3 ms·

I'm flumuxed that Google is the first tech company to be ruled a monopoly. I would put them fourth on the tech monopoly list, behind Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, i

I'm flumuxed that Google is the first tech company to be ruled a monopoly. I would put them fourth on the tech monopoly list, behind Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, in that order. I don't think there would be much benefit to society by breaking up google. Whereas I do think there would be great benefit to breaking up Apple or MS.

tgv 2y ago
Apple doesn't match the description of a monopoly, as far as I can see. Amazon might. But Google is dominant. You could add Facebook to the monopolies, unless you think it shares the same space as Twitter.
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  You generally cannot have friends as an American under 25 without owning an iPhone. Outside of HN tech heads, regular young Americans use phones that "can send pictures that don't look like garbage!". I consider Apple by far the most insidious, since they leverage your friends and family against you to put heavy social penalties on not submitting. They then use this dominance to bend devs to their will, and take an egregious cut of their profits while doing it.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    WhatsApp offers very simple high quality image/video sharing. If you are being excluded by your friends, it’s not because the image quality is bad. It’s because they want to exclude you.
    - merlindru 2y ago
      Everyone already uses iMessage. It's like getting everyone in the EU to switch to Signal because Meta owns WhatsApp: it's impossible. There's not enough incentive to switch off of the current solution because the hurdles to doing so is getting everyone else to do so. If your family & friends use WhatsApp, they'll eventually be "pressured" by others to use iMessage, simply because the people that they know don't use WhatsApp. This effect cascades, and now everyone is back to <existing solution> since the "pain" that solution inflicts on a couple individuals is not nearly big enough to make everyone switch.
    - Workaccount2 2y ago
      Why would I get a whatsapp when I already have a perfectly working messaging app? Everyone needs to download this random app because one kid is too broke to get an iphone? Some people are painfully unaware of what it looks like on the ground here...
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        Yes, if your friends and family are too lazy or unwilling to take 30 seconds to install a very widely used app for you, you are getting a valuable signal from them on where you rank in their social graph.
        throw-the-towel 2y ago
        Lecturing people on their morals is fun but painfully useless. Peer pressure exists, and corps know how to leverage it, and that's a fact that we need to deal with.
marcosdumay 2y ago
> I'm flumuxed that Google is the first tech company to be ruled a monopoly. Hum... I'm sure you've heard about that famous one called AT&T. Or Microsoft a decade later.
- xtracto 2y ago
  If the US government didn't have the muscle to break up Microsoft, which had a pretty evident monopoly in the 90s, I am willing to bet they won't manage to put a dent to Google. Particularly given how more "friendlier" has turned for corporations in the last 30 years.
  - asadotzler 2y ago
    They had the muscle, just not the will.
MetaWhirledPeas 2y ago
In their defense: - Microsoft's biggest monopoly candidate is Windows, and outside of business the PC space is too small for this to be as problematic as it once was - Apple's devices have competitors, although they are really bad about sucking people into their ecosystem and mistreating the outsiders - No one is forced to use Amazon, although they do have scummy tactics for their sellers I believe (you're not allowed to sell it cheaper elsewhere or something like that?). I'm sure similar arguments could be made for Google though.
cptskippy 2y ago
Microsoft was arguably the first, the case fell apart and ended up a settlement because the Judge presiding over the case violated the court code of conduct by discussing the case with the media. Something laughable in 2024. That being said, the trial is the basis for the action taken against Google: > However, the Circuit Court did not overturn Jackson's findings of fact, and held that traditional antitrust analysis was not equipped to consider software-related practices like browser tie-ins. Another interesting outcome of the trail was that it established a playbook that others, namely Google, could follow to avoid antitrust litigation. I would argue that Google's ability to operate as a monopoly for so long was largely a result of the outcomes of the Microsoft trial.
- nodamage 2y ago
  > the case fell apart and ended up a settlement because the Judge presiding over the case violated the court code of conduct by discussing the case with the media. That's a bit of an oversimplification. Key parts of the original ruling were overturned because the legal analysis performed by the original judge was done incorrectly. Or more specifically, for the case of bundling IE with Windows, analyzed using the wrong legal framework (per se analysis vs rule of reason). The case was remanded back to the district level for re-analysis under the rule of reason, and that would have been necessary regardless of the judge's behavior.

tgv 2y ago

Apple doesn't match the description of a monopoly, as far as I can see. Amazon might. But Google is dominant. You could add Facebook to the monopolies, unless you think it shares the same space as Twitter.

