7 ms·

Google gets away almost scot-free in US search antitrust case

185 points by CrankyBear 1y ago

CursedSilicon 1y ago
The spray painted king sure did kick up a big fuss and then immediately let them go without a second thought As they say, "TACO" (Trump Always Chickens Out)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
SilverElfin 1y ago
Pretty disappointing and sad. The reign of unrestrained megacorps continues.
- freediver 1y ago
  Only if people keep using them. But user agency is still a thing - and there are alternatives ;)
  - lillecarl 1y ago
    That's the problem with megacorps, people can't just switch. Technical people could, can and do. "Normal users" will use what the broligarchy wants them to use.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - JustExAWS 1y ago
      And how hard is it to switch from Google?
      - lillecarl 1y ago
        If you're an Apple user, hard. If you're an Android user, borderline impossible.
        raw_anon_1111 1y ago
        As an Apple user - which I am - name one service that Google has that I can’t switch away from? If you buy a device whose operating system is developed and marketed by Google, why would you have any expectation to be able to switch from Google? And Android doesn’t even have 50% market share in the US so it’s definitely not a monopoly.
        lillecarl 1y ago
        YouTube, adsense, search, gmail. Not impossible, but very hard for many.
        raw_anon_1111 1y ago
        I don’t need YouTube, I have 1Blocker to block ads, I use ChatGPT for search and there are plenty of other mail providers - including Apple’s own.
        lillecarl 1y ago
        What do you work with? The initial comment was never about what someone in the industry can and can't do, most people browse the web without an adblocker.
        raw_anon_1111 1y ago
        Almost a third of users use Adblockers. https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users I’m almost sure that a third of the world’s population is not “in the industry”
  - tremon 1y ago
    Pray tell, what options for avoiding an unconstrained megacorp do I have when buying a smartphone?
    - bitpush 1y ago
      I mean, building a smart phone is freaking hard. I cant say, 'gosh, I want to fly in a plane that is not made by the megacorps of Boeing & Airbus' I'd like to fly in a Logitech made airplane. Yeah, no. Some things are hard, and only some companies (at a certain scale) can do it.
      - tremon 1y ago
        Even aerospace has more competition than smartphones: Embraer, Bombardier, Sukhoi, Antonov, Comac, and HAL -- to name just a few alternatives in passenger aviation. And there used to be a lot more manufacturers in Europe and the US as well, before the biggest capital went on a buying spree. But you seem to be agreeing with me. I was responding to this comment: > user agency is still a thing - and there are alternatives Would you say that was an accurate and realistic comment?
    - dbbk 1y ago
      Is this a serious question? Android has no end of generic OEMs you can pick from, that have no Google software.
      - tremon 1y ago
        You do realize that Android is Google software, right? But if you can name a few vendors that are actually shipping AOSP instead of Google's proprietary tree, I'll be sure to evaluate them. Of all these generic OEMs you're thinking of, how many do not integrate with Google's Play Store? The only one I know of is Huawei, but that's just another unconstrained megacorp to avoid.
ktosobcy 1y ago
And at the same time behive mind here absurdly complain where others countries/unions want to reign the BigTech monopoly. I kinda wish the EU would kick out google/facebok/x. It would hurt in the short term but would be way better in the long term… And as the things look - US administration is incapable ot curbing their cancerish monopolies…
- EasyMark 1y ago
  In most of these convos I usually see both sides with it being more heavily weighted to being corpo-friendly, but certainly individuals who are tired of monopolies and manipulations by oligopolies. So that's hardly a "beehive mind"
dzonga 1y ago
now people suddenly realize why "economics" was referred to as "political economy" when people started studying these things. unfair maybe on consumers (google customers ie those who pay google, not those who use google products) but a very good and pragmatic decision by the U.S gvt. let your homegrown champions stay strong and keep getting stronger. because the alternative if Google got broken up, a foreign competitor would replace google not a homegrown one. markets don't work the way libertarians think.
- pyrale 1y ago
