manufacturer, no play store = no sales. The app store parasite model needs to end. I get no viruses in years, and I download software from websites all the time on Windows 10.
leetcrew 6y ago
if microsoft is abusing their OS market share to push edge and bing, they are doing an awfully bad job of it.
- anoraca 6y ago
  Based on the frequency with which Windows 10 decides to reset my default browser to Edge "because reasons" I disagree.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    that does sound very annoying (although as a Win10 user myself, I can't say I've ever experienced this), but it's not exactly an antitrust issue when edge and IE combined have captured only ~10% of the browser market.
  - throwaway-8c93 6y ago

technotarek 6y ago

Love this idea. “ Google should be prevented from having their own WWW crawler too. The crawler should be made into it's own company and data should be purchased by Google and any other company that want to purchase it at the same costs.” I know someone working on DOJ’s case vs G search, yet I haven’t heard any decent proposals to solve the problem. This is one. Simple and could spark a lot of innovation. (Probably has drawbacks that I haven’t considered yet.)

GradientAssent 6y ago
I'm not sure splitting off the crawler would have the effect you want it to. Crawling is hard, but actually one of the easier parts of building a search engine. There are less complete, but still pretty impressive public crawls available already, like Common Crawl. The harder problem is what you do with the result of the crawl once you have it. You need to index it. This is one of Google's deepest moats. Being able to serve any of hundreds of billions of documents in milliseconds requires an enormous amount of infrastructure and hundreds of careers worth of difficult software engineering. I don't see a good way to split indexing out as a separate company from the rest of the search engine. It's tightly integrated with ranking. Generally a new ranking technique requires some new information to be associated with each document in the index, e.g. some precomputed scores that describe the document's quality or fitness for different kinds of queries. At query time, you're often just weighting and comparing these scores across documents. If you had Google's index, you'd be a long way towards being able to replicate Google's results, but I don't think that would lead to the kind of innovation you're hoping for.
- absolutelyrad 6y ago
  > Common Crawl Not even close. I've used Common Crawl, it has nowhere near the breadth that Google has in their index. Problem no. 1 is that website owners block non Google crawlers because of limited bandwidth. So you can't reliably even get started on creating your own search engine. Once we have the data available, we can figure out the other bits and what they require. But to get to that door, you need access to the crawl. You don't need to have everything in the Google index to beat Google. You need to be better than Google in the search niche that you'll serve. And for that, at the bare minimum, you need access to all the crawl data that Google has to get started, then throw away the bits that you don't need.

CivBase 6y ago

> For Google, the biggest problem is their bundling of Chrome, YouTube, Gmail if you want to have Google certified android phone that has the Google play store. I think it's much more than that. Google makes apps and services. Google makes the platforms apps run on (Android, ChromeOS, Chrome [web + electron], Stadia). Google makes the services used to monetize apps (AdSense). Google makes the services used to distribute apps (Google Play Store, Stadia). Google makes the services used to find apps and services (Google Search, Google Maps, Google Play Store). And that's not to mention the deployment platforms, communication platforms, payment platforms, analytics platforms, development tools, content hosting services, etc. They have so much control that you can't hope to compete with any of their established apps or services - no matter how much better your own product might be. All you can to is try to make something new and get big enough that Google can't take you on directly.

gibolt 6y ago
To play Devil's advocate, how many of those would exist if they had been separate. How much innovation is restricted by splitting entities. Android was motivated to compete with Apple. The Play Store and Chrome Web Store required platform ownership for integration and optimization. Intertwined services demand mutual optimization. Many other Google products would likely struggle as startups, requiring massive scale to become profitable, if even possible. Most only exist because ads pay for them and they may contribute to improving ads.
- cool_dude85 6y ago
  If these products genuinely can't survive as their own viable products, we all agree that something like each individual product is necessary, and the entire suite can be reliably used to crush any competition, I'd say you're looking at a good case for state ownership. That's not to say I agree that all these predicates are met in Google's case, but if you really do find yourself in a situation where a company can't be broken up because the constituent products are necessary to society but can't function without one another, then that company probably can't be effectively regulated by any government.
- 6y ago

agilob 6y ago

ebay and paypal

absolutelyrad 6y ago
I'd wait and watch. Cryptocurrencies are rising, and PornHub is going all in on crypto now that they've been cut off from VISA and MasterCard. They might be the ones who finally push it for mainstream adoption, then PayPal can go kick rocks. If it fails, then maaaybe we could think about it. Still not as bad as these 4 major offenders.
- ikiris 6y ago
  Paypal existed because they allow disputes. Until a cryptocurrency or some broker on it can handle fraud other than "haha you're screwed" its a non starter.

gibolt 6y ago

Alibaba and Tencent would be great candidates. There is no chance China will do anything though, as these companies are their best chance to compete on a global stage. The EU could make a case against them that actually has legs, rather than the U.S. flip flopping on TikToking

