This proposal seems like a powerful subsidy for Microsoft and OpenAI. Why can they partner while Google and Anthropic can't? It is strange to penalize a non-monopoly partnership like this.
No. This case was launched by Trump's DOJ in 2020 [0], in conjunction with the Republican Attorneys General representing a bunch of states that Trump won handily this election. Trump's Attorney General Barr released a statement when they announced the lawsuit [1]:
> Today, millions of Americans rely on the Internet and online platforms for their daily lives. For years, there have been broad, bipartisan concerns about business practices leading to massive concentrations of economic power in our digital economy. Hearing those concerns, I have made it a primary commitment of my tenure as Attorney General for the Department of Justice to examine whether technology markets have been deprived of free, fair, and open competition.
This case has never has been a partisan issue. It was opened by a Republican DOJ and pushed through by a Democratic DOJ, and there's no reason to believe that the Republicans won't see through what they started.
Trump supports people who make him feel good and hates people who make him feel bad. He isn't pointing the DoJ at big tech. He is pointing the DoJ at people who make him feel bad. Trump thinks that YouTube (and Google more broadly) is unfair to conservatives and is full of whiney liberals.
You won't see consistent application of Trump's DoJ. It'll just be a hammer that he can swing at things he doesn't like.
It could even be the case that many of the things that he swings the hammer at will deserve it. But there will be similarly deserving people, groups, and organizations who get off scot free because Trump isn't personally angry at them.
More informatively: Trump was in favor of eliminating Section 230 protections for Twitter after they fact-checked one of his lies about election security.
Presumably he will now want to revoke Section 230 for non-Twitter companies.
Suggesting that Merrick Garland is somehow a "Democratic DOJ" is kind of laughable at this point. He's a Republican. He's been dragging his feet going after the biggest Republican crook in history. Appointing Merrick Garland is one of the biggest mistakes Biden ever made.
Adorable how HN's in absolute denial over this comment and downvoting you.
Garland is a donator to the Federalist Society. Garland was a gift from Obama to the Republicans, trying to put someone who's right wing enough at the Supreme Court to appease the Rs. (And it didn't even work).
I hope not. An important part of encouraging innovation in tech is to take power away from the megacorps that will otherwise use their capital and distribution channels and illegitimate practices (like bundling) to control everything and take all the gains. These actions from Lina Khan, the DOJ, the EU commissions, etc are crucial to creating a fair landscape for competition.
Trump took net neutrality off the table, he only wanted to punish big tech for perceived slights or not supporting him enough, he's famous for putting people with no knowledge of the problems or experience with them in power managing them.
Well the other posters answered, but in a nutshell because his record on consistency is non-existent.
Tax Reform, Immigration, Syria, TikTok, most of his original cabinet picks, he wanted to hang his vice president, Wikileaks and government leaks in general, the list goes on, his positions are about as fluid as any person I know.
Well he started the drive to ban TikTok, but did a 180 after a single meeting with a billionaire who owns part of it.
I have no idea what Trump's DOJ will do with this case; I doubt he knows or cares about the case himself. I won't be surprised either way they go with it.
I had to create an account to ask you this point blank.
Why are you acting like taking Net Neutrality rules off the table is a bad thing? Have you read what is in
the Net Neutrality rules? Or are you just regurgitating what the news and your favorite tubers of the time were telling you to do?
I read through 100 of the 400 pages, that was enough to make me sick. I was disgusted at the crap in there. A full 2/3rds of the rules I viewed were terrible. Many of those rules clearly existed only to enshrine the largest of players from ever being challenged or having any competition. I'm convinced anybody who speaks in favor of Net Neutrality is ignorant and hasn't bothered to read any of the guidelines contained therein. I can't be convinced that any intelligent free thinking consumer would ever want that drek to exist and am appalled that it has any defenders at all.
Net neutrality ensures equal access, protects consumers from conspicuous data caps while no investment is put into infrastructure, prevents ISPs from throttling things they don't like, and increases competition.
You didn't actually say what rules are bad, and we'd probably agree "hey this rule in this law is BS" - that's very different than "net neutrality is BS"
Feel free to go into detail about why NN is bad for consumers, I think you will find many ardent defenders here.
> does anyone else think that trump is going to nix this thing as soon as he takes office?
Depends on how much Google is willing to scratch Trump's back. Remember, Trump is a corrupt quid pro quo President. All he needs is something valuable in exchange for his corrupt powers.