Workaccount2 2y ago
You generally cannot have friends as an American under 25 without owning an iPhone. Outside of HN tech heads, regular young Americans use phones that "can send pictures that don't look like garbage!". I consider Apple by far the most insidious, since they leverage your friends and family against you to put heavy social penalties on not submitting. They then use this dominance to bend devs to their will, and take an egregious cut of their profits while doing it.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  WhatsApp offers very simple high quality image/video sharing. If you are being excluded by your friends, it’s not because the image quality is bad. It’s because they want to exclude you.
  - merlindru 2y ago
    Everyone already uses iMessage. It's like getting everyone in the EU to switch to Signal because Meta owns WhatsApp: it's impossible. There's not enough incentive to switch off of the current solution because the hurdles to doing so is getting everyone else to do so. If your family & friends use WhatsApp, they'll eventually be "pressured" by others to use iMessage, simply because the people that they know don't use WhatsApp. This effect cascades, and now everyone is back to <existing solution> since the "pain" that solution inflicts on a couple individuals is not nearly big enough to make everyone switch.
  - Workaccount2 2y ago
    Why would I get a whatsapp when I already have a perfectly working messaging app? Everyone needs to download this random app because one kid is too broke to get an iphone? Some people are painfully unaware of what it looks like on the ground here...
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      Yes, if your friends and family are too lazy or unwilling to take 30 seconds to install a very widely used app for you, you are getting a valuable signal from them on where you rank in their social graph.
      - throw-the-towel 2y ago
        Lecturing people on their morals is fun but painfully useless. Peer pressure exists, and corps know how to leverage it, and that's a fact that we need to deal with.

marcosdumay 2y ago

> I'm flumuxed that Google is the first tech company to be ruled a monopoly. Hum... I'm sure you've heard about that famous one called AT&T. Or Microsoft a decade later.

xtracto 2y ago
If the US government didn't have the muscle to break up Microsoft, which had a pretty evident monopoly in the 90s, I am willing to bet they won't manage to put a dent to Google. Particularly given how more "friendlier" has turned for corporations in the last 30 years.
- asadotzler 2y ago
  They had the muscle, just not the will.

MetaWhirledPeas 2y ago

In their defense: - Microsoft's biggest monopoly candidate is Windows, and outside of business the PC space is too small for this to be as problematic as it once was - Apple's devices have competitors, although they are really bad about sucking people into their ecosystem and mistreating the outsiders - No one is forced to use Amazon, although they do have scummy tactics for their sellers I believe (you're not allowed to sell it cheaper elsewhere or something like that?). I'm sure similar arguments could be made for Google though.

cptskippy 2y ago

Microsoft was arguably the first, the case fell apart and ended up a settlement because the Judge presiding over the case violated the court code of conduct by discussing the case with the media. Something laughable in 2024. That being said, the trial is the basis for the action taken against Google: > However, the Circuit Court did not overturn Jackson's findings of fact, and held that traditional antitrust analysis was not equipped to consider software-related practices like browser tie-ins. Another interesting outcome of the trail was that it established a playbook that others, namely Google, could follow to avoid antitrust litigation. I would argue that Google's ability to operate as a monopoly for so long was largely a result of the outcomes of the Microsoft trial.

nodamage 2y ago
> the case fell apart and ended up a settlement because the Judge presiding over the case violated the court code of conduct by discussing the case with the media. That's a bit of an oversimplification. Key parts of the original ruling were overturned because the legal analysis performed by the original judge was done incorrectly. Or more specifically, for the case of bundling IE with Windows, analyzed using the wrong legal framework (per se analysis vs rule of reason). The case was remanded back to the district level for re-analysis under the rule of reason, and that would have been necessary regardless of the judge's behavior.