4 ms·

I'm failing to see why "this product we built from the ground up integrates better with our other tools" is an anti trust problem Isn't that what we want compa

by wrsh07 2y ago

I'm failing to see why "this product we built from the ground up integrates better with our other tools" is an anti trust problem Isn't that what we want companies to do? I have two frustrations with this kind of decision: 1. It's not clear to me that the judge has any interest in creating value. 2. It does feel a bit like being punished for success. It's one thing when it's ill-gotten success, eg via coercive contracts (like Android has with play services), and we should aggressively deal with that sort of contract! However, what often seems to happen in these types of cases is the judge identifies a behavior they dislike and bans it without really considering more targeting / surgical treatments

fzzzy 2y ago
They didn't build it from the ground up
- wrsh07 2y ago
  Fair correction, but they didn't acquire the most popular browser company or something
- rafram 2y ago
  There is essentially no WebKit (not to mention KHTML) code remaining in Chrome.
conductr 2y ago
I tend to agree. I struggle to understand how a company runs a browser product without being eventually seen as a monopoly. They’re making a unique product ecosystem of browser and apps, just like everyone else, no need to keep coming down on whoever is successful at it. People can vote with their feet and use a dozen other options.
- user_7832 2y ago
  > I struggle to understand how a company runs a browser product without being eventually seen as a monopoly. Just like for example how a car company can make cars without being a monopoly. Not the best example, but we’re so used to a monopoly it’s tough to imagine what a competitive browser market would look like.
  - conductr 2y ago
    Browsers have never generated enough revenue directly to be competitive. Indirectly they help companies build platforms. When done well enough, we call it a monopoly. I’m actually in favor of restricting their use of tracking but I also think forcing them to divest from the browser business seems heavy handed.
tristan957 2y ago
Chrome allows Google to control the web platform to benefit their Ads business.
illiac786 2y ago
The problem is not that it integrates well with google products, the problem is that they are preventing other products from integrating as well.
- wrsh07 2y ago
  Do you think there's a solution that could reasonably be enforced in order to fix that problem?
  - Murfalo 2y ago
    Forcing Google to sell Chrome!
    - wrsh07 2y ago
      How does that help? What business model do we expect chrome to have? The same DOJ doesn't like Google giving Apple money for traffic acquisition. Why would that be allowed for spun-out chrome? Why do we expect the rest of the ecosystem to remain static? What do you think Google's next move is if they sell chrome? Who do you expect to buy Chrome? Not Facebook. Who else could and would want to? This is a solution that has been proposed without really considering any second order effects. Or if they were considered, it was done badly (it would be easy to prove me wrong: they could just write up what they expect to happen, and it would have to be even mildly believable)
      - illiac786 2y ago
        I would assume they would not want Facebook to buy it, obviously. Microsoft neither. I do not have a solution for the business case I have to admit, but it has 60%+ market share I believe, I’m sure someone will figure out something to monetize this. It might end up with chrome becoming a worse browser though, that’s not an unlikely outcome at all. But Internet as a whole would be better for it in my view, if google‘s grip got loosened a bit…
        2y ago
globular-toast 2y ago
Monopolies are bad for us. It's as simple as that really. > It does feel a bit like being punished for success. Nobody is being punished. Punishment would be like "you're going to prison because the thing you started turned into a monopoly". That's not what is happening. It's more like "whoops, you created a monopoly, time to reset, but you get to keep everything you reaped so far".
- wrsh07 2y ago
  Why are monopolies bad? In general, monopolies are bad because they can leverage their power in ways that are worse for consumers - ie they make the usual market functions break down. (If the market continued to work correctly, consumers would be able to switch to a competitor) There are many cases where we like monopolies because it's more efficient to only have one entity do a thing (eg build infrastructure) It's useful to correctly punish illegal things monopolies do, but in this case, google has created a browser that is good! Better than alternatives! If you spin that browser off, it will need to figure out how to monetize. It will get worse due to that monetization effort. Google has other services that would be competitive without Google: drive, YouTube are easy examples. If we made them spin off Gmail just because Google is too big, that doesn't make sense! Gmail is useful to Google in its current form, but there's no way it's pulling in significant profit (possibly as part of drive - I'm not certain). You can't just pick a company you don't like and attack it with a hatchet. That's worse for consumers than the thing you're attacking, and the number one rule here should be for regulators to make things better, not worse!