So it's hard to say, Trump hates Google, Gaetz hated Google, I assume any Trumpist (I guess it's Bondi now) thinks Google is "unfair to conservatives". So it's easy to imagine letting Google reap the penalties of the existing case being an easy choice for them.
On the other hand, he's promised to remove Khan, Kanter, etc, and end antitrust enforcement. So someone may have to actively decide to continue as is, or change tack a bit.
The third concern of course is that Trump is a crook. He might not like Google but I'm sure neither him nor Sundar would have any qualms with figuring out how to slide a billion dollars in Trump's pocket to make the case go away.
Musk took over Twitter and then started xAI. Trump Social should announce they are going to be adding AI and resell Anthropic. They can take their 20% and everyone is happy.
Hope this gets nixed. It might be a relevant case back in 2020, but no longer a valid case now. From the wikipedia case:
"The suit alleges that Google has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by illegally monopolizing the search engine and search advertising markets, most notably on Android devices, as well as with Apple and mobile carriers."
Where will be the search monopoly by Google in 2025? If search monopoly slowly evaporates, where will be the advertising monopoly?
Google's entire argument against being regulated has been 'We're not monopolizing search, people choose to use us!'
The latter part also happens to conveniently be true when you buy all the available space that a competitor would need -- default placement in Chrome, Safari, Firefox, and Android.
You don't get to rig the game and then claim the results actually demonstrate everyone naturally loves you.
On the flip side, if default placement was eliminated and browsers asked users which search engine they'd like on first launch...I still believe most users would pick Google anyway and the main loser would be Firefox as search engine placement is the majority of their revenue.
Furthermore, ChatGPT reaching 100m users in 2 months also suggests that browser placement isn't the biggest factor into where users send their queries.
The success of the Chrome browser on desktop proves otherwise, no?
It's interesting that the argument is "nobody can compete with defaults" when one of the proposed remedies is to break off the part of the company that was too successful at competing with defaults.
I remain utterly confused how apple's rule that you can't link to a purchase page, and can't mention the 30% tax in-app, hasn't had its day in court yet.
Like, you can have a free app in the store, with a website where you can purchase premium, and then in the app have an "upgrade" button that just displays the error "You cannot upgrade to premium in the app" and hope users find your website.
You aren't allowed to have "You can upgrade to premium using our site, at https://site.com" message because if you can pay money on site.com, having that error message is seen as evading the app store tax.
In both of those cases though, apple did the same amount of work, so the justification you sometimes hear, that "30% is fair because you're paying for app store resources and apple to advertise your app", seems like it doesn't really apply.
Like, spotify is a perfect example of this. They don't let you upgrade on iOS because paying 30% to apple would mean they'd lose money on every sell (music has very thin margins), and spotify isn't even allowed to display a good error message because linking to their webpage, or mentioning the app store tax, would be against app store ToS.
And then apple music also exists, and ignores the 30% tax. It seems so blindingly obviously harmful to consumers.
This all applies to the google play app store too, but at least on the google play app store, there's no "thought crime" of informing your users they can go punch in a credit card on the web.
> Apple allowed developers to include [information about other payment methods] but required that developers give Apple 27% of all sales made within seven days of being directed to these sites
That doesn't really sound like losing, a 27% penalty if you "steer users" is effectively the same as steering not being allowed.
Why is it bizarre? Google has near-monopoly market share in search and in ads and Apple is the only thing standing between them and a monopoly on the browser. Furthermore, they've demonstrated anti-competitive behavior in all three markets.
The only market where Apple has a monopoly is the marketplace that they created for themselves, and a high profile case already tried and failed to use that definition of the market to argue antitrust. The DOJ is trying again anyway, but it made perfect sense for them to wait until Epic vs Apple was decided before starting work—why waste time on something that could be moot by the time they finish?
> It really feels like the DOJ has it out for Google here. Apple's behavior is far more monopolistic, and Microsoft is no saint either.
As others have mentioned, the government can do more than one thing at a time. Here is a list: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/business/antitrust-.... Perhaps Google's case had just progressed faster, and perhaps it was more clear-cut or easier to prove.
> But Google has faced the broadest criticism for its actions, with the judges in all three antitrust cases chastising the company for its communications practices.