  > let your homegrown champions stay strong and keep getting stronger. ...Until they start getting banned abroad because your government openly tries to manipulate election in ally countries. And once that happens, you're perpetually weaker and your reputation is done for a century. People arguing for this kind of hard power are just too weak-minded to understand the extent and strength of US' historical soft power. > markets don't work the way libertarians think. Well, if you keep pushing down that line, markets won't work at all, and welcome back to 19th century's gunboat policy, except people have nukes now.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
siwakotisaurav 1y ago
Antitrust in US seems more and more of a joke for every new one. First few literally broke apart big companies, then we have Microsoft with “just don’t make IE default browser” and now basically nothing for google, forget selling off chrome now, not even banned from making search deals, just “maybe in a few years perhaps reconsider the search deals? Totally non binding tho”
- thfuran 1y ago
  Google should be forced to spin off advertising.
  - bitpush 1y ago
    This is the kind of knee-jerk reaction that causes lawsuits to fail. There's always nuance, and if you're not willing to be detailed, dont be surprised when things dont go your way.
    - thfuran 1y ago
      That's the nuanced compromise. What should really happen is statutorily banning accepting remuneration for displaying or delivering third-party advertisement.
      - bitpush 1y ago
        > What should really happen is statutorily banning accepting remuneration for displaying or delivering third-party advertisement For Google, or for everyone? Like Apple shouldnt be allowed by get money for Ads on AppStore?
        thfuran 1y ago
        Everyone. It wouldn't be legal to make the law only apply to Google in any case.
        1y ago
nashashmi 1y ago
I’m still scratching my head how chrome and android divestment will help search business competition.
- Coffeewine 1y ago
  Presumably other search companies will be on a more even footing with google with regards to what they know about you to sell to advertisers if google doesn't also have your complete search history and a complete history of everything you do on your phone.
- danans 1y ago
  Instead of the blunt hammer of disinvestment of brands, the government should be putting limits on Big Tech's ability to lock consumers and business into their platforms, whether via exclusive search deals, preventing alternative app stores, or hardware-tied communication networks. Those practices are ultimately what harms consumer choice. This decision only seems to address the first of those. It seems that Big Tech's ingratiation of itself to the current administration using money and lent "credibility" is yielding their desired slaps on the wrists when a spanking was justified by the harm they have done to consumers.
- EasyMark 1y ago
  Chrome is the most popular browser, if you disconnect that then you cut off google's guaranteed control of the default search engine. That's just a hunch though. Same with Android which is the most popular mobile OS in the world.
  - bitpush 1y ago
    Lots of people use Google through non-Chrome browsers. For instance, on iOS the dominant browser is Safari. What makes you think an independent "chrome" browser wont put Google Search as the default search engine?
  - blasphemers 1y ago
    Microsoft has the most used operating system in the world with a default browser that defaults search to Bing. How is that working out? Being a default doesn't matter when the other options are better and easy to switch to.
ApolloFortyNine 1y ago
In my opinion, the search 'monopoly' is just not the best poster child for antitrust cases in the US. Perhaps the US is too lax on antitrust, but if you, literally anyone reading this, can stop using Google search on every device you own in the next 5 minutes, I just can't see that as a monopoly. Perhaps another word and legislation is required. You can't even argue the network effect like you can with chat apps or social networks. You can literally cut Google search from your life forever before your lunch break is over.
- airspresso 1y ago
  Cutting Google accounts out of your life, however, is an entirely different undertaking that would take much longer and have a big impact on how you use the web.
  - bitpush 1y ago
    I dont understand. I can browse the internet using a non-Google computer, use a non-Google browser, go to a non-Google website, use a non-Google programming language etc etc. Nobody, including Google, is stopping you from doing that. Note, this is different from actual monopoly of railways (I have to use Central Pacific Railroad) or ISP (My city only has Comcast) or electricity (If I want electricity, I have to use PG&E). The barometer is whether there's meaningful alternative. Can I do X without the $company in question = not a monopoly.
    - noosphr 1y ago
