11 ms·

Google “contemplated buying some or all of Epic” to stop “contagion”

223 points by haunter 5y ago

stephc_int13 5y ago
Having false choices (App store vs Google Play) is typical of a really bad monopoly situation. I really hope to see them broken down, as I am pretty sure that we’ll all regret it if we let those giants left untouched.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  One major difference is that with an Apple device, they practically control the platform unless you are willing to take the risk and jailbreak - provided that your device is jailbreakable. With Google, you can at least install an external app or even connect an external app store like F-Droid (surprisingly, with time it looks better and better than the official Play Store).
  - qmmmur 5y ago
    I think this is being less straightforward, although the developer community has been creative since the get go.
  - breakingcups 5y ago
    You will of course still have Google insist asking to enable "Google Play Protection" with every app you install or update, without the possibility to reject it entirely. If you accept, they'll never ask you again. You're only option to reject is "not now".
  - IshKebab 5y ago
    Distributing apps outside the Play store isn't really viable currently even though you can technically do it because there's no way to automatically update them. They are apparently fixing that in Android 12 but I seriously doubt they would have without Epic.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - quambene 5y ago
    As much as like F-Droid, it is only for open-source apps, isn't it? However, the majority of apps is still closed source. I would like to see an alternative android app store, which can also serve closed-source apps. Another problem is a missing alternative to Google Mobile Services (GMS), which are installed on virtually all android devices. For example, if you need push notifications or in-app purchases you are dependent on them as well. IMO, it is the widespread distribution of GMS (and a lack of alternatives thereof) that make google a quasi monopoly.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      > I would like to see an alternative android app store, which can also serve closed-source apps Don't Amazon, Samsung and Huawei have their Android app stores, for any app?
      - quambene 5y ago
        Yes, you are right. The real problem is the ubiquity of Google Mobile Services (GMS) though, rather than the app store itself. For example, GMS are pre-installed on all Samsung devices, but Samsung's equivalent is not installed on all Google devices. This means, that everyone will still use Google Play for in-app purchases out of convenience.
        commoner 5y ago
        Neither Amazon nor Huawei is selling devices with Google Play Services right now. Both have their own alternatives to Google Play Services. Amazon offers an unnamed collection of APIs (the push notification one is called Amazon Device Messaging) for its Fire devices, and Huawei offers Huawei Mobile Services. Amazon Device Messaging: https://developer.amazon.com/docs/adm/overview.html https://developer.amazon.com/docs/adm/overview.html Huawei Mobile Services: https://developer.huawei.com/consumer/en/hms https://developer.huawei.com/consumer/en/hms
        quambene 5y ago
        For Huawei this has only been true since the US-china trade wars. There are still a ton of Huawei devices with GMS pre-installed. A service like GMS would be important for Samsung, too, as there are quite some Samsung devices out there. However, with GMS pre-installed on all Samsung devices, the Samsung Galaxy Store is completely useless as everybody and his brother will use Google Play for app and in-app purchases.
- nerdbaggy 5y ago
  What about the Amazon App Store? When I had Android years go the Amazon was rather abysmal but usable. https://www.amazon.com/gp/mas/get/amazonapp https://www.amazon.com/gp/mas/get/amazonapp
  - quambene 5y ago
    Currently, there are four (more or less relevant) android app stores as far as I know: - Google Play - Huawei AppGallery - Samsung Galaxy Store - Amazon AppStore But Google Mobile Services (GMS) are so widely spread and often pre-installed on the devices that there is no real competition for Google. Currently, the most promising alternatives for GMS are: - Huawei Mobile Services (HMS) [1]: more widely used now because GMS was banned from Huawei devices since US-China trade wars - Amazon + Microsoft [2, 3, 4]: Microsoft is planning to serve android apps in Windows Store with Windows 11 in cooperation with Amazon [1] Huawei Mobile Services: https://developer.huawei.com/consumer/en/hms https://developer.huawei.com/consumer/en/hms [2] Amazon in-app purchases: https://developer.amazon.com/docs/in-app-purchasing/iap-overview.html https://developer.amazon.com/docs/in-app-purchasing/iap-over... [3] Amazon push notifications: https://developer.amazon.com/docs/adm/overview.html https://developer.amazon.com/docs/adm/overview.html [4] Windows 11 and android support: https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/24/22548428/microsoft-windows-11-android-apps-support-amazon-store https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/24/22548428/microsoft-window...
polote 5y ago
