[Fyrezerk]

These rulings for a company of Google's stature/importance are always funny to me. How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day?

Monopolistic breakups that serve the public's best interest are one thing. But how many people actually care that Google might represent a monopoly? Does it actually affect people negatively if the result is a positive online user experience? The world runs on Google and forcing that to change seems like a step backwards at first glance.

[hfkwer]

> How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day?

Always this same old tune. Do you realize how outlandish and naive it is to even suggest that? Google is fighting tooth and nail to make sure that EU laws are laxist. You know why? Because they know that they will have to comply, in the end. The market is just too big to let go of.

And I don't think you're making the point you think you're making. If a single company can suspend its services and upheave the whole population's life, then it's a ripe for getting antitrust rulings.

[Fyrezerk]

My point, though, is where do we draw the line between antitrust enforcement because it serves the public's best interest, and enforcement that results in a net negative experience?

[piaste]

I don't know the perfect answer to the question "At what point does a company need to be broken up, to protect the liberty of our citizens?", but I would wager it's somewhere on the near side of "when the mere suggestion that the company could shut down for 24 hours would cause unthinkable chaos".

[bogwog]

I think that if a monopoly is necessary to serve the public's interest, as you're suggesting Google is, then it needs to be a public utility, like water or electricity.

But I think that's wrong about Google (except maybe for search). None of the services they're offering are unique, it's all tech commodities. They're just entrenched due to decades of anticompetitive behavior and incompetent regulators, and if they were broken up/destroyed, other companies would easily be able to offer the same services at a higher quality, and it would be a net positive to society overall.

If Google ads gets broken up, it may be easier for a competitor to actually compete against any Google property. Imagine trying to win a bidding war against Google, much less on their own bidding platform.

[CogitoCogito]

This same reasoning applies in basically all aspects of law. Someone or some people make a judgement call.

[tremon]

What makes you think that there's a single sharp line between those?

[piaste]

> How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day?

Very quickly - against Google.

The fact that European citizens have critical business ties to Google (from GSuite to YT partners) is a sword that cuts both ways.

It means the EU can't simply shut Google down on a whim; but it also means that Google can't just throw a tantrum and put up a black page saying "we are PROTESTING because your EVIL GOVERNMENT wants to OPPRESS US by asking us to PAY TAXES and ALLOW COMPETITION". Businesses wouldn't stick around to wait for the next time they got randomly locked out of GMail and GDrive.

(Not that Google has given the slightest hint of having considered such a move, unlike, say, Meta.)

> The world runs on Google and forcing that to change seems like a step backwards at first glance.

"Well we have a dominant position, it would be a shame if that were to change" isn't a great defence when you're being specifically accused of abusing your dominant position.

[ornitorrincos]

Not to mention why should anyone anywhere trust google at that point.

[pb7]

How does Google disallow competition? China managed to overtake the top spot for social media so it's not impossible. Europe just can't build, period.

[M2Ys4U]

>Europe just can't build, period.

Even if that were true, it's beside the point.

If another US company were able to successfully compete without Google's domination of the market then the grounds for enforcement fall away.

[aurareturn]

Would Europe still try to regulate Google if one of their companies invented GPT4 and is threatening Google search?

[_vere]

Allowing a giant supercorperation to exist is generally not in the interest of the public. Google has been using the incomparable amount of money they have in many ways that do not serve the interests of anyone but themselves. Allowing one company to own the most visited websites, the most used browser, the most used advertising tools + marketplace, half of the mobile market and much more has not really brought us a lot of good. Their search service quality has decreased massively in recent years. Google searches for products are basically useless as all of the results are SEO optimized AI compiled listicles with amazon ref links, you can basically only find relevant info by adding "reddit" to the end of your search. Saying "see how you do without google for a day" is the same as saying "see how you would do without electricity for a day". They have worked very hard to become infrastructure, rather than a service.

[aurareturn]

You can say the same about LVMH in the luxury goods market. I don't see Europe trying to break up one of their own companies.