      >Note, this is different from actual monopoly of railways You can ride a horse. Ergo, not a monopoly. >ISP (My city only has Comcast) You've got starlink. Not a monopoly.
      - JustExAWS 1y ago
        Sounds like a local problem. Even my parent’s small town in south GA has a choice between AT&T Fiber with symmetric 1GB up/down and the cable company. > You can ride a horse. Ergo, not a monopoly. Are you really saying that there is no other search engine you can use besides Google?
LarryDarrell 1y ago
The writing was on the wall when Kamala Harris wouldn't commit to keeping Lina Khan at the FTC. We had some soft Anti-Trust action for the first time in decades, and the Trusts responded. If we get the chance to try again, we should be more clear eyed about what we are up against. I've de-Googled my life as best I can, but I know how little it actually matters. Now that Google is clearly on the path of closing up Android, I hope the Linux phone effort gets reinvigorated.
- thewebguyd 1y ago
  Unfortunately I don't think we're going to get the chance to try again. This, and Apple's upcoming case which they'll probably get off free as well, was our chance. These companies are now even more emboldened, and with market caps bigger than the GDP of most countries, there is no one to stop them. Every politician has a number, and this administration has shown that open bribes are legal and expected. Good luck prosecuting any big tech when they can pay billions of dollars to the administration to make anything go away.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    It does not make any sense to compare market capitalization to GDP. GDP is a measurement of flow within a certain timespan, market capitalization is a guess by the market of the total potential at a specific point in time.
- daveguy 1y ago
  Wait, are you trying to blame this decision on Kamala Harris not pre-committing to keeping an anti-trust advocate in the FTC? I'm not sure if you noticed, but Kamala Harris is not president and never made these decisions about the FTC. I guarantee you her decisions would have been night and day better than the fraud currently inhabiting the whitehouse. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting your words.
  - decremental 1y ago
    [dead]
dizhn 1y ago
I remember back in the day the case against Microsoft looked huge too. I don't remember the details but it "felt like" Bush Jr got elected president and that whole thing went away.
- lapcat 1y ago
  There's a reason nobody remembers: the DoJ announced it was no longer seeking the breakup of Microsoft on September 6, 2001. A few days later, 9/11 occurred, and all other news was erased. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, by the way, just stating the facts.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ChrisArchitect 1y ago
Anything here in this blog/linkspam that hasn't already been said last week? More discussion: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108548 The worst possible antitrust outcome https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45120050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45120050
rudimentary_phy 1y ago
I think the AI reasoning in the ruling has a little bit of truth to it. I have found myself using search quite a bit less. I'm still not sure what that means in the long run, but it does feel like times are changing. When I do use Google, I end up using that crappy Gemini blurb at the top a lot more than I would like to admit as well, so they are definitely still prime contenders in the AI space even before looking at the Gemini platform itself. Even with all the things it gets wrong (the model in its search is definitely one of the worst), it is often more useful than not to me, and helps point me in the right direction more quickly. This could all be just another repeat of the browser wars where Chrome overtook Firefox, but it isn't yet set in stone. Google definitely seems a little bit worried about the future with AI.
xnx 1y ago
Would have much preferred the US spent its time fixing the Comcast/Xfinity monopoly.
OutOfHere 1y ago
Something tells me that Google and Meta get backroom deals by "virtue of" allowing their apps and Android to easily be hacked by governments. In particular, by keeping WhatsApp vulnerable, keeping Google Messages vulnerable, stopping the release of AOSP patches, etc.
catigula 1y ago
Any company that receives special federal protections should also be held partially or entirely in trust-ownership by the US government, not shareholders.
devinprater 1y ago
Lol try Bing. I use Kagi on MS Edge. Today Windows updated, and I could only choose to set Microsoft Edge recommended defaults. It disabled my Kagi extension so I had to go re-enable it to get my actually useful search engine back.