Of course, if you were the ceo of Google and have something like that happen. You would ask your teams, what are the different scenarios we can explore? And one of them would be buying Epic. What people expect? Google is a for profit company don't expect them to act like an non profit organization
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  I don't find it surprising, either. It's just frustrating to find yet another bit of evidence you don't own a device you bought and the manufacturers think you should pay them for any little piece of software you want to run on it. One missing bit that still hasn't happened - but one day will - is the subscription required to use your device. For now it's optional (called iCloud storage etc.) - you are nagged and so on but are able to refuse, but one day it will become obligatory. It could be 10 years from on or 20, but for sure they're thinking how to do it.
  - moksly 5y ago
    These lawsuit doesn’t really do much about ownership part though. It’s about billionaires deciding how many of them get to rent us software on the platforms that we don’t own.
  - kettleballroll 5y ago
    OTOH, everyone dreams of building a successful SaaS, because they want to milk that model themselves.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  We should be able to start with a clean slate - these companies should delete all user data that wasn't explicitly given by the user in a clear and obvious way (like profile credentials) and start from scratch. Every time any information is collected, the company should obtain consent after displaying the data to the user. A person should be able to inspect all data that had been associated with them, and to delete any or all of the data at any time. Within the personal profile, a the user should be given the option to opt-in to any and all uses of their data, with zero third party sharing unless allowed by the user on a byte-by-byte basis. If a company violates this a progressive and percentage based fine should be imposed for every day of non-compliance. Something like .01% of the company's net worth per day, increasing to 2% over the course of 30 days, half of which goes to federal enforcement and half to the user. Something painful and crippling, with teeth, and enough to incentivize people to watch out for themselves and to force companies to behave well. Data beaches should be lethal if data was leaked that wasn't obtained with consent. Faang is not entitled to surveil the lives of everyone in the world by dint of people merely visiting websites. Participation in a relationship with a person or business or community should be consensual.
johnyzee 5y ago
30% of every sale is extortion, but even worse, and further proving the point, is that they prohibit taking payments through any other channel. How is it not illegal for the platform to force the use of their own payment service? Isn't this classic misuse of a monopoly?
- pjmlp 5y ago
  It is not a monopoly a per law definition across most jurisdictions. Additionally playing sales commissions is a traditional practice in most markets. Finally, maybe devs would appreciate to pay the 80 to 90% that used to be common on the Symbian, J2ME, BREW and Blackberry shops from mobile operators, about 15 years ago.
  - stephc_int13 5y ago
    Armchair lawyers striking again... I was there during the Symbian era, the commissions at the time were outrageous, but closer to 40-50% than 80-90%.
    - pydry 5y ago
      Monopolistic behavior in markets where you have limited market power is just shooting yourself in the foot. I didnt even realize symbian HAD an app store.
      - stephc_int13 5y ago
        They didn't, it was managed by carriers, mostly. And Handango on some devices like running Windows Mobile or PalmOS.
        pjmlp 5y ago
        They eventually did, it was called Ovi Store. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovi_(Nokia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovi_(Nokia)
    - 5y ago
mnd999 5y ago
Buying up anyone who threatens to compete with you will certainly draw the attention of regulators.
- mtgx 5y ago
  It should be prevented by law in most cases.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Maybe in the 1930s.
- cududa 5y ago
  How arrogant do you have to be to know a civil suit on anticompetion is inbound, and still email about plans to stifle it? A long time ago a mentor said “never put anything in email that you don’t want to show up in a court of law” and that’s always stuck. But how monumentally dumb/ arrogant do you to be to not realize these emails and docs would show up in discovery?
busymom0 5y ago
If Google had bought Epic games, would they have a stronger case against Apple in the Epic vs Apple case? Could Google then claim Apple was practicing anti-competitive practices? Though I guess Apple could make the same case against Google too.
tonetheman 5y ago
What is the end goal of this? Google is to still have infrastructure and people working on putting code/binaries on phones but not be compensated for it? Or is it to get Google completely out of it and let the phone provider do it? Or just willy nilly and you are on your own? Or finally will other stores popup instead of Google? I think if I was Google I would want some percentage of the end revenue or a flat fee every time you push new code out. Maybe force them to lower their fee. I dislike the idea of there being no store. End users will be tricked into installing god knows what...
