3 ms·

“Bundling” can be anticompetitive but is not at issue in the actual case the government has filed. Nor can I personally identify a meaningful bundle from googl

“Bundling” can be anticompetitive but is not at issue in the actual case the government has filed. Nor can I personally identify a meaningful bundle from google in the right sense. You may be using the word informally.

arrosenberg 3y ago
I wasn’t referring to the case specifically, but Google is absolutely bundling products in the formal, illegal sense as well. Would drive, docs and gmail be free if you divorced them from the ad revenue products?
- huitzitziltzin 3y ago
  >> Would drive, docs and gmail be free if you divorced them from the ad revenue products? If they are all free then it’s not a bundle in the antitrust relevant sense. Microsoft Teams is a great example of an anticompetitive bundle if you want one.
  - arrosenberg 3y ago
    Gonna need a cite on that logic. The MS case was about including IE with Windows for free. With Google, the products are paid for by the ad revenues instead of Windows and Office licenses. > Microsoft Teams is a great example of an anticompetitive bundle if you want one. Also true.
    - huitzitziltzin 3y ago
      >> The MS case was about including IE with Windows for free. This is exactly where the anticompetitive effects of bundling arise. >> With Google, the products are paid for by the ad revenues instead of Windows and Office licenses. That’s why it’s going to be impossible to argue that this is bundling in the anticompetitive sense.
      - arrosenberg 3y ago
        You keep saying that, but no cites. Somehow I doubt the Clayton act specifies that bundles can include ad products, but not software licenses. Bundling is bundling, let a judge decide.
- jonas21 3y ago
  > Would drive, docs and gmail be free if you divorced them from the ad revenue products? Yes, probably. They all count against your 15 GB quota of free storage, after which you have to pay Google for more. It's basically the same model as Dropbox.
  - arrosenberg 3y ago
    Dropbox doesn’t do email or office tools as far as I know; they have Paper, but thats not the same. I also believe the free tier is storage only, which is the cheapest element of the offering to deliver.

arrosenberg 3y ago

I wasn’t referring to the case specifically, but Google is absolutely bundling products in the formal, illegal sense as well. Would drive, docs and gmail be free if you divorced them from the ad revenue products?

huitzitziltzin 3y ago
>> Would drive, docs and gmail be free if you divorced them from the ad revenue products? If they are all free then it’s not a bundle in the antitrust relevant sense. Microsoft Teams is a great example of an anticompetitive bundle if you want one.
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  Gonna need a cite on that logic. The MS case was about including IE with Windows for free. With Google, the products are paid for by the ad revenues instead of Windows and Office licenses. > Microsoft Teams is a great example of an anticompetitive bundle if you want one. Also true.
  - huitzitziltzin 3y ago
    >> The MS case was about including IE with Windows for free. This is exactly where the anticompetitive effects of bundling arise. >> With Google, the products are paid for by the ad revenues instead of Windows and Office licenses. That’s why it’s going to be impossible to argue that this is bundling in the anticompetitive sense.
    - arrosenberg 3y ago
      You keep saying that, but no cites. Somehow I doubt the Clayton act specifies that bundles can include ad products, but not software licenses. Bundling is bundling, let a judge decide.
jonas21 3y ago
> Would drive, docs and gmail be free if you divorced them from the ad revenue products? Yes, probably. They all count against your 15 GB quota of free storage, after which you have to pay Google for more. It's basically the same model as Dropbox.
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  Dropbox doesn’t do email or office tools as far as I know; they have Paper, but thats not the same. I also believe the free tier is storage only, which is the cheapest element of the offering to deliver.