[piaste]

The difference is that LVMH-type products are irrelevant to 98% of the population, and have a highly questionable impact to the top 2%.

De Beers had an iconic monopoly on diamonds for over a century, but as far as I know the only time a major government really went after them was for colluding over industrial diamonds, which are actually important.

Ensuring that jewelry diamonds and checkered handbags are available at a competitive price would be an awful use of government resources, not least because the inflated price is the point of those products.

Luxottica (but only after the 2018 merger with their main competitor) would be a much better example.

[aurareturn]

I knew it someone would reply by saying Google's industry is somehow more important so Europe should regulate them but ignore their own monopolies.

[Yujf]

The commenter explains why that is and instead of reacting to his argument you are implying that it is just Europens who want to regulzte Americans while it is clearly not the case.

Not every monopoly is created equal and if you can not acknowledge that you are not arguing in good faith.

Edit: also I am looking into De Beers a bit more and it seems the EU has made steps to improve competition in the past.

Also if you want to argue that LVMH is a monopoly and that it has a bad impact, go ahead. I just think that since this is HN it is natural that most people do not feel the impact and do not really care. I do not know exactly how monopolistic they are and what the bad impact of that is but feel free to enlighten me.

[aurareturn]

What is the metric you're using to measure how important an industry is?

To some people, Google is more important. To others, LVHM is more important.

There are a ton of people who depend on the luxury goods industry. LVHM itself is a $500 billion company.

I know plenty of people who go crazy for luxury handbags, clothing, jewelry but could careless about which search engine to use.

[_vere]

The luxury goods market is not infrastructure. Not to say they shouldn't be broken up, but google is owning the roads you drive on, your car, everyone else's car and every parking space. The scale of the issue is just MUCH worse. Its not good that if you want the expensive child labor clothes, you have little choice but to buy from LVMH, but like, you can get other clothes. If you want to rid yourself of googles influence in your life, you have to abandon basically every tech item you own and live in the woods.

[aurareturn]

Neither is Google. If Google said they're going to disappear in 30 days, the world will move on and every single one of their services will be replaced.

[_vere]

If a power company suddenly shuts down and after the logistics nightmare that follows, they get replaced, they are still infrastructure. If just a few products that google make go offline for only a few hours, the economic damage that causes is in the hundreds of millions at least. Just because googles services could feasibly be replaced, it does not mean they are not infrastructure.

[aurareturn]

Ok, so you're basically saying that Google should be regulated because they're like infrastructure - even though they can be replaced given a few months. There are good to great alternatives for every Google product.

Yet, it's ok for Europe to ignore their own monopolies.

This is just moving the goal post. A monopoly is a monopoly.

What about ASML? They're a monopoly for EUV machines, which power our modern tech economy. That should be "infrastructure" enough right? Why isn't Europe looking at them?

[danmaw]

This is insane. This is how Standard Oil started.

The public is _currently_ getting a good experience, why enforce our laws?

Oh no, they're evil now, and the only option, and they're entrenched. How could we have ever foreseen this!

[olau]

I think that's why they're trying to go about it in a way that still allows Google to provide the search.

As for the benefit, when Google and Facebook jack up the prices of ads, it's probably increasing the prices of many things you buy on the internet.

Just as an example, I recently tried to run an ad on Google. There are no competitors in this space at all. It cost me > 1-2 USD per click. 10-15 years ago I also tried to run an ad on Google. When there were no competitors, you could have the ad for something like 0,04 USD per click.

[Fyrezerk]

Thanks for the anecdote on ad pricing. That's certainly concerning.

[myrmidon]

> How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day?

Reframed: If you disrupt customers to avoid complying with local law, customers will perceive YOU to be the problem at least as much as local regulations.

I believe this is a REALLY dangerous move with very little upside and enormous risk for the company under almost any circumstances, which is probably the reason that companies almost NEVER do this.

[sebzim4500]

>Reframed: If you disrupt customers to avoid complying with local law, customers will perceive YOU to be the problem at least as much as local regulations

Is this actually true in practice? Anecdotally Italians seeemed pretty annoyed they coudldn't use chatgpt for a while.