kfprt 5y ago
Buying a company to prevent even a hint of competition seems like quintessential antitrust. Over the last few decades society has really dropped the ball on antitrust.
- download13 5y ago
  Yep, the whole of society. Most of us have a great deal of control over how things are run in this definitely real democracy
  - kfprt 5y ago
    I completely understand your feelings regarding a lack of control and agency. Modern politics now essentially revolve around outrage. No politician wants to vote on something at all controversial, every vote they take is liable to outrage one half of the population or another. Every time they do they halve their voting base until it's an irrelevant tiny minority that agrees on everything. So they have outsourced their job to the supreme court, federal agencies, and the parliamentarian. If you can cause enough outrage you will find that they fold relatively easily.
    - 1270018080 5y ago
      They posture on identity politics, culture wars, and fear mongering, while their actions do nothing but service the needs of billionaires and corporations. "Critical race theory" in schools as an issue was manufactured out of thin air to make gullible racists afraid of something.
    - kook_throwaway 5y ago
      There's plenty of things governments could be busy doing that aren't controversial, but managing the existing state doesn't have nearly the glamour (or reelection PR) of changing it.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      These topics tend not to be uncorrelated, so making 4 votes doesn’t leave you with 1/16th of your base, but often with 31/32nds of your base.
tjpnz 5y ago
IIRC Netflix are able to get around this problem by processing subscription payments outside of their app. Wouldn't this solve the problem for some use cases? Or has Netflix got a "special" arrangement with Google and Apple?
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  You buy things in-app in Epic games. Google and Apple don't let you do this unless you use their payment processing. Netflix and Office 365 you buy a subscription and then you simply use the app on a multitude of devices. As an aside - does anyone know if it's explicitly banned to buy "coins" somewhere else - and then use those coins to buy things in the app? This is actually how Epic games works.
  - tjpnz 5y ago
    >Netflix and Office 365 you buy a subscription and then you simply use the app on a multitude of devices. Fortnite appears to offer a subscription. What would've stopped them from doing that when the game was still available on the app stores?
    - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
      An important distinction. Office 365 and Netflix get nearly all of their revenue from subscriptions. Just because Epic offers a subscription doesn't mean that's where it derives >95% of its revenue.
  - csmiller 5y ago
    I see “sub coins” on sale in the Twitch app, my assumption is that you can offer them outside the app, but you cannot promote that alternative in the app and you must also sell them in-app (presumably for 30% more)
- lom 5y ago
  https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203630/apple-amazon-prime-video-ios-app-store-cut-exempt-program-deal https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203630/apple-amazon-prim... They do have a special arrangement, and iirc there was a case of an email company being taken down due to them handling payments outside of the app, on a website.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
This is the same concern apple has if epic succeeds.
kktkti9 5y ago
Epic copied id Epic copied Valve Epic copied PubG Epic is suing to stop others Epic isn’t a very novel business Edit: thanks everyone. Was in the dumps due to rain at the beach. The downvotes have made me feel alive on an otherwise boring day stuck inside far from home.
admax88q 5y ago
I'd take this with a grain of salt for the time being. "Google contemplated" could mean nothing more than a random exec said this in passing or as a joke once to somebody else. Not to mention no internal and communications are cited in the article.
crazygringo 5y ago
A company "contemplated" something...? News flash: yes, in internal meetings, people suggest all sorts of options. It's called brainstorming. And then they're looked into in varying levels of detail to investigate pros/cons. Research isn't action. Also, most people in meetings aren't lawyers, so they come up with options before running it by legal. It's not always clear what is or isn't illegal -- lawyers even disagree with each other. At the end of the day, what matters is what Google does. It you're going to criticize, criticize actual actions, not what was "contemplated". Criticizing a company for "contemplating" something is as bad as criticizing someone for having a thought. Any responsible company should be contemplating a wide variety of options... and then rejecting the ones that are no good.
cryptica 5y ago
Anticompetitive behaviour in the global marketplace is so pervasive that it's pointless to even mention specific cases - It only serves to perpetuate the ridiculous illusion that some people in government give a crap about it. Antitrust is a joke. Everything is essentially a trust nowadays.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

