Justice Department to File Antitrust Suit Against Google

https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-to-file-long-awaited-antitrust-suit-against-google-11603195203

by grej • 6 years ago

91 38 6 years ago

wsj.com

llacb47• 6 years ago

Change the URL to https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-to-file-long... (no paywall)

DSingularity• 6 years ago

And what about Facebook? Or do they get a pass since they allies of the Republican Party.

question0004• 6 years ago

Remember Hacker NewS forbids saying anything against the R Party, remember to to use code words next time.

For example: "Zuckerberg is cozy with conservative interests" is fine, but using the R word angers people members of the R party.

mattmcknight2• 6 years ago

"Google owns or controls search distribution channels accounting for about 80% of search queries in the U.S., the officials said. That means Google’s competitors can’t get a meaningful number of search queries and build a scale needed to compete"

This doesn't seem right, technically speaking. I see estimates that globally they process 2 trillion searches per year (70,000 per second). 20% of that, 14,000 searches per second, seems a meaningful number of searches to scale to.

"The government will allege that Google uses billions of dollars collected from advertisements on its platform to pay mobile-phone manufacturers, carriers and browsers, like Apple Inc.’s Safari, to maintain Google as their preset, default search engine."

If the claim is that they are forcing people to use Google Search, reducing that 80% is going to require getting people to choose something else. The way that reducing the market share that is supposed to come from defaults has happened in the past is by forcing users choose which product to use instead. However, I posit that in this case a lot of the 20% comes from situations where there is a non-Google default. For example, one common request from people who notice is how to get Windows/Cortana to use Google instead of Bing. https://www.howtogeek.com/226638/make-the-windows-10-start-m...

I would do some user research about what people want to use before assuming that a massive lawsuit with a remedy intended to give them a choice doesn't result in the same situation. My (small scale) research indicates that more than 80% of people want to use Google.

sushicalculus2• 6 years ago

20% of that, 14,000 searches per second, seems a meaningful number of searches to scale to.

This is only part of the story. 20% to me is not really meaningful. More importantly, Google wields power to affect the 80%. 20% is a paltry alternative.

mattmcknight2• 6 years ago

For scale, the % doesn't matter. The implication was that there wasn't enough data to drive ad serving.

UncleMeat• 6 years ago

But the argument is that 20% isn’t enough to sustain another business. This is plainly false.

mrkramer• 6 years ago

And so it begins.

CogentHedgehog2• 6 years ago

Google definitely needs anti-trust scrutiny, but I find the timing suspicious. It smells like a politically-motivated hit job, especially since Facebook didn't get a suit as well.

sushicalculus2• 6 years ago

but I find the timing suspicious.

This has been in work for over a year. This is not suspicious to anyone that's seen the headlines

CogentHedgehog2• 6 years ago

The Trump administration has been laying the groundwork for this action for a while, yes. That doesn't mean it's any less suspicious that they actually file suit right before the election.

dragonwriter2• 6 years ago

It's been transparently motivated by partisan politics the whole time, too, but even if it wasn’t that wouldn't stop the timing of the actual filing from being suspect.

smileysteve• 6 years ago

The department will allege that Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc.

This is the part I was looking for. Of the tech companies, Alphabet has been the most proactive of creating a business of businesses to avoid antitrust.

dragonwriter2• 6 years ago

Of the tech companies, Alphabet has been the most proactive of creating a business of businesses to avoid antitrust.

A business of businesses isn't a way to avoid antitrust, its just a trust.

vthallam• 6 years ago

What would be the goal of this Antitrust? Search seems to be the major theme, how do you break up search? Even if you break up search from Android, the ads revenue from Search is enough to pay another alphabet company(Android) to make Google search default.

Even if you give options to users, 90% of them won't care.

pfortuny• 6 years ago

Not that I am pro-nationalization, but if a service can only be truly supported by one actor, it would be better to have it be supported as a publicly owned company or a non-profit foundation. If this happens to worsen the product, then maybe an opportunity arises for competition...