[viraptor]

> Does it actually affect people negatively if the result is a positive online user experience?

More and more the positive experience is disputable. Both for users (result quality keeps falling) and advertisers (they're the ad exchange that matters).

> The world runs on Google and forcing that to change seems like a step backwards at first glance.

That's the monopoly part. There's more candidates who will get increased use if Google's search-ad feedback loop goes away. Every time someone too big to fail is finally broken up, we get a small step backwards... ideally we get a big step towards as a result.

[thriller]

There is a rich history of monopolistic practices throughout history that gave rise to antitrust laws. "Does it actually affect people negatively if the result is a positive online user experience" could just as easily be from the playbook of Microsoft, AT&T, De Beers Group...

If you had read the EC statement, you would have understood this pertains to AdX, Google Ads, and DFP products whereby Google raises prices and stifles any competition: a good example of a negative online user experience.

[RobotToaster]

>How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day?

It would rather prove the point that they're a monopoly that needs breaking up.

It's in google's best interest not to highlight how much power they have with their current monopoly.

[tpm]

The quality of google's search results going downhill is for me one of the signs that (as all monopols eventually) at some point they stop being a net positive for the society.

> The world runs on Google

Until it doesn't. No individual and no company is indispensable.

[aurareturn]

>Until it doesn't. No individual and no company is indispensable.

Agreed. That's why another company or multiple companies will outcompete Google. I don't see a reason Europe needs to break Google up.

[bilal4hmed]

Also imagine breaking one so called monopoly and giving the market away to Apple

This will no doubt impact things like android etc.

[simion314]

>How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day?

That is not easy, some Google products are paid or Google offered clear terms , they can't brick my phone and break all the contracts they have with different companies because a petty reason.

Even say the free YouTube, I do not pay Google but there are Romanian companies that pay google to put ads in my face, so those are contracts and money involved here.

So what could they stop? Some free charity services maybe?

[supergirl]

this is about the ad business not gmail etc. monopolies are not a good thing that’s why we have these laws in the first place. monopolies prevent innovation for example. in the ads case monopoly means 1 company decides what ads are good and what ads are not good which affects society

[Etheryte]

I don't think either one of those points are true. The result of unregulated Google is most definitely not a positive online experience, it's rampant tracking and hoarding of information, both of which have had very real negative real world consequences. Similarly, the world does not "run on Google", what does that even mean? Gmail is but one email provider out of many. Google search is the largest player in the space, but their technological edge is slimming by the day.

[donatj]

> it's rampant tracking and hoarding of information, both of which have had very real negative real world consequences

Namely? I can’t imagine any real world consequences that aren’t positives? I am better served for my preferences?

[Etheryte]

Civilians have been bombed in Ukraine based on gathered and clustered geodata. Stalkers have bought their victims' data online and gone to their houses. Foreign intelligence agencies have blackmailed government officials based on their online activities. You can find an absurd number of examples for all of these and more.

[tremon]

There's very little need to imagine anything. Does e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36300410 sound like a positive consequence to you?

[donatj]

The government is already listening to all your phone calls and reading all your text messages. There's likely very little in there they don't already have.

[tremon]

You didn't answer the question. Does the government (any government, for that matter) having access to all that information sound like a positive consequence to you?

[holoduke]

I would love to see Google leaving Europe. I bet within a few weeks proper maybe even better replacements appear in Europe. Maybe even one of mine :) Google is an ad company. None of its services are critical to maintain a stable society. I would even argue that Europe would be better of without the American tech giants.

[caskstrength]

> I would love to see Google leaving Europe. I bet within a few weeks proper maybe even better replacements appear in Europe. Maybe even one of mine :)

Big words, but then I google your github and apparently you are planning to substitute biggest search engine, mobile OS and email service with 3dbriks[0], that, hilariously, "works best in _Google_ Chrome"? Come on now, there are multitude of reasons why European tech is not competitive and "evil American corps monopolized everything and won't let us in" is not the main one.