And they engaged in some pretty sketchy practices:
> If using the right words and deleting messages did not keep Google out of the courthouse, the company concluded, invoking the lawyers would....
> A message surfaced in the Epic trial in which a Google lawyer identified the practice of copying lawyers on documents as “fake privilege” and seemed rather amused by it. Mr. Walker said he was “disappointed” and “surprised” to hear that term....
> Last month, three advocacy groups, led by the American Economic Liberties Project, asked for Mr. Walker to be investigated by the California State Bar for coaching Google to “engage in widespread and illegal destruction” of documents relevant to federal trials.
If you're intentionally hiding things from government investigators, the legal presumption is there's a good reason. Judges are allowed to impute things from destroyed evidence. Otherwise, everyone would destroy evidence.
Weirdly selective regulation that punishes one company arbitrarily while ignoring others feels like a step in the wrong direction. We need actual laws about this, not various capricious enforcement of haphazard existing regulations.
They need wins, and once the ball starts rolling, they can shift their focus. Government departments are restricted by budget. Going after 4 behemoths at the same time is not practical.
If google gets restrictions, then it makes apple look even more monopolistic. Like a trimming the hedges
2nd one has screwed over consumers in the past and continues to screw over consumers. Can you even buy MS office any more or do you have to rent it now? What’s with putting ads in the software you purchased?
It's not just apple, basically every company that is bigger than google is going to benefit from this. Apple, Microsoft, even Nvidia is getting their only real competitor and the biggest company that isn't dependent on them (google TPUs) kneecapped.
Microsoft doesn't want Google to control the codebase Edge is based on and doesn't want anyone to counter the MSFT + OpenAI partnership, and the DOJ is trying to hand them their wishes.
Hopefully the judge rejects this overreach and rules on lawsuit scope.
I remember the time before google. We were all stuck IE with no competitive browsers and everyone was using Windows machines. Now we have three browsers and multiple platforms. I just bought a Chromebook plus, that can run linux apps but is easy enough for my kid to use. My wife uses windows laptop and I use a mac. We have Amazon Echos through out the house. We have 4 major players in the tech space instead of one. Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
And those four players are more of a cartel than competitors, having agreed to mostly stay out of each other's ways.
The primary overlapping markets between them are consumptive devices and cloud services -- which I presume they're all in because they consider it strategically important enough to their other businesses to incinerate money.
Apple and Google makes phones. All of them make tablets. Microsoft and Apple make laptops. All but Apple sell cloud computing. Google, Apple and Microsoft have office suites. Apple, Amazon and Google offer paid streaming platforms. Amazon, Apple and Google All offer smart assistants. I can keep going with things like game platforms, consumer storage,streaming music. Failing to see how they stay out of each other's way or have agreements with each other. Apple and Google literally give away their office apps which is the bread butter of Microsoft,
I'm sorry, you're alleging that someone who used to work for Microsoft, but doesn't anymore, is ... well, still secretly working for Microsoft? Like, he's a spy inside the DOJ, but you've figured out his clever game? I don't understand.
A common argument is that former corporate insiders remain loyal to their former employers once in positions of authority in the government so as to obtain lucrative positions once their time in government ends. It’s also possible there are corrupt private contracts in place to entice those actions.
I’m not sure why you’re being so sarcastic as it’s not a novel idea and it’s less “figured out the clever game” and more that even the appearance of impropriety removes faith and trust in the institution.
> even the appearance of impropriety removes faith and trust in the institution.
This seems like a nuanced and reasonable take, but a rather generous interpretation of the GP comment. I think it’s reasonable for the parent comment to push back against a definitive statement laying an accusation with no evidence.
To me, it doesn't feel extreme at all, relative to former antitrust regulations or to what's needed for a functioning market. I would have felt bad about these about two decades ago, but Google has not been a good player in recent years.
Maybe it's like what the FBI does, when they go for you it doesn't matter if they win for the original primary reason because they'll find something to get you with and you'll negotiate down to some form of them winning.
This proposal seems like a powerful subsidy for Microsoft and OpenAI. Why can they partner while Google and Anthropic can't? It is strange to penalize a non-monopoly partnership like this.
http://archive.today/Hm8f6
does anyone else think that trump is going to nix this thing as soon as he takes office?
