4 ms·

Just to be clear, Google makes $55m in profits every 2.5 business hours.

by avazhi 1y ago

metaphor 1y ago
Using bottom line of their most recent quarterly income statement[1], and given Google operates 24/7, then that's more like every 4.3 business hours. /s [1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204425000062/goog-20250630.htm#ifaa19c3225a747e6a325733488c42840_22 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204425...
- chillfox 1y ago
  Did you account for the $55 being AUD, and the income statement being in USD?
  - godelski 1y ago
    Shockingly that looks to be really close. Just going with the gp's number's 55m AUD -> 35.87 USD (35.87/55)4.3 = 2.8 tldr: avazhi was right
mhh__ 1y ago
Good deal, search and YouTube are both pretty good
- quantummagic 1y ago
  That really misses the point. That is, fines do nothing if they are a rounding error on revenue.
- ulfw 1y ago
  If they were that good, why would Google have to waste money pre-installing them as defaults?
  - throwawayxcmz 1y ago
    Because most people can't even change the search engine even if they wanted to. Whatever Google is the best search engine or not, pre-installing is a different problem.
  - terminalshort 1y ago
    To keep somebody else from doing that. Now they don't have to because nobody can.
senectus1 1y ago
here is hoping that the penalty means a whole lot less than the precedance... They have now set a "bar" for acceptable behaviour... the 55million is just a "you've been put on notice"
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
CobrastanJorji 1y ago
If Google has 5 billion users, that's about 5 cents per user per day.
petesergeant 1y ago
Sure, but how much of that is from this deal? The goal isn’t to stop Google from doing business, it’s to make this behaviour unprofitable with a little wrist slap too. And also a shot across the bow that if they continue to do it it’ll be enforced much more strongly.
- throwawayxcmz 1y ago
  That is a bit silly. The goal is to make anti-competitive and all negative conduct net-negative, not just unprofitable when caught. Otherwise, it is like a millions of dollars to none gambling, profits no one caught you, a slap on the wrist if you got caught. Not useful.
  - mcmoor 1y ago
    The sane calculaltion is to make the fine amount equals to (loss to society or profit to corporation) / (chance of getting caught). In some cases, I guess it can be argued that chance of getting caught is so small that the fine should bankrupt someone, but still we should not do it arbitrarily just because the target is a big corporation.
    - thfuran 1y ago
      Surely the punishment should be more than just break even.
    - _Algernon_ 1y ago
      Add a multiplier so that doing the activity is discouraged, not just neutral in terms of expected value.
SwtCyber 1y ago
Exactly. When you frame it like that, the fine goes from “headline punishment” to “cost of doing business.”

Just to be clear, Google makes $55m in profits every 2.5 business hours.

by avazhi 1y ago

Just to be clear, Google makes $55m in profits every 2.5 business hours.

Using bottom line of their most recent quarterly income statement[1], and given Google operates 24/7, then that's more like every 4.3 business hours. /s [1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204425000062/goog-20250630.htm#ifaa19c3225a747e6a325733488c42840_22 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204425...

chillfox 1y ago
Did you account for the $55 being AUD, and the income statement being in USD?
- godelski 1y ago
  Shockingly that looks to be really close. Just going with the gp's number's 55m AUD -> 35.87 USD (35.87/55)4.3 = 2.8 tldr: avazhi was right

mhh__ 1y ago

Good deal, search and YouTube are both pretty good

quantummagic 1y ago
That really misses the point. That is, fines do nothing if they are a rounding error on revenue.
ulfw 1y ago
If they were that good, why would Google have to waste money pre-installing them as defaults?
- throwawayxcmz 1y ago
  Because most people can't even change the search engine even if they wanted to. Whatever Google is the best search engine or not, pre-installing is a different problem.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  To keep somebody else from doing that. Now they don't have to because nobody can.

senectus1 1y ago

here is hoping that the penalty means a whole lot less than the precedance... They have now set a "bar" for acceptable behaviour... the 55million is just a "you've been put on notice"

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

CobrastanJorji 1y ago

If Google has 5 billion users, that's about 5 cents per user per day.

petesergeant 1y ago

Sure, but how much of that is from this deal? The goal isn’t to stop Google from doing business, it’s to make this behaviour unprofitable with a little wrist slap too. And also a shot across the bow that if they continue to do it it’ll be enforced much more strongly.

throwawayxcmz 1y ago
That is a bit silly. The goal is to make anti-competitive and all negative conduct net-negative, not just unprofitable when caught. Otherwise, it is like a millions of dollars to none gambling, profits no one caught you, a slap on the wrist if you got caught. Not useful.
- mcmoor 1y ago
  The sane calculaltion is to make the fine amount equals to (loss to society or profit to corporation) / (chance of getting caught). In some cases, I guess it can be argued that chance of getting caught is so small that the fine should bankrupt someone, but still we should not do it arbitrarily just because the target is a big corporation.
  - thfuran 1y ago
    Surely the punishment should be more than just break even.
  - _Algernon_ 1y ago
    Add a multiplier so that doing the activity is discouraged, not just neutral in terms of expected value.

SwtCyber 1y ago

Exactly. When you frame it like that, the fine goes from “headline punishment” to “cost of doing business.”