by wrsh07 2y ago

fzzzy 2y ago

They didn't build it from the ground up

wrsh07 2y ago
Fair correction, but they didn't acquire the most popular browser company or something
rafram 2y ago
There is essentially no WebKit (not to mention KHTML) code remaining in Chrome.

conductr 2y ago

I tend to agree. I struggle to understand how a company runs a browser product without being eventually seen as a monopoly. They’re making a unique product ecosystem of browser and apps, just like everyone else, no need to keep coming down on whoever is successful at it. People can vote with their feet and use a dozen other options.

user_7832 2y ago
> I struggle to understand how a company runs a browser product without being eventually seen as a monopoly. Just like for example how a car company can make cars without being a monopoly. Not the best example, but we’re so used to a monopoly it’s tough to imagine what a competitive browser market would look like.
- conductr 2y ago
  Browsers have never generated enough revenue directly to be competitive. Indirectly they help companies build platforms. When done well enough, we call it a monopoly. I’m actually in favor of restricting their use of tracking but I also think forcing them to divest from the browser business seems heavy handed.

tristan957 2y ago

Chrome allows Google to control the web platform to benefit their Ads business.

illiac786 2y ago

The problem is not that it integrates well with google products, the problem is that they are preventing other products from integrating as well.

wrsh07 2y ago
Do you think there's a solution that could reasonably be enforced in order to fix that problem?
- Murfalo 2y ago
  Forcing Google to sell Chrome!
  - wrsh07 2y ago
    How does that help? What business model do we expect chrome to have? The same DOJ doesn't like Google giving Apple money for traffic acquisition. Why would that be allowed for spun-out chrome? Why do we expect the rest of the ecosystem to remain static? What do you think Google's next move is if they sell chrome? Who do you expect to buy Chrome? Not Facebook. Who else could and would want to? This is a solution that has been proposed without really considering any second order effects. Or if they were considered, it was done badly (it would be easy to prove me wrong: they could just write up what they expect to happen, and it would have to be even mildly believable)
    - illiac786 2y ago
      I would assume they would not want Facebook to buy it, obviously. Microsoft neither. I do not have a solution for the business case I have to admit, but it has 60%+ market share I believe, I’m sure someone will figure out something to monetize this. It might end up with chrome becoming a worse browser though, that’s not an unlikely outcome at all. But Internet as a whole would be better for it in my view, if google‘s grip got loosened a bit…
      - 2y ago

globular-toast 2y ago

Monopolies are bad for us. It's as simple as that really. > It does feel a bit like being punished for success. Nobody is being punished. Punishment would be like "you're going to prison because the thing you started turned into a monopoly". That's not what is happening. It's more like "whoops, you created a monopoly, time to reset, but you get to keep everything you reaped so far".

wrsh07 2y ago
Why are monopolies bad? In general, monopolies are bad because they can leverage their power in ways that are worse for consumers - ie they make the usual market functions break down. (If the market continued to work correctly, consumers would be able to switch to a competitor) There are many cases where we like monopolies because it's more efficient to only have one entity do a thing (eg build infrastructure) It's useful to correctly punish illegal things monopolies do, but in this case, google has created a browser that is good! Better than alternatives! If you spin that browser off, it will need to figure out how to monetize. It will get worse due to that monetization effort. Google has other services that would be competitive without Google: drive, YouTube are easy examples. If we made them spin off Gmail just because Google is too big, that doesn't make sense! Gmail is useful to Google in its current form, but there's no way it's pulling in significant profit (possibly as part of drive - I'm not certain). You can't just pick a company you don't like and attack it with a hatchet. That's worse for consumers than the thing you're attacking, and the number one rule here should be for regulators to make things better, not worse!