[soylentnewsorg]

I didn't read the whole document linked in the tweet, but no.

This is equivalent quite simply to someone putting out an inferior product - for example a phone that needs to scan a government issue photo id, so the phone maker - not your carrier - can identify you. There are people who don't care, and they are the target market. There are people who laugh at it and just buy something else. They are not the target market.

They did not try to change the web into anything. They tried and to some extent did change their browser into an inferior product, and change their ad network into an inferior product. Websites placing ads and ad exchanges are free to not use google's products. Web users are free not to use their product like their browser. I use google translate - that's about it. Not even maps, since heremaps is and always was simply superior.

They also tried to change regulations to suit them better. But they are allowed. Trying to change here simply means making their opinion known to the people who make the rules. They didn't bribe anyone. They emailed pdf files describing their ridiculous point of view.

The takeaway is they are a corporation with inferior products, who will do what's legal to make more money. Most people don't care. Some people are free to choose other products.

Azure and AWS for example completely destroy GCP This is because google treats the people who do care about google's inferior points, like they're a phone user who doesn't care if they're tracked. So google can't get any marketshare there for their inferior products. Despite GCP from a purely technical aspect being superior. When packaged with the worst customer service available, and the risk of losing all your data and backups permanently w/o notification, because you mistakenly hire a guy who is known to google as a hacker? They're not even a player for any customer that plans to be successful long-term.

It's a choice, pick what you want to do and who you want to do. Google is not hiding who they are. Or doing anything wrong. They just make inferior products. But VHS won the format battle.

[simulo]

> They also tried to change regulations to suit them better. But they are allowed.

They might be allowed. But just because it is legal does not mean that it is right, particularly as they themselves are "making their opinion known to the people who make the rules" and can excert economic pressure on lawmakers. And while their products might indeed be inferior – if they place their products as default on their own systems (android), buy themselves default placements on other products (Safari, Firefox…) many customers who do not try out all the options only use google’s products. And I can't blame them for not trying out all alternatives.

[soylentnewsorg]

It absolutely is right, and a right. Corps aren't people, but there are people submitting the documents to the legislators. There is zero difference between this and a study on climate change being submitted to the EPA.

Law is not just for right and wrong. Most laws and regulations are to further people's interests, like the google people submitting the documents. This is called freedom of speech. Legislators are free to not read them.

> excert economic pressure on lawmakers

I don't think this means what you think it means. To exert economic pressure on a lawmaker (a person) means to make them to personally lose money in some way. This is a pretty grave accusation - it means "if you don't agree with us, we are going to damage you financially. Google has not being caught attacking people financially, or threatening them, or even paying off lawmakers thus far.

Google is also allowed to place their products in their own systems by default (not android, which is open source). If you buy a Samsung phone, Samsung picks the defaults - some are google, some are Samsung, some may be the carrier you bought the phone from. Of course if google makes the Pixel, it's going to have google's defaults. Are you surprised when you buy an LG TV, LG also makes the remote, despite plenty of other brands of remotes available for that TV and others?

As far as buying themselves default search placement within other products? Have you been to the grocery store? Did you know every brand you see there pays for better shelf space and placement?

There is literally zero wrong with any of what is going on here. Plenty of bad things about google. This ain't one of them. This is them purposely damaging their product for some of the possible market. Which is their choice. They are not "gimping the web" - they are simply making their own products worse. If google's search wasn't a good default choice in a firefox (it is), firefox would take google's payoff, decline in use and lose marketshare, and in lose turn google's money since they don't have market share anymore. And firefox is free to do that.