5 ms·

Perhaps. I don't think this reflects anything unethical on the part of Google, but it does represent that market dynamics aren't working. The point of antitrus

Perhaps. I don't think this reflects anything unethical on the part of Google, but it does represent that market dynamics aren't working. The point of antitrust isn't so much to punish bad people as to make for efficient markets. Under mainstream economic theory, Google ought to be regulated. That's good for everyone, Google employees and most Google investors included (by numbers and not dollars; most Google investors hold diverse portfolios). If the industry and economy as a whole grow, at the expense of Google, both my overall investments and my job options improve. Corporations aren't human beings with moral rights, and laws are there to keep them beneficial and efficient, but to preserve some abstract corporate freedom.

scarface_74 3y ago
No it’s not good for everyone when the government has more power. It’s usually bad and the government regulators always seem to want to regulate content that the party in power disagrees with. The government rarely understands technology and pays no thought to unintended consequences
- djbusby 3y ago
  This is government using existing power.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Then maybe we should think about taking away existing power?
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      You think they should not be able to regulate monopolies? The free market only works with regulation or else we end up back in the 1800s Trust era where a few people owned all the industries and you couldn't get your shipments transported on rail lines owned by someone with a competing business interest.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        The difference is that people choose Google. You can go to any website you want to. Just like the asinine browser choice in the EU made absolutely no difference in the market share between browsers. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/12/windows-browser-ballot-comes-to-an-end-as-ec-obligation-expires/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/12/windo...
        nuancebydefault 3y ago
        Most people I know use Google but did not choose Google. They just bought a smartphone. There are limited options, buy a more expensive fancy apple, or a less expensive, a bit less fancy android. That is the only choice given/taken. I know, people on HN will counter argument that there are tons of other options, but most people I know that use Google, are not aware. In fact that is where this lawsuit at its core is about.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        So in the US, 60% of people buy iPhones and 95%+ buy non ChromeOS computers, yet Chrome is still the dominant browser. How is that of people didn’t make a choice. And it’s not like Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook who all tried to enter the smart phone market and failed were some poor underfunded startups.
        nuancebydefault 3y ago
        Google is still reaping its fruits from the early 2000's investments in a new browser that was lightweight and stable but had powerful search and apps, unlike the default browser of MS. So at that point in time people deliberately installed chrome on their PC since the default did not fulfill their wishes. That doesn't mean that people today are choosing chrome and google search, as they come by default on their smartphones. Most smartphone users don't even know that the browser and search engine can be changed rather easily.
timmaxw 3y ago
To clarify: what specific remedy do you want the court to impose on Google, and how would it make things better for everyone?
pdonis 3y ago
> The point of antitrust isn't so much to punish bad people as to make for efficient markets. That's the story those who favor antitrust want you to believe, but it's not true. Antitrust actions historically have made markets less efficient, not more. A classic case is the breakup of Alcoa aluminum, whose "offense" was to supply aluminum to its customers at lower prices and larger quantities than any of its competitors. The breakup both raised prices and reduced quantities, making things worse for customers. > Under mainstream economic theory, Google ought to be regulated. Even leaving aside the concerns above, Google is not a monopoly in the sense of antitrust law. The real economic problem with Google is that its users are not its customers; users are just a resource to be exploited to maximize profits due to ads. If the government were to do anything to "fix" this, the obvious thing would be to outlaw that business model.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  A classic case is the breakup of Alcoa aluminum, whose "offense" was to supply aluminum to its customers at lower prices and larger quantities than any of its competitors. The breakup both raised prices and reduced quantities, making things worse for customers. Much the same story with Standard Oil. What young people learn in school from left-leaning economics professors often diverges quite radically from what actually happened.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    Yes, Standard Oil is another classic case, with much the same results after the breakup: higher prices and smaller quantities available to customers.

scarface_74 3y ago

No it’s not good for everyone when the government has more power. It’s usually bad and the government regulators always seem to want to regulate content that the party in power disagrees with. The government rarely understands technology and pays no thought to unintended consequences

djbusby 3y ago
This is government using existing power.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Then maybe we should think about taking away existing power?
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    You think they should not be able to regulate monopolies? The free market only works with regulation or else we end up back in the 1800s Trust era where a few people owned all the industries and you couldn't get your shipments transported on rail lines owned by someone with a competing business interest.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      The difference is that people choose Google. You can go to any website you want to. Just like the asinine browser choice in the EU made absolutely no difference in the market share between browsers. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/12/windows-browser-ballot-comes-to-an-end-as-ec-obligation-expires/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/12/windo...
      - nuancebydefault 3y ago
        Most people I know use Google but did not choose Google. They just bought a smartphone. There are limited options, buy a more expensive fancy apple, or a less expensive, a bit less fancy android. That is the only choice given/taken. I know, people on HN will counter argument that there are tons of other options, but most people I know that use Google, are not aware. In fact that is where this lawsuit at its core is about.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        So in the US, 60% of people buy iPhones and 95%+ buy non ChromeOS computers, yet Chrome is still the dominant browser. How is that of people didn’t make a choice. And it’s not like Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook who all tried to enter the smart phone market and failed were some poor underfunded startups.
        nuancebydefault 3y ago
        Google is still reaping its fruits from the early 2000's investments in a new browser that was lightweight and stable but had powerful search and apps, unlike the default browser of MS. So at that point in time people deliberately installed chrome on their PC since the default did not fulfill their wishes. That doesn't mean that people today are choosing chrome and google search, as they come by default on their smartphones. Most smartphone users don't even know that the browser and search engine can be changed rather easily.

timmaxw 3y ago

To clarify: what specific remedy do you want the court to impose on Google, and how would it make things better for everyone?

pdonis 3y ago

> The point of antitrust isn't so much to punish bad people as to make for efficient markets. That's the story those who favor antitrust want you to believe, but it's not true. Antitrust actions historically have made markets less efficient, not more. A classic case is the breakup of Alcoa aluminum, whose "offense" was to supply aluminum to its customers at lower prices and larger quantities than any of its competitors. The breakup both raised prices and reduced quantities, making things worse for customers. > Under mainstream economic theory, Google ought to be regulated. Even leaving aside the concerns above, Google is not a monopoly in the sense of antitrust law. The real economic problem with Google is that its users are not its customers; users are just a resource to be exploited to maximize profits due to ads. If the government were to do anything to "fix" this, the obvious thing would be to outlaw that business model.

CamperBob2 3y ago
A classic case is the breakup of Alcoa aluminum, whose "offense" was to supply aluminum to its customers at lower prices and larger quantities than any of its competitors. The breakup both raised prices and reduced quantities, making things worse for customers. Much the same story with Standard Oil. What young people learn in school from left-leaning economics professors often diverges quite radically from what actually happened.
- pdonis 3y ago
  Yes, Standard Oil is another classic case, with much the same results after the breakup: higher prices and smaller quantities available to customers.