223 points by haunter 5y ago

Having false choices (App store vs Google Play) is typical of a really bad monopoly situation. I really hope to see them broken down, as I am pretty sure that we’ll all regret it if we let those giants left untouched.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
One major difference is that with an Apple device, they practically control the platform unless you are willing to take the risk and jailbreak - provided that your device is jailbreakable. With Google, you can at least install an external app or even connect an external app store like F-Droid (surprisingly, with time it looks better and better than the official Play Store).
- qmmmur 5y ago
  I think this is being less straightforward, although the developer community has been creative since the get go.
- breakingcups 5y ago
  You will of course still have Google insist asking to enable "Google Play Protection" with every app you install or update, without the possibility to reject it entirely. If you accept, they'll never ask you again. You're only option to reject is "not now".
- IshKebab 5y ago
  Distributing apps outside the Play store isn't really viable currently even though you can technically do it because there's no way to automatically update them. They are apparently fixing that in Android 12 but I seriously doubt they would have without Epic.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- quambene 5y ago
  As much as like F-Droid, it is only for open-source apps, isn't it? However, the majority of apps is still closed source. I would like to see an alternative android app store, which can also serve closed-source apps. Another problem is a missing alternative to Google Mobile Services (GMS), which are installed on virtually all android devices. For example, if you need push notifications or in-app purchases you are dependent on them as well. IMO, it is the widespread distribution of GMS (and a lack of alternatives thereof) that make google a quasi monopoly.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > I would like to see an alternative android app store, which can also serve closed-source apps Don't Amazon, Samsung and Huawei have their Android app stores, for any app?
    - quambene 5y ago
      Yes, you are right. The real problem is the ubiquity of Google Mobile Services (GMS) though, rather than the app store itself. For example, GMS are pre-installed on all Samsung devices, but Samsung's equivalent is not installed on all Google devices. This means, that everyone will still use Google Play for in-app purchases out of convenience.
      - commoner 5y ago
        Neither Amazon nor Huawei is selling devices with Google Play Services right now. Both have their own alternatives to Google Play Services. Amazon offers an unnamed collection of APIs (the push notification one is called Amazon Device Messaging) for its Fire devices, and Huawei offers Huawei Mobile Services. Amazon Device Messaging: https://developer.amazon.com/docs/adm/overview.html https://developer.amazon.com/docs/adm/overview.html Huawei Mobile Services: https://developer.huawei.com/consumer/en/hms https://developer.huawei.com/consumer/en/hms
        quambene 5y ago
        For Huawei this has only been true since the US-china trade wars. There are still a ton of Huawei devices with GMS pre-installed. A service like GMS would be important for Samsung, too, as there are quite some Samsung devices out there. However, with GMS pre-installed on all Samsung devices, the Samsung Galaxy Store is completely useless as everybody and his brother will use Google Play for app and in-app purchases.
nerdbaggy 5y ago
What about the Amazon App Store? When I had Android years go the Amazon was rather abysmal but usable. https://www.amazon.com/gp/mas/get/amazonapp https://www.amazon.com/gp/mas/get/amazonapp
- quambene 5y ago
  Currently, there are four (more or less relevant) android app stores as far as I know: - Google Play - Huawei AppGallery - Samsung Galaxy Store - Amazon AppStore But Google Mobile Services (GMS) are so widely spread and often pre-installed on the devices that there is no real competition for Google. Currently, the most promising alternatives for GMS are: - Huawei Mobile Services (HMS) [1]: more widely used now because GMS was banned from Huawei devices since US-China trade wars - Amazon + Microsoft [2, 3, 4]: Microsoft is planning to serve android apps in Windows Store with Windows 11 in cooperation with Amazon [1] Huawei Mobile Services: https://developer.huawei.com/consumer/en/hms https://developer.huawei.com/consumer/en/hms [2] Amazon in-app purchases: https://developer.amazon.com/docs/in-app-purchasing/iap-overview.html https://developer.amazon.com/docs/in-app-purchasing/iap-over... [3] Amazon push notifications: https://developer.amazon.com/docs/adm/overview.html https://developer.amazon.com/docs/adm/overview.html [4] Windows 11 and android support: https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/24/22548428/microsoft-windows-11-android-apps-support-amazon-store https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/24/22548428/microsoft-window...