185 points by CrankyBear 1y ago

The spray painted king sure did kick up a big fuss and then immediately let them go without a second thought As they say, "TACO" (Trump Always Chickens Out)

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

SilverElfin 1y ago

Pretty disappointing and sad. The reign of unrestrained megacorps continues.

freediver 1y ago
Only if people keep using them. But user agency is still a thing - and there are alternatives ;)
- lillecarl 1y ago
  That's the problem with megacorps, people can't just switch. Technical people could, can and do. "Normal users" will use what the broligarchy wants them to use.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - JustExAWS 1y ago
    And how hard is it to switch from Google?
    - lillecarl 1y ago
      If you're an Apple user, hard. If you're an Android user, borderline impossible.
      - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
        As an Apple user - which I am - name one service that Google has that I can’t switch away from? If you buy a device whose operating system is developed and marketed by Google, why would you have any expectation to be able to switch from Google? And Android doesn’t even have 50% market share in the US so it’s definitely not a monopoly.
        lillecarl 1y ago
        YouTube, adsense, search, gmail. Not impossible, but very hard for many.
        raw_anon_1111 1y ago
        I don’t need YouTube, I have 1Blocker to block ads, I use ChatGPT for search and there are plenty of other mail providers - including Apple’s own.
        lillecarl 1y ago
        What do you work with? The initial comment was never about what someone in the industry can and can't do, most people browse the web without an adblocker.
        raw_anon_1111 1y ago
        Almost a third of users use Adblockers. https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users I’m almost sure that a third of the world’s population is not “in the industry”
- tremon 1y ago
  Pray tell, what options for avoiding an unconstrained megacorp do I have when buying a smartphone?
  - bitpush 1y ago
    I mean, building a smart phone is freaking hard. I cant say, 'gosh, I want to fly in a plane that is not made by the megacorps of Boeing & Airbus' I'd like to fly in a Logitech made airplane. Yeah, no. Some things are hard, and only some companies (at a certain scale) can do it.
    - tremon 1y ago
      Even aerospace has more competition than smartphones: Embraer, Bombardier, Sukhoi, Antonov, Comac, and HAL -- to name just a few alternatives in passenger aviation. And there used to be a lot more manufacturers in Europe and the US as well, before the biggest capital went on a buying spree. But you seem to be agreeing with me. I was responding to this comment: > user agency is still a thing - and there are alternatives Would you say that was an accurate and realistic comment?
  - dbbk 1y ago
    Is this a serious question? Android has no end of generic OEMs you can pick from, that have no Google software.
    - tremon 1y ago
      You do realize that Android is Google software, right? But if you can name a few vendors that are actually shipping AOSP instead of Google's proprietary tree, I'll be sure to evaluate them. Of all these generic OEMs you're thinking of, how many do not integrate with Google's Play Store? The only one I know of is Huawei, but that's just another unconstrained megacorp to avoid.

ktosobcy 1y ago

And at the same time behive mind here absurdly complain where others countries/unions want to reign the BigTech monopoly. I kinda wish the EU would kick out google/facebok/x. It would hurt in the short term but would be way better in the long term… And as the things look - US administration is incapable ot curbing their cancerish monopolies…

EasyMark 1y ago
In most of these convos I usually see both sides with it being more heavily weighted to being corpo-friendly, but certainly individuals who are tired of monopolies and manipulations by oligopolies. So that's hardly a "beehive mind"

dzonga 1y ago

now people suddenly realize why "economics" was referred to as "political economy" when people started studying these things. unfair maybe on consumers (google customers ie those who pay google, not those who use google products) but a very good and pragmatic decision by the U.S gvt. let your homegrown champions stay strong and keep getting stronger. because the alternative if Google got broken up, a foreign competitor would replace google not a homegrown one. markets don't work the way libertarians think.