TheCoelacanth 6y ago
Do Alibaba and Tencent have a significant number of users in the EU?

franga2000 6y ago

Add whoever owns all those hotel booking sites. Pretty much the same kind of monopoly as Match Group, but with 10x the dark patterns.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
It’s split between Expedia and Priceline.

boh 6y ago

The expectation that the EU can have this much influence over American firms, to the point that they can break them up and change their business models is a pretty shocking development. We're beginning to see the limitations of globalization. For all the anti-trust rhetoric from the US, it's unlikely it'll accept this level of over-reach without pushing back. Imagine a US company getting approval for a merger from the US and not getting approval from the EU, what happens then? Can China also grant itself this level of influence over American business? We're definitely in the beginning stages of a new world order that's far less cohesive, with distributed levels of influence.

jashmatthews 6y ago
It’s already happened. GE-Honeywell was rejected. The answer depends on how important the EU or China market is to that business.
lutoma 6y ago
> Imagine a US company getting approval for a merger from the US and not getting approval from the EU, what happens then? Can China also grant itself this level of influence over American business? Both of these are already the status quo even before this law
etripe 6y ago
Are they really "American" firms in anything but name? Once they go multinational, they lose their allegiance to their "native" countries. I don't see any evidence of loyalty to their home countries, per se. Not even in the most basic sense of paying their fair due of taxes. I don't think it's shocking at all. Every market is free to regulate itself however it sees fit, regardless of what "nationality" players on it have. It's interesting hardly anyone blinks an eye when that regulation allows "American" companies to save costs in developing countries but there are complaints when it disadvantages those companies, often for the same kinds of regulation: labour and environmental.

dustinmoris 6y ago

Your list not seeing the forest for the trees: Microsoft

aitait 6y ago

Travel apps never managed a "The winner takes it all" approach. Regarding "match". You would be surprised how much fraud exits in the dating industry. How many people get payed to keep paying customers engaged with the app. Also, just wait until your Tinder gold expries. You will get tons of (hidden) likes.

Brushfire 6y ago

They don’t own: - Bumble - Badoo - Eharmony - Zoosk - ChrstianMingle - JDate - tons of international and niche sites and apps - many, many others The idea that there is monopoly power being leveraged here to prevent other dating sites from being started and grown and be successful has very little evidence behind it.

bilbo0s 6y ago
Apple owns far less of the phone and mobile app market than Match Group owns of the dating market. Should Apple be on the list? If you agree that Apple should be on the list, then Match Group should without question be on the list.
- stale2002 6y ago
  The reasons why monopolies are bad isn't automatically due to the size of the market that a company controls. Instead, the reason why they are bad, is due to things like barriers to entry, and the anti competitive practices that they enact. For dating apps, I don't see how match group is putting up anything that could be described as a barrier to entry, for other dating apps. Whereas Apple is absolutely doing things that effect competition in the market, by, for example, preventing competing app stores on the Iphone. Therefore, Apple's actions are much worse than Match Groups, even though they have a smaller percentage of the market.

Razengan 6y ago

> The app store needs to be eliminated. Oh fuck NO. Apple has saved me from scummy apps more times than I can remember. They always refund without question, including when I fell for Match.com's "Pay up to see how many bots like you" scam. Right now I'm fighting to get my money back from Couchsurfing.com (they started throwing a "COVID contribution" prompt on the app and the website that blocks you from doing anything, can't even delete your account until you pay) and they're flat out ignoring me. They use a custom payments system. If it was a regular In-App Purchase, Apple would have refunded me within hours by now. Anyone clamoring for the protections of the App Store to be abolished is very likely someone salivating to prey upon users.

chaostheory 6y ago

I love how these tech companies are under scrutiny, yet the telecoms with US duopolies are being conveniently ignored. imo this is a lesson for those companies to massively increase their investment in lobbying.

Dirlewanger 6y ago
This story is about the EU. What is the point of making it about US-specific problems?
- chaostheory 6y ago
  I was responding to a specific comment. I wasn't making a general one regarding the article. Is my comment not a relevant response? Let's not forget that this is a US based website. It's only natural that US based issues and US based viewpoints will always surface.

visarga 6y ago

> The crawler should be made into it's own company and data should be purchased by Google I like this idea, but more precisely I'd put the index with the crawler as well and only keep the ranking/filtering and display part separate. I'd like to see many "heads" on top of the crawler/indexer.

tekknik 6y ago

> For Apple, it's their app store. The app store needs to be eliminated. Apple has a problem with not allowing competing browser engines on iOS and misleading people by saying it's for privacy reason. Eliminating the control of the App store from Apple is going to fix the problem. In your opinion, what is the real reason for no allowing alternative browsers?

yangvz 6y ago

Funniest thing, Alibaba was just recently denied its merger attempt in the grocery delivery market.