Just a non-thought out idea, but the problem with private monopolies is that they are usually unaccountable and irresponsible.

sm0ss117• 6 years ago

Yea, if something is a Natural monopoly, which search almost certainly is, then it should be a publicly owned utility.

SpaceL10n• 6 years ago

If we can't get the internet to be classified as a utility, we certainly won't get search to be classified as a utility. Even though, imo, both should be. They are central to everyone's lives. That's a utility.

daniel-s7• 6 years ago

Unless granted by a government, monopolies don't exist in free markets. There is no definition that a rational person could ever use to differentiate between a monopoly or otherwise. This is no different to the Cosa Nostra, a shakedown like any other: Google needs to pay their dues and kiss the ring.

Edit: a lot of people disagreeing with me/don't like what I had to say. At least step up to the challenge: provide a rational definition for a monopoly.

TheAdamAndChe2• 6 years ago

This is wrong. There are markets that naturally lead to monopolies, namely companies and businesses that have large upfront costs, relatively high risk, and small profit margins.

A good example is the airline manufacturing industry. It's extremely difficult for new companies to get into airplane manufacturing because it's difficult and there isn't much incentive to do so.

daniel-s7• 6 years ago

You haven't even said what a monopoly is, then gone ahead to explain why they must exist.

question0004• 6 years ago

Free markets seem to have like a metaphysical power to people who hold the above opinion.

Even if the above was true, wouldn't someone in a free market be free to form a monopoly if they wanted too? What would prevent them? Other people trying to form a monopoly? How can you assume they wouldn't just give up? It's basically just a faith based belief that someone will always be around to compete against the monopolists. Surely the average citizen has something better to do.

daniel-s7• 6 years ago

If you want to claim that something exists you need a definition of what that thing is, which everyone seems to be missing.

Your argument kind of boils down to, "why would there be competition in the marketplace?" which flies in the face of most fundamental ideas of economics. While you might be correct, you kind of need to be more correct than 200 years of economic thought.

sauwan• 6 years ago

Unless granted by a government, monopolies don't exist in free markets.

Well, if we're going to make unsubstantiated claims:

That's entirely unfounded and demonstrably false.

daniel-s7• 6 years ago

You responded to me with a 6 word, unsubstantiated, sentence that I'm wrong and just left it at that.

davvolun2• 6 years ago

Regarding your edit

Unless granted by a government, monopolies don't exist in free markets.

You made that claim, it's your responsibility to prove it first, not everyone else's to disprove it after you've made a flat, unsubstantiated claim.

What is your definition of "monopoly" and "free market"?

If I define "free market" as any market which is incapable of forming a monopoly, then yes, your statement is trivially true. But it naturally dis-includes a wide variety of markets that actually exist and may actually have monopolies.

daniel-s7• 6 years ago

If you want to say that something exists you need to define that thing first. Otherwise anything that follows couldn't possible be rational on account of logic.

I also refer to my other comment in this thread (long, I refer to Apple and Epic) about why a definition of monopoly is necessary and also impossible.

I will add the exception of a government granted monopoly. In that case the government passes a law in which a company or whomever has the unique privilege to supply a product to the market, the precise definition of which will be given in the government's law.

Whereas you have not given a definition of a monopoly I will define a free market as the array of voluntary transactions between people/groups in a society, absent any threat of violence.

kirubakaran• 6 years ago

More comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24836520

tssva• 6 years ago

One of the issues the government raises is Google paying to be the default search engine in browsers. If the government is successful in this suit I expect one of the results will be Google being prevented from continuing this behavior.

Get ready for Mozilla to have to make more cuts and Firefox to fade even more. Mozilla may be able to get Bing or someone else to pay to be their default browser engine but with Google being blocked from competing the amount others will offer for the small market share Firefox now occupies will be far less than Google has been paying.

voisin2• 6 years ago

Maybe relying on a single customer to pay to be default wasn’t the wisest strategy?

Justice Department to File Antitrust Suit Against Google

Related Stories