[Emendo]

Antitrust oversight of Google, similiar to what was done to Microsoft in the 2000s, will do more than spinning off any properties from Google.

Google is able to invest in and made Chrome popular using cash from their advertising business, and Chrome's popularity allows Google to shape the web environment for their advertising business. If Google were to lose Google Chrome, there is nothing that would prevent them from directly or indirectly evolving Chromium. If Google is prevented from making a browser, then they could even move the focus of computing away from the web browser with power from their search business.

Therefore, antitrust oversight is required to curb the types of behavior that lead to the antitrust situation in the first place.

[readams]

Google makes the browser because they are profoundly vulnerable otherwise to platform owners demanding payment for access to their platforms. Android exists because Google wanted protection against a Microsoft mobile monopoly that seemed inevitable (of course it turned out to be the Apple mobile monopoly that was the real threat; notice that Google has to pay Apple billions annually for access to their platforms). Internet explorer was a similar threat. Chrome was the response to that threat.

If Google can't influence this, then there will be other platform owners who will the ones with all the margins. A world where Microsoft and Apple just squeeze all the profit out of the internet is not obviously (at least to me) better than one where they can't.

[wyattpeak]

I agree, but feel like this is only a problem because antitrust rulings are blue-moon events. In a healthy system I would expect Google to be restricted from dominating the browser landscape, and in turn Apple from restricting access to their platform.

Market power is a difficult thing to wrangle. There isn't going to be any policy which can't eventually be worked around by some party. The policy has to evolve with the landscape.

[cageface]

That's the thing that makes me uneasy about this. I'm ok with some regulation of Google and perhaps even some kind of breakup. What I don't want to see is regulators picking winners and losers. I'm concerned about Google's control over the web but at least their interested are aligned with the survival of the web and not completely locked down & proprietary platforms like iOS.

[arrosenberg]

If regulators don't get involved, they are still picking winners and losers.

[cageface]

Can't follow the logic there. If I don't jump in the middle of a horse race am I still picking a winner?

[zaarn]

The market Google and Friends are in is not a horse race.

It's more like you know that someone is manipulating the bets on the horse race, possibly even forcing results by paying off the competitors. If you do nothing, you are picking winners (the betting house) and loosers (the betters), if you do something you reverse that.

[arrosenberg]

That's the wrong analogy. Regulators aren't random spectators sitting in the stands, they are the referees. The better analogy would be if you were assigned to monitor the race for violations, and you discovered the winning horse had broken a rule. As the referee, your decision whether or not to enforce the rules has a direct impact on the results. Just so, if regulators choose not to act, they are picking the incumbents as the winners, whether or not that is ideal, best, legal or good.

[chiefalchemist]

I believe the idea is, Google _is_ winning currently. Choosing not to get involved is a choice in favor of that winner.

It's an interesting point. To me it has merit.

[leptons]

Google AMP is bad. Google Pagespeed Insights is bad and misleading. Google has its own agenda for the web, and it doesn't really align with anything but the survival of Google.

[cageface]

I think that goes too far. Google does have an agenda for the web but at least it includes the web. Apple would like nothing better for the entire internet to be locked down and controlled inside its app store. We're better off with Android and Chrome than we would be without them.

[marcthe12]

I hope some pseudo open source components come under non profit with reduced Google control. So other big player have bigger say in stuff Chromium and Android.

[mcny]

> breakup

If you look at the breakup of Ma Bell, I think you’ll doubt the government’s ability to break up a company properly.

[cageface]

I doubt their ability to regulate properly too. But it does seem like the big tech companies have failed to self-regulate.

[andromeduck]

How can they self regulate when government keeps screwing with the incentives?

Did busting kingpins solve the drug problem?

[wyattpeak]

> What I don't want to see is regulators picking winners and losers

I'm not thrilled by the idea either, but I'd prefer it to another round of IE6. When it comes to dealing with monopolies I think you're solidly in the realm of looking for the least bad choice.

[cageface]

I don't think IE6 really compares to Chrome. IE6 froze the web in time and made impossible for standards to evolve. Chrome may be in danger of becoming synonymous with the web but it's hardly standing still. In fact the most common complaint is that it's adding features too quickly and trying to do too much.

[wyattpeak]

IE6 was the most innovative browser of all until it won the race. I don't think we're at the stage yet where we can say if Chrome can be compared or not.

