5 ms·

This is government using existing power.

by djbusby 3y ago

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.
        peter422 3y ago
        Chrome is not the default on stock iPhone, Mac, Windows or Linux. It’s only the default on Android. Search engine is a different story but people like Google enough they’ll change to Google anyways no matter what the default is.
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        Why don't you guys let the lawyers do the arguing for you. The great grandparent I was responding to was arguing against the ability of the state to even bring the lawsuit.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Chrome was never “lightweight” and it was a fork of WebKit that has actually focused less and less on being “lightweight” since it created its own fork. In the US, only 40% of buyers are buying Android phones. On desktops, Chrome also has a majority market share and 97% of desktops don’t come with Chrome as the default.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      > The difference is that people choose Google. You can go to any website you want to. This lawsuit is set to determine whether that is case. You can argue for or against that, but arguing against the ability of the people to have a lawsuit to determine that is nonsensical.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        Are you saying we need a lawsuit to determine whether people have a choice?
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        Sometimes.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > You think they should not be able to regulate monopolies? Exactly. When the government has done this, it has made things worse, not better. See my reference to Alcoa Aluminum upthread, for example. > The free market only works with regulation A free market even with no government regulation still is regulated: it's regulated by the voluntary choices of all the market participants. In a free market, nobody can be forced to trade with anybody else; so if you want to make money, you have to offer something other people want and will voluntarily pay you for.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      The natural order of the free market is towards monopolies or cartels. Why compete when you can merge or buy the startup before they get big enough to bother you? If you are the only one offering what they need then they have no choice, do they? Have you figured out the answer to that?
      - pdonis 3y ago
        > The natural order of the free market is towards monopolies or cartels. I don't know where you're getting that from. Monopolies are almost always created by governments; indeed, the original meaning of the word "monopoly" was an exclusive privilege granted by the king to sell a particular product. Cartels in free markets don't last because there is a strong incentive for cartel members to defect, since they can increase their profits by doing so; it takes governmental agreements (such as the Middle Eastern oil cartel upheld by the governments of the countries involved) to prevent such defection. > Why compete when you can merge or buy the startup before they get big enough to bother you? If the startup is a real competitor, in a free market its owners will be able to realize more upside by competing with you than by being bought by you. > If you are the only one offering what they need then they have no choice, do they? In a free market this won't happen: if there is enough demand, it is always in someone's interest to start a competing producer. > Have you figured out the answer to that? Historically, the reason the obvious free market things I describe don't always happen is that governments mess with markets, making them not free. So the obvious answer is to not do that.

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.
        peter422 3y ago
        Chrome is not the default on stock iPhone, Mac, Windows or Linux. It’s only the default on Android. Search engine is a different story but people like Google enough they’ll change to Google anyways no matter what the default is.
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        Why don't you guys let the lawyers do the arguing for you. The great grandparent I was responding to was arguing against the ability of the state to even bring the lawsuit.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Chrome was never “lightweight” and it was a fork of WebKit that has actually focused less and less on being “lightweight” since it created its own fork. In the US, only 40% of buyers are buying Android phones. On desktops, Chrome also has a majority market share and 97% of desktops don’t come with Chrome as the default.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    > The difference is that people choose Google. You can go to any website you want to. This lawsuit is set to determine whether that is case. You can argue for or against that, but arguing against the ability of the people to have a lawsuit to determine that is nonsensical.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Are you saying we need a lawsuit to determine whether people have a choice?
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        Sometimes.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > You think they should not be able to regulate monopolies? Exactly. When the government has done this, it has made things worse, not better. See my reference to Alcoa Aluminum upthread, for example. > The free market only works with regulation A free market even with no government regulation still is regulated: it's regulated by the voluntary choices of all the market participants. In a free market, nobody can be forced to trade with anybody else; so if you want to make money, you have to offer something other people want and will voluntarily pay you for.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    The natural order of the free market is towards monopolies or cartels. Why compete when you can merge or buy the startup before they get big enough to bother you? If you are the only one offering what they need then they have no choice, do they? Have you figured out the answer to that?
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > The natural order of the free market is towards monopolies or cartels. I don't know where you're getting that from. Monopolies are almost always created by governments; indeed, the original meaning of the word "monopoly" was an exclusive privilege granted by the king to sell a particular product. Cartels in free markets don't last because there is a strong incentive for cartel members to defect, since they can increase their profits by doing so; it takes governmental agreements (such as the Middle Eastern oil cartel upheld by the governments of the countries involved) to prevent such defection. > Why compete when you can merge or buy the startup before they get big enough to bother you? If the startup is a real competitor, in a free market its owners will be able to realize more upside by competing with you than by being bought by you. > If you are the only one offering what they need then they have no choice, do they? In a free market this won't happen: if there is enough demand, it is always in someone's interest to start a competing producer. > Have you figured out the answer to that? Historically, the reason the obvious free market things I describe don't always happen is that governments mess with markets, making them not free. So the obvious answer is to not do that.