pyrale 1y ago
> let your homegrown champions stay strong and keep getting stronger. ...Until they start getting banned abroad because your government openly tries to manipulate election in ally countries. And once that happens, you're perpetually weaker and your reputation is done for a century. People arguing for this kind of hard power are just too weak-minded to understand the extent and strength of US' historical soft power. > markets don't work the way libertarians think. Well, if you keep pushing down that line, markets won't work at all, and welcome back to 19th century's gunboat policy, except people have nukes now.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

siwakotisaurav 1y ago

Antitrust in US seems more and more of a joke for every new one. First few literally broke apart big companies, then we have Microsoft with “just don’t make IE default browser” and now basically nothing for google, forget selling off chrome now, not even banned from making search deals, just “maybe in a few years perhaps reconsider the search deals? Totally non binding tho”

thfuran 1y ago
Google should be forced to spin off advertising.
- bitpush 1y ago
  This is the kind of knee-jerk reaction that causes lawsuits to fail. There's always nuance, and if you're not willing to be detailed, dont be surprised when things dont go your way.
  - thfuran 1y ago
    That's the nuanced compromise. What should really happen is statutorily banning accepting remuneration for displaying or delivering third-party advertisement.
    - bitpush 1y ago
      > What should really happen is statutorily banning accepting remuneration for displaying or delivering third-party advertisement For Google, or for everyone? Like Apple shouldnt be allowed by get money for Ads on AppStore?
      - thfuran 1y ago
        Everyone. It wouldn't be legal to make the law only apply to Google in any case.
        1y ago

nashashmi 1y ago

I’m still scratching my head how chrome and android divestment will help search business competition.

Coffeewine 1y ago
Presumably other search companies will be on a more even footing with google with regards to what they know about you to sell to advertisers if google doesn't also have your complete search history and a complete history of everything you do on your phone.
danans 1y ago
Instead of the blunt hammer of disinvestment of brands, the government should be putting limits on Big Tech's ability to lock consumers and business into their platforms, whether via exclusive search deals, preventing alternative app stores, or hardware-tied communication networks. Those practices are ultimately what harms consumer choice. This decision only seems to address the first of those. It seems that Big Tech's ingratiation of itself to the current administration using money and lent "credibility" is yielding their desired slaps on the wrists when a spanking was justified by the harm they have done to consumers.
EasyMark 1y ago
Chrome is the most popular browser, if you disconnect that then you cut off google's guaranteed control of the default search engine. That's just a hunch though. Same with Android which is the most popular mobile OS in the world.
- bitpush 1y ago
  Lots of people use Google through non-Chrome browsers. For instance, on iOS the dominant browser is Safari. What makes you think an independent "chrome" browser wont put Google Search as the default search engine?
- blasphemers 1y ago
  Microsoft has the most used operating system in the world with a default browser that defaults search to Bing. How is that working out? Being a default doesn't matter when the other options are better and easy to switch to.

ApolloFortyNine 1y ago

In my opinion, the search 'monopoly' is just not the best poster child for antitrust cases in the US. Perhaps the US is too lax on antitrust, but if you, literally anyone reading this, can stop using Google search on every device you own in the next 5 minutes, I just can't see that as a monopoly. Perhaps another word and legislation is required. You can't even argue the network effect like you can with chat apps or social networks. You can literally cut Google search from your life forever before your lunch break is over.

airspresso 1y ago
Cutting Google accounts out of your life, however, is an entirely different undertaking that would take much longer and have a big impact on how you use the web.
- bitpush 1y ago
  I dont understand. I can browse the internet using a non-Google computer, use a non-Google browser, go to a non-Google website, use a non-Google programming language etc etc. Nobody, including Google, is stopping you from doing that. Note, this is different from actual monopoly of railways (I have to use Central Pacific Railroad) or ISP (My city only has Comcast) or electricity (If I want electricity, I have to use PG&E). The barometer is whether there's meaningful alternative. Can I do X without the $company in question = not a monopoly.
  - noosphr 1y ago
    >Note, this is different from actual monopoly of railways You can ride a horse. Ergo, not a monopoly. >ISP (My city only has Comcast) You've got starlink. Not a monopoly.
    - JustExAWS 1y ago
      Sounds like a local problem. Even my parent’s small town in south GA has a choice between AT&T Fiber with symmetric 1GB up/down and the cable company. > You can ride a horse. Ergo, not a monopoly. Are you really saying that there is no other search engine you can use besides Google?