No. This case was launched by Trump's DOJ in 2020 [0], in conjunction with the Republican Attorneys General representing a bunch of states that Trump won handily this election. Trump's Attorney General Barr released a statement when they announced the lawsuit [1]:
> Today, millions of Americans rely on the Internet and online platforms for their daily lives. For years, there have been broad, bipartisan concerns about business practices leading to massive concentrations of economic power in our digital economy. Hearing those concerns, I have made it a primary commitment of my tenure as Attorney General for the Department of Justice to examine whether technology markets have been deprived of free, fair, and open competition.
This case has never has been a partisan issue. It was opened by a Republican DOJ and pushed through by a Democratic DOJ, and there's no reason to believe that the Republicans won't see through what they started.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2...
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-an...
oh wow, TIL. I assumed Trump would be against any government control of Big Tech
Trump supports people who make him feel good and hates people who make him feel bad. He isn't pointing the DoJ at big tech. He is pointing the DoJ at people who make him feel bad. Trump thinks that YouTube (and Google more broadly) is unfair to conservatives and is full of whiney liberals.
You won't see consistent application of Trump's DoJ. It'll just be a hammer that he can swing at things he doesn't like.
It could even be the case that many of the things that he swings the hammer at will deserve it. But there will be similarly deserving people, groups, and organizations who get off scot free because Trump isn't personally angry at them.
That's a weird thing to say. Trump has always been critical of big tech and favours breaking them up.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-tech-factbox/fa...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/10/18659748/t...
Trump is critical of big tech that doesn't help him - I'm happy to bet he will oppose breaking up X as long as Musk is in his cabinet.
Trying to describe Trump on a coherent ideological level is a fool's errand, like most strongmen he's just an opportunist.
Why would X be broken up? When I think of Big Tech I certainly don’t think of companies like Twitter or Snapchat.
The point is that even if X was a dominating monopoly, it would be fine because Elon is on Trumps nice list.
Trump is a typical power whore who praises and protects those that kiss his feet, and admonishes and punishes those who don't.
This is the same game that all these self-interested power hungry people play.
More informatively: Trump was in favor of eliminating Section 230 protections for Twitter after they fact-checked one of his lies about election security.
Presumably he will now want to revoke Section 230 for non-Twitter companies.
Why would you break up X?
To get two fabulous new companies, > and <. Or maybe ^ and v ? Or / and \ ?
>and pushed through by a Democratic DOJ,
Suggesting that Merrick Garland is somehow a "Democratic DOJ" is kind of laughable at this point. He's a Republican. He's been dragging his feet going after the biggest Republican crook in history. Appointing Merrick Garland is one of the biggest mistakes Biden ever made.
Adorable how HN's in absolute denial over this comment and downvoting you.
Garland is a donator to the Federalist Society. Garland was a gift from Obama to the Republicans, trying to put someone who's right wing enough at the Supreme Court to appease the Rs. (And it didn't even work).
[dead]
No. They’ll change the settlement terms, however, to probably include their priorities.
I hope not. An important part of encouraging innovation in tech is to take power away from the megacorps that will otherwise use their capital and distribution channels and illegitimate practices (like bundling) to control everything and take all the gains. These actions from Lina Khan, the DOJ, the EU commissions, etc are crucial to creating a fair landscape for competition.
Trump took net neutrality off the table, he only wanted to punish big tech for perceived slights or not supporting him enough, he's famous for putting people with no knowledge of the problems or experience with them in power managing them.
What exactly would be driving your hopes here?
Maybe the fact that Trump's DOJ started this lawsuit, backed by the Republican Attorneys General for 11 states that Trump won this year?
What exactly is driving you to think that he'd abort a mission that he and his allies started?
Well the other posters answered, but in a nutshell because his record on consistency is non-existent.
Tax Reform, Immigration, Syria, TikTok, most of his original cabinet picks, he wanted to hang his vice president, Wikileaks and government leaks in general, the list goes on, his positions are about as fluid as any person I know.
Well he started the drive to ban TikTok, but did a 180 after a single meeting with a billionaire who owns part of it.
I have no idea what Trump's DOJ will do with this case; I doubt he knows or cares about the case himself. I won't be surprised either way they go with it.
Everything else is for sale in his administration, so I don't see why this wouldn't be.
[dead]
I had to create an account to ask you this point blank.
Why are you acting like taking Net Neutrality rules off the table is a bad thing? Have you read what is in the Net Neutrality rules? Or are you just regurgitating what the news and your favorite tubers of the time were telling you to do?