polote 5y ago

Of course, if you were the ceo of Google and have something like that happen. You would ask your teams, what are the different scenarios we can explore? And one of them would be buying Epic. What people expect? Google is a for profit company don't expect them to act like an non profit organization

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
I don't find it surprising, either. It's just frustrating to find yet another bit of evidence you don't own a device you bought and the manufacturers think you should pay them for any little piece of software you want to run on it. One missing bit that still hasn't happened - but one day will - is the subscription required to use your device. For now it's optional (called iCloud storage etc.) - you are nagged and so on but are able to refuse, but one day it will become obligatory. It could be 10 years from on or 20, but for sure they're thinking how to do it.
- moksly 5y ago
  These lawsuit doesn’t really do much about ownership part though. It’s about billionaires deciding how many of them get to rent us software on the platforms that we don’t own.
- kettleballroll 5y ago
  OTOH, everyone dreams of building a successful SaaS, because they want to milk that model themselves.
robbedpeter 5y ago
We should be able to start with a clean slate - these companies should delete all user data that wasn't explicitly given by the user in a clear and obvious way (like profile credentials) and start from scratch. Every time any information is collected, the company should obtain consent after displaying the data to the user. A person should be able to inspect all data that had been associated with them, and to delete any or all of the data at any time. Within the personal profile, a the user should be given the option to opt-in to any and all uses of their data, with zero third party sharing unless allowed by the user on a byte-by-byte basis. If a company violates this a progressive and percentage based fine should be imposed for every day of non-compliance. Something like .01% of the company's net worth per day, increasing to 2% over the course of 30 days, half of which goes to federal enforcement and half to the user. Something painful and crippling, with teeth, and enough to incentivize people to watch out for themselves and to force companies to behave well. Data beaches should be lethal if data was leaked that wasn't obtained with consent. Faang is not entitled to surveil the lives of everyone in the world by dint of people merely visiting websites. Participation in a relationship with a person or business or community should be consensual.

johnyzee 5y ago

30% of every sale is extortion, but even worse, and further proving the point, is that they prohibit taking payments through any other channel. How is it not illegal for the platform to force the use of their own payment service? Isn't this classic misuse of a monopoly?

pjmlp 5y ago
It is not a monopoly a per law definition across most jurisdictions. Additionally playing sales commissions is a traditional practice in most markets. Finally, maybe devs would appreciate to pay the 80 to 90% that used to be common on the Symbian, J2ME, BREW and Blackberry shops from mobile operators, about 15 years ago.
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  Armchair lawyers striking again... I was there during the Symbian era, the commissions at the time were outrageous, but closer to 40-50% than 80-90%.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Monopolistic behavior in markets where you have limited market power is just shooting yourself in the foot. I didnt even realize symbian HAD an app store.
    - stephc_int13 5y ago
      They didn't, it was managed by carriers, mostly. And Handango on some devices like running Windows Mobile or PalmOS.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        They eventually did, it was called Ovi Store. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovi_(Nokia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovi_(Nokia)
  - 5y ago

mnd999 5y ago

Buying up anyone who threatens to compete with you will certainly draw the attention of regulators.

mtgx 5y ago
It should be prevented by law in most cases.
pessimizer 5y ago
Maybe in the 1930s.
cududa 5y ago
How arrogant do you have to be to know a civil suit on anticompetion is inbound, and still email about plans to stifle it? A long time ago a mentor said “never put anything in email that you don’t want to show up in a court of law” and that’s always stuck. But how monumentally dumb/ arrogant do you to be to not realize these emails and docs would show up in discovery?

busymom0 5y ago

If Google had bought Epic games, would they have a stronger case against Apple in the Epic vs Apple case? Could Google then claim Apple was practicing anti-competitive practices? Though I guess Apple could make the same case against Google too.

tonetheman 5y ago

What is the end goal of this? Google is to still have infrastructure and people working on putting code/binaries on phones but not be compensated for it? Or is it to get Google completely out of it and let the phone provider do it? Or just willy nilly and you are on your own? Or finally will other stores popup instead of Google? I think if I was Google I would want some percentage of the end revenue or a flat fee every time you push new code out. Maybe force them to lower their fee. I dislike the idea of there being no store. End users will be tricked into installing god knows what...