LarryDarrell 1y ago

The writing was on the wall when Kamala Harris wouldn't commit to keeping Lina Khan at the FTC. We had some soft Anti-Trust action for the first time in decades, and the Trusts responded. If we get the chance to try again, we should be more clear eyed about what we are up against. I've de-Googled my life as best I can, but I know how little it actually matters. Now that Google is clearly on the path of closing up Android, I hope the Linux phone effort gets reinvigorated.

thewebguyd 1y ago
Unfortunately I don't think we're going to get the chance to try again. This, and Apple's upcoming case which they'll probably get off free as well, was our chance. These companies are now even more emboldened, and with market caps bigger than the GDP of most countries, there is no one to stop them. Every politician has a number, and this administration has shown that open bribes are legal and expected. Good luck prosecuting any big tech when they can pay billions of dollars to the administration to make anything go away.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  It does not make any sense to compare market capitalization to GDP. GDP is a measurement of flow within a certain timespan, market capitalization is a guess by the market of the total potential at a specific point in time.
daveguy 1y ago
Wait, are you trying to blame this decision on Kamala Harris not pre-committing to keeping an anti-trust advocate in the FTC? I'm not sure if you noticed, but Kamala Harris is not president and never made these decisions about the FTC. I guarantee you her decisions would have been night and day better than the fraud currently inhabiting the whitehouse. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting your words.
- decremental 1y ago
  [dead]

dizhn 1y ago

I remember back in the day the case against Microsoft looked huge too. I don't remember the details but it "felt like" Bush Jr got elected president and that whole thing went away.

lapcat 1y ago
There's a reason nobody remembers: the DoJ announced it was no longer seeking the breakup of Microsoft on September 6, 2001. A few days later, 9/11 occurred, and all other news was erased. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, by the way, just stating the facts.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ChrisArchitect 1y ago

Anything here in this blog/linkspam that hasn't already been said last week? More discussion: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108548 The worst possible antitrust outcome https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45120050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45120050

rudimentary_phy 1y ago

I think the AI reasoning in the ruling has a little bit of truth to it. I have found myself using search quite a bit less. I'm still not sure what that means in the long run, but it does feel like times are changing. When I do use Google, I end up using that crappy Gemini blurb at the top a lot more than I would like to admit as well, so they are definitely still prime contenders in the AI space even before looking at the Gemini platform itself. Even with all the things it gets wrong (the model in its search is definitely one of the worst), it is often more useful than not to me, and helps point me in the right direction more quickly. This could all be just another repeat of the browser wars where Chrome overtook Firefox, but it isn't yet set in stone. Google definitely seems a little bit worried about the future with AI.

xnx 1y ago

Would have much preferred the US spent its time fixing the Comcast/Xfinity monopoly.

OutOfHere 1y ago

Something tells me that Google and Meta get backroom deals by "virtue of" allowing their apps and Android to easily be hacked by governments. In particular, by keeping WhatsApp vulnerable, keeping Google Messages vulnerable, stopping the release of AOSP patches, etc.

catigula 1y ago

Any company that receives special federal protections should also be held partially or entirely in trust-ownership by the US government, not shareholders.

devinprater 1y ago

Lol try Bing. I use Kagi on MS Edge. Today Windows updated, and I could only choose to set Microsoft Edge recommended defaults. It disabled my Kagi extension so I had to go re-enable it to get my actually useful search engine back.