I read through 100 of the 400 pages, that was enough to make me sick. I was disgusted at the crap in there. A full 2/3rds of the rules I viewed were terrible. Many of those rules clearly existed only to enshrine the largest of players from ever being challenged or having any competition. I'm convinced anybody who speaks in favor of Net Neutrality is ignorant and hasn't bothered to read any of the guidelines contained therein. I can't be convinced that any intelligent free thinking consumer would ever want that drek to exist and am appalled that it has any defenders at all.
> I read through 100 of the 400 pages ...
Is this the 400 page PDF you're meaning?
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
That's the "Order on Remand" PDF link from this page: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-orde...
Which in turn is the "2015: FCC adopts rules..." link on this page: https://www.fcc.gov/net-neutrality
---
There's a more recent 512 page thing too, though I'm not real sure where it fits in:
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-52A1.pdf
Net neutrality ensures equal access, protects consumers from conspicuous data caps while no investment is put into infrastructure, prevents ISPs from throttling things they don't like, and increases competition.
You didn't actually say what rules are bad, and we'd probably agree "hey this rule in this law is BS" - that's very different than "net neutrality is BS"
Feel free to go into detail about why NN is bad for consumers, I think you will find many ardent defenders here.
Google just needs to deposit a few million into an offshore account and this will disappear into the ether.
Then administration will throw so much “anti woke” shit and the average American will forget about it.
If Sundar flatters him enough.
We can hope, his DOJ might amend their demands or the judges he appoints will overturn it on appeal if needed.
The case started under Trump so probably not
> does anyone else think that trump is going to nix this thing as soon as he takes office?
Depends on how much Google is willing to scratch Trump's back. Remember, Trump is a corrupt quid pro quo President. All he needs is something valuable in exchange for his corrupt powers.
So it's hard to say, Trump hates Google, Gaetz hated Google, I assume any Trumpist (I guess it's Bondi now) thinks Google is "unfair to conservatives". So it's easy to imagine letting Google reap the penalties of the existing case being an easy choice for them.
On the other hand, he's promised to remove Khan, Kanter, etc, and end antitrust enforcement. So someone may have to actively decide to continue as is, or change tack a bit.
The third concern of course is that Trump is a crook. He might not like Google but I'm sure neither him nor Sundar would have any qualms with figuring out how to slide a billion dollars in Trump's pocket to make the case go away.
Musk took over Twitter and then started xAI. Trump Social should announce they are going to be adding AI and resell Anthropic. They can take their 20% and everyone is happy.
Not really. He and his backers actually want this to happen to GOOG.
Hope this gets nixed. It might be a relevant case back in 2020, but no longer a valid case now. From the wikipedia case:
"The suit alleges that Google has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by illegally monopolizing the search engine and search advertising markets, most notably on Android devices, as well as with Apple and mobile carriers."
Where will be the search monopoly by Google in 2025? If search monopoly slowly evaporates, where will be the advertising monopoly?
Google's entire argument against being regulated has been 'We're not monopolizing search, people choose to use us!'
The latter part also happens to conveniently be true when you buy all the available space that a competitor would need -- default placement in Chrome, Safari, Firefox, and Android.
You don't get to rig the game and then claim the results actually demonstrate everyone naturally loves you.
On the flip side, if default placement was eliminated and browsers asked users which search engine they'd like on first launch...I still believe most users would pick Google anyway and the main loser would be Firefox as search engine placement is the majority of their revenue.
Furthermore, ChatGPT reaching 100m users in 2 months also suggests that browser placement isn't the biggest factor into where users send their queries.
"Most" isn't relevant here, if share goes down from 90% to 51% - monopoly problem solved.
Same with the factors- ok, let it be the second-biggest factor, so?
You are being extremely optimistic with that number. I would put it around 80-85%.
Google search usage is not going to drop 50% just because it's not the default.
> just because it's not the default
On HN, we probably drastically overestimate the number of people who change any default.
The success of the Chrome browser on desktop proves otherwise, no?
It's interesting that the argument is "nobody can compete with defaults" when one of the proposed remedies is to break off the part of the company that was too successful at competing with defaults.
You misunderstand the meaning of that number, it wasn't a forecast
It really feels like the DOJ has it out for Google here. Apple's behavior is far more monopolistic, and Microsoft is no saint either.