[nwienert]

The features they are adding are often unnecessary and designed to help them further lock down the web, prevent ad blocking, etc.

I’m surprised no ones even noticed that Portals are basically AMP Supercharged to where you’d never leave Google. Truly dystopian future they’re trying to slowly cement.

[srtjstjsj]

If Google, Apple, and MS were prevented from developing web browsers, who would? The mass public wouldn't bother buying a copy of Netscape. We'd likely have skipped over the web entirely and gone right to native app stores for everything, like the bad old days on cell phones.

[KronisLV]

What about the Mozilla Foundation? Or are they also included in this hypothetical?

[CydeWeys]

Most of their revenue comes from Google. In this hypothetical example where the largest tech companies are no longer involved in Web browsers, where would Mozilla's funding come from?

[Zenbit_UX]

Funding would still come from Google to buy there way into the default search engines list. Just because Google loses Chrome in this hypothetical doesn't mean they don't care about search and ads anymore.

[wyattpeak]

I don't recall suggesting they be prevented from developing browsers. I said they should be prevented from dominating the market.

[madeofpalk]

> notice that Google has to pay Apple billions annually for access to their platforms)

uhhhh, doesn't Google pay Apple billions to be the default search engine on iOS? That's not "forced to pay for access", but "choses to make a business deal that costs them billions to make them billions more"

[mjburgess]

Well, consider that if Apple were an open platform, this default would be set by most "for free".

"Forced" here doesn't mean coerced, more in the sense of "forced error"; ie., as a move within a game than an opponent forces you to make.

[dan1234]

Google pay Mozilla too[0], and they're about as open as you can get.

[0]https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/15/21370020/mozilla-google-f...

[mjburgess]

See my comment below. I meant a more general sense of open, maybe "unbiased" or "biased towards their users preferences". ie., where any decision about the platform (including defaults) is left to the users, or defaulted to their clear general preference.

The "issue" is that they are charging for something the users would set themselves, and otherwise, already want.

Google is being "forced" into paying for this only because apple is willing to act against its users preferences, and eg., set a Bing default.

[waon]

> Well, consider that if Apple were an open platform, this default would be set by most "for free".

> If the platform invited the user to set a default, or was "biased towards their user's preferences", as most would select google, google would be the "natural default".

You almost make it sound like defaulting to Google without making people aware of the alternatives is “open” and unbiased.”

[dan1234]

iOS/macOS users can set their own default search engine. Google just know that most people won't change what's set by default.

[hajile]

Paying for access is different than paying for promotion. Mozilla is paid to promote Google as default search engine.

[madeofpalk]

What?

I get that iOS is closed down, but I'm a bit confused how being "open" would resolve the fact that a default search engine for Safari is set? You can still change your search engine on iOS (to one of few the browser ships with, Google, Yahoo, Bing and Duck Duck Go in UK)

Firefox is completely open/open source (isnt it?), yet Google pays Firefox for being the default search engine.

Open vs Closed has nothing to do with this. Google wants to be the default in browsers, and it choses to pay for the luxury.

[mjburgess]

I mean open in a more general sense, not of its source code.

If the platform invited the user to set a default, or was "biased towards their user's preferences", as most would select google, google would be the "natural default".

There is a sort of mild rent-seeking / racketeering in asking google to pay to configure a service Apple provides, to a default Apple's users would chose for themselves.

[wil421]

How does Apple being a closed platform prevent me from choosing my search engine on iOS?

[yoz-y]

Try setting the Safari search engine to Exalead for example.

[Siira]

It's called rent seeking.

[srtjstjsj]

Google pays Apple to advertise their Search Engine in Safari. Google, like every website, gets access to Apple platforms for free via Safari, with no obligation to pay 30% up front nor 30% of any other revenues, be they direct purchases or indirect via ads.

Google is quite fortunate that Apple doesn't block web ads or intercept web payments and charge a platform fee for that.

[deepstack]

what really need to happen with ani-trust is to alter the system politically, monetarily and militarily to prevent oligopoly. oligopoly is pretty much monopoly with theatre piece.

[legulere]

At least it would put Mozilla into a better position.

[switch11]

this is an excellent point

Google pushes Chrome EVERYWHERE

Now that Chrome is the leading browser they are turning off targeting for everyone else, so that only Google has access to target users

The solution is to STOP the monopoly of Search

So that a new thing like Google Chrome can't happen i.e. Search can't be used to take over another space

[henriquez]

Why not split search and AdWords while they’re at it? There are too many perverse incentives created by the combination of Google’s ad monopoly with their search monopoly.

