4 ms·
To be frank, all of those four are all exhibiting monopolist behavior in different ways. Google just is the worst of the lot from an antitrust perspective. Goo
by noirscape 3y ago
To be frank, all of those four are all exhibiting monopolist behavior in different ways. Google just is the worst of the lot from an antitrust perspective.
Googles problem is very much that they have an open policy of launching new products and axing it without regard for the existing userbase when it doesn't become the standard. They're so large that any individual user falls to the wayside in those metrics. Out of all of the ones on that list, Google is the most openly consumer hostile version of this stuff because they do everything the others do and are in a far more instrumental position for the average consumer. On B2B they're horrible because Google just... is the legitimate ad market these days. Like, if Google doesn't want you or if you don't like Googles rates, that's it. There's no real general purpose ad network that's comparable to Google that aren't niche startups or can offer comparable rates. The lawsuit is about the latter in specific though.
Apple just is your traditional walled garden setup. Only that which exists in the Apple garden is allowed on Apple and their market share is annoyingly large enough that it means Apple basically morally polices the mobile market. - not being on apple devices might as well mean that you don't exist as a mobile developer. That said this dominance isn't exactly by market share (worldwide anyway), but moreso by the fact that the Apple userbase is in the niche of "trendsetters" (or in other words: trendy younger people and your boss have iDevices, which are the demographics that disproportionately matter for popularity).
Microsoft is just getting a bit too comfortable after they lost that lawsuit in the 2000s and is just doing what they did back then. They need to be reminded why they lost that suit. Out of all big tech, they're probably the smallest fish to fry given they're also easily intimidated if the EU is any indication.
Meta is... well, it's mostly a privacy nightmare with some hints of a walled garden (fucking WhatsApp) and similar moral policing as Apple. They're only slightly less bad than Google because their brand is seen as so toxic that people not having a Facebook/Instagram account isn't seen as a social failing (which given they're a social media network, that matters).
Kneecap any one of them and it'll do a net good - they're all bad but they're bad in different markets. Google going down won't suddenly make Apple or Microsoft more powerful, they're in different fields. (And the Meta ad tracking machine is only on Meta products, afaik Meta doesn't sell general site ads.)
- cageface 3y agoI think it's also worth keeping in mind that a lot of important open source tech has originated at Google. Without Google we wouldn't have NodeJS, Electron, Kubernetes, Go, Flutter etc. None of the other big tech companies have made comparable contributions. And just considering mobile alone, of course diminishing Android will empower Apple.
- jen20 3y ago> Without Google we wouldn't have NodeJS, Electron, Kubernetes, Go, Flutter etc. What a fantastic world we could have had.