kfprt 5y ago

Buying a company to prevent even a hint of competition seems like quintessential antitrust. Over the last few decades society has really dropped the ball on antitrust.

download13 5y ago
Yep, the whole of society. Most of us have a great deal of control over how things are run in this definitely real democracy
- kfprt 5y ago
  I completely understand your feelings regarding a lack of control and agency. Modern politics now essentially revolve around outrage. No politician wants to vote on something at all controversial, every vote they take is liable to outrage one half of the population or another. Every time they do they halve their voting base until it's an irrelevant tiny minority that agrees on everything. So they have outsourced their job to the supreme court, federal agencies, and the parliamentarian. If you can cause enough outrage you will find that they fold relatively easily.
  - 1270018080 5y ago
    They posture on identity politics, culture wars, and fear mongering, while their actions do nothing but service the needs of billionaires and corporations. "Critical race theory" in schools as an issue was manufactured out of thin air to make gullible racists afraid of something.
  - kook_throwaway 5y ago
    There's plenty of things governments could be busy doing that aren't controversial, but managing the existing state doesn't have nearly the glamour (or reelection PR) of changing it.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    These topics tend not to be uncorrelated, so making 4 votes doesn’t leave you with 1/16th of your base, but often with 31/32nds of your base.

tjpnz 5y ago

IIRC Netflix are able to get around this problem by processing subscription payments outside of their app. Wouldn't this solve the problem for some use cases? Or has Netflix got a "special" arrangement with Google and Apple?

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
You buy things in-app in Epic games. Google and Apple don't let you do this unless you use their payment processing. Netflix and Office 365 you buy a subscription and then you simply use the app on a multitude of devices. As an aside - does anyone know if it's explicitly banned to buy "coins" somewhere else - and then use those coins to buy things in the app? This is actually how Epic games works.
- tjpnz 5y ago
  >Netflix and Office 365 you buy a subscription and then you simply use the app on a multitude of devices. Fortnite appears to offer a subscription. What would've stopped them from doing that when the game was still available on the app stores?
  - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
    An important distinction. Office 365 and Netflix get nearly all of their revenue from subscriptions. Just because Epic offers a subscription doesn't mean that's where it derives >95% of its revenue.
- csmiller 5y ago
  I see “sub coins” on sale in the Twitch app, my assumption is that you can offer them outside the app, but you cannot promote that alternative in the app and you must also sell them in-app (presumably for 30% more)
lom 5y ago
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203630/apple-amazon-prime-video-ios-app-store-cut-exempt-program-deal https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203630/apple-amazon-prim... They do have a special arrangement, and iirc there was a case of an email company being taken down due to them handling payments outside of the app, on a website.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

This is the same concern apple has if epic succeeds.

kktkti9 5y ago

Epic copied id Epic copied Valve Epic copied PubG Epic is suing to stop others Epic isn’t a very novel business Edit: thanks everyone. Was in the dumps due to rain at the beach. The downvotes have made me feel alive on an otherwise boring day stuck inside far from home.

admax88q 5y ago

I'd take this with a grain of salt for the time being. "Google contemplated" could mean nothing more than a random exec said this in passing or as a joke once to somebody else. Not to mention no internal and communications are cited in the article.

crazygringo 5y ago

A company "contemplated" something...? News flash: yes, in internal meetings, people suggest all sorts of options. It's called brainstorming. And then they're looked into in varying levels of detail to investigate pros/cons. Research isn't action. Also, most people in meetings aren't lawyers, so they come up with options before running it by legal. It's not always clear what is or isn't illegal -- lawyers even disagree with each other. At the end of the day, what matters is what Google does. It you're going to criticize, criticize actual actions, not what was "contemplated". Criticizing a company for "contemplating" something is as bad as criticizing someone for having a thought. Any responsible company should be contemplating a wide variety of options... and then rejecting the ones that are no good.

cryptica 5y ago

Anticompetitive behaviour in the global marketplace is so pervasive that it's pointless to even mention specific cases - It only serves to perpetuate the ridiculous illusion that some people in government give a crap about it. Antitrust is a joke. Everything is essentially a trust nowadays.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]