[irrational]

Don’t the ads fund the search engine? If search was its own company, where would its funding come from?

[eitland]

They could sell ad spots like everyone else has to ;-)

[mancerayder]

Why not offer two Googles, one for people who don't mind sifting through three pages of SEO results when they search for actual information, and another subscription that cuts out ads for those willing to shell the cash?

[paulcole]

On average, if you’ve got enough money to pay to not see ads you’re exactly the kind of person who people will pay handsomely to show ads to.

[dannyw]

For example. If you’re looking to refinance a home loan; you’re easily worth $100-$300 of revenue to Google; with a decent number of searches and clicks (eg “refinance”, “mortgage interest calculators”, etc)

[CydeWeys]

Advertising. Advertising companies (one of which would be Google Ads) would pay them for access to add displayed on Search.

[shajznnckfke]

If Ex-Google Ads has the best ad marketplace and can use the space most efficiently, they will bid the most and buy most of the space. So we will still have Ex-Google Ads on Google searches, but they will be owned separately. What difference will it make?

[CydeWeys]

They would be owned, operated, and governed separately, and Search could have the different ad providers compete amongst each other to provide the best rates. Add it all up together and it'd be a huge difference. Each of the two separate companies would have separate management and a fiduciary duty to maximize their own profit independently, even at the expense of the other.

Consider that Verizon and AT&T, the two largest mobile phone providers in the US, are both Baby Bells resulting from the break-up of Bell Telephone Company in an anti-trust action. They compete strongly against each other, in a way that would absolutely not be true if they were still the same company.

[nl]

> Now that Chrome is the leading browser they are turning off targeting for everyone else, so that only Google has access to target users

What - in detail - does this mean?

Because it doesn't appear true in anyway I can see. I can still buy ads exactly the same way targeting the same characteristics I've always been able to.

[dannyw]

They are blocking third party cookies. This doesn’t impact Google because they track visits directly from chrome://history

[nnt38]

Something you as a user can disable.

[Waterluvian]

You reminded me how impressive it is, in a way, that Google made the Chrome play knowing it would take years and years to bear any fruit. I’d be interested to learn internally how that got incentivized and managed.

[Lammy]

> similar to what was done to Microsoft in the 2000s

Meaning there will be a ton of news about their case but the whole thing will disappear in a puff of settlement-smoke ten months after an incoming president takes office?

[Natsu]

As someone who managed to be a class member to multiple state-level anti-trust actions against Microsoft, I'm still disgusted how one of the class representatives sold us out.

I remember trying to figure out how to intervene as a non-lawyer and eventually giving up without filing anything. After giving a pitiful offer of a few dollars per class member, they had it such that the rest would be donated to the schools (Apple's last stronghold at the time) and could only be used for new, whole computers, not peripherals or other stuff. This was such a bogus restriction to put on the money that it made my jaw drop. But not being a lawyer, all I knew was that a pro se filing was likely to be ignored.

If I had to do it over again, I would love to have argued about how the settlement was calculated to create a new anti-trust injury and would have requested relief by having a guardian ad litem for the class, after rejecting the current offer. Still not sure it would've gone anywhere, but maybe it would've at least pushed back at the nonsense.

[srtjstjsj]

You can opt out of a class and you can ask a lawyer to file a new lawsuit for the new injury.

[Natsu]

Yeah, but then there's no one left in the class, essentially. What am I going to do in court as someone with a single copy of Windows 95 and Windows 98?

[roel_v]

"What am I going to do in court as someone with a single copy of Windows 95 and Windows 98?"

Entertain the rest of us, of course!

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

"If Google is prevented from making a browser, then they could even move the focus of computing away from the web browser..."

If that ever happened, I think that would be a vast improvement. There is much more to the internet than just the web and a handful of ports used by browsers.

Internet advertising mainly lives on the web; it's maninly delivered through those ports opened for the web/apps.

[torben-friis]

Internet advertising also lives in the YouTube apps, social networks like instagram, or pop ups in free apps, to name a few.

And those are way more annoying, since they're baked into thected by ad blockers...

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

And they use the same ports a web browser does. The ones that are always open on all networks. Because the internet is so focused on the web browser.