[0]: https://github.com/holoduke/3dbricks

[holoduke]

Are you seriously attacking me personally by mentioning my public info and a 10 year old repo. Not good man.

[sebzim4500]

>I bet within a few weeks proper maybe even better replacements appear in Europe.

There is absolutely no way that would happen

[pb7]

Europe would return to the dark ages if all American tech companies pulled out overnight. But it is a humorous thought that the only way there can be European alternatives is if there are no American companies to compete against. What is it about Europe that puts it so far behind the US and Asia in innovation?

>None of its services are critical to maintain a stable society.

Except Android, Maps, Search, Gmail, YouTube, Docs...

[hnbad]

> What is it about Europe that puts it so far behind the US and Asia in innovation?

The US barely produces enough illegal drugs for its own market. If all illegal drug manufacturers cut off the supply lines to the US, the illegal drug trade in the US would tank overnight. What is it about the US that puts it so far behind South American countries in innovation?

[pb7]

You're comparing your populace to drug addicts? Ok then.

Producing (recreational) drugs isn't innovation. Drugs don't improve your daily life. Absence of them doesn't make life resemble that of the 1900s. They don't increase productivity allowing you to achieve more with your life. And most importantly, the number of people consuming recreational drugs from SA is a rounding error. Every single person in Europe consumes some type of software created by American companies, directly or indirectly.

[tremon]

They're comparing drug producers to peddlers of surveillance capitalism.

Surveillance doesn't improve your daily life. Absence of surveillance doesn't make life resemble that of the 1900s. Surveillance doesn't increase productivity. And most importantly, the number of people not subject to surveillance is a rounding error. Every single person in Europe is subject to some type of surveillance crafted by American companies, directly or indirectly.

[hnbad]

Cocaine and other illegal stimulants certainly increase productivity to some extent.

The point I'm making isn't that US software is inherently harmful (nor would I make that argument for every drug that is illegal in the US, though) but that the situation is comparable in that US software and business conduct found to be in violation in the EU is harder to prosecute than the same software and conduct from EU companies. The "innovation" US companies take advantage of is getting to grow their products and companies and a less regulated market before taking advantage of the slow reaction time of the legal systems of foreign markets they enter fully-formed (whereas companies local to those market would get nipped in the bud if they tried to build the same kind of business there).

This should be self-evident when the reason we're even talking about this is that the EU is taking actions against US companies that it would have already taken against any EU company trying the same (e.g. consider the Ireland tax loophole used by non-EU companies in the EU or the circus around trying to game the GDPR and privacy laws).

In short: the innovative advantage of Silicon Valley is that it allowed tech startups to build products that would have been blatantly illegal in Europe and then enter the European market with sufficient political and financial capital to squash any existing competition and bite the legal fines until legislation was able to catch up with what they were doing. This is consistent with recent "disruptions" like Airbnb innovating zoning law violations, Uber innovating taxi service regulation violations, Crypto innovating financial product regulation violations and AI innovating copyright violations.

[Mashimo]

> What is it about Europe that puts it so far behind the US and Asia in innovation?

How far behind is Europe?

[sebzim4500]

None of the top tech companies are European, so quite far.

[tremon]

That's true only for a very narrow definition of "tech". If I were to redefine "tech" to only include Formula-1 racing teams and constructors, then suddenly none of the top tech companies are from the US.

Am I right to assume you have never heard of companies like ASML, Spotify, Booking.com, Just Eat (takeaway.com), or Adyen?

And finally, large US companies use their capital to buy out European firms to keep pretending that all "tech" is home-grown. Skype, Nokia, ARM, NXP, SkyScanner, Shazam and Minecraft all started out in Europe.

[master-lincoln]

>What is it about Europe that puts it so far behind the US and Asia in innovation?

Maybe governments that act in the interest of the population? Predatory capitalism isn't regarded as highly in Europe.

>Except Android, Maps, Search, Gmail, YouTube, Docs...

Android is open source. Maps, Search, Gmail and Docs have competitors that are already being used. Not sure if Youtube is necessary to maintain a stable society...

[emanuele232]

proton is swiss boi