I remain utterly confused how apple's rule that you can't link to a purchase page, and can't mention the 30% tax in-app, hasn't had its day in court yet.
Like, you can have a free app in the store, with a website where you can purchase premium, and then in the app have an "upgrade" button that just displays the error "You cannot upgrade to premium in the app" and hope users find your website.
You aren't allowed to have "You can upgrade to premium using our site, at https://site.com" message because if you can pay money on site.com, having that error message is seen as evading the app store tax.
In both of those cases though, apple did the same amount of work, so the justification you sometimes hear, that "30% is fair because you're paying for app store resources and apple to advertise your app", seems like it doesn't really apply.
Like, spotify is a perfect example of this. They don't let you upgrade on iOS because paying 30% to apple would mean they'd lose money on every sell (music has very thin margins), and spotify isn't even allowed to display a good error message because linking to their webpage, or mentioning the app store tax, would be against app store ToS.
And then apple music also exists, and ignores the 30% tax. It seems so blindingly obviously harmful to consumers.
This all applies to the google play app store too, but at least on the google play app store, there's no "thought crime" of informing your users they can go punch in a credit card on the web.
All of these things did have their day in court in Epic vs Apple. Apple won on most counts but lost on the anti-steering provisions:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple
> lost on the anti-steering provisions
Also from that article:
> Apple allowed developers to include [information about other payment methods] but required that developers give Apple 27% of all sales made within seven days of being directed to these sites
That doesn't really sound like losing, a 27% penalty if you "steer users" is effectively the same as steering not being allowed.
The DOJ can go after more than one company at a time. And they are, in fact, doing so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024)
The DoJ does not have unlimited resources, nor does it have unlimited time - see imminent regime and policy change.
Priority matters, and picking Google as the first high profile target is bizarre.
Why is it bizarre? Google has near-monopoly market share in search and in ads and Apple is the only thing standing between them and a monopoly on the browser. Furthermore, they've demonstrated anti-competitive behavior in all three markets.
The only market where Apple has a monopoly is the marketplace that they created for themselves, and a high profile case already tried and failed to use that definition of the market to argue antitrust. The DOJ is trying again anyway, but it made perfect sense for them to wait until Epic vs Apple was decided before starting work—why waste time on something that could be moot by the time they finish?
> It really feels like the DOJ has it out for Google here. Apple's behavior is far more monopolistic, and Microsoft is no saint either.
As others have mentioned, the government can do more than one thing at a time. Here is a list: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/business/antitrust-.... Perhaps Google's case had just progressed faster, and perhaps it was more clear-cut or easier to prove.
Google's records retention policies were also over the top and perhaps hurt it: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/technology/google-antitru...:
> But Google has faced the broadest criticism for its actions, with the judges in all three antitrust cases chastising the company for its communications practices.
And they engaged in some pretty sketchy practices:
> If using the right words and deleting messages did not keep Google out of the courthouse, the company concluded, invoking the lawyers would....
> A message surfaced in the Epic trial in which a Google lawyer identified the practice of copying lawyers on documents as “fake privilege” and seemed rather amused by it. Mr. Walker said he was “disappointed” and “surprised” to hear that term....
> Last month, three advocacy groups, led by the American Economic Liberties Project, asked for Mr. Walker to be investigated by the California State Bar for coaching Google to “engage in widespread and illegal destruction” of documents relevant to federal trials.
<--- This. And specifically:
> Google's records retention policies were also over the top and perhaps hurt it: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/technology/google-antitru...:
If you're intentionally hiding things from government investigators, the legal presumption is there's a good reason. Judges are allowed to impute things from destroyed evidence. Otherwise, everyone would destroy evidence.
That's why they're also suing apple
But there is an antitrust lawsuit against Apple and Microsoft is getting probed by the FTC regarding their cloud business.
Maybe? Any regulation is very welcomed in this area
Weirdly selective regulation that punishes one company arbitrarily while ignoring others feels like a step in the wrong direction. We need actual laws about this, not various capricious enforcement of haphazard existing regulations.
They need wins, and once the ball starts rolling, they can shift their focus. Government departments are restricted by budget. Going after 4 behemoths at the same time is not practical.
If google gets restrictions, then it makes apple look even more monopolistic. Like a trimming the hedges
Actually not. Punishing the smaller company while allowing big company to run amok is essentially making things even worse.
> smaller company
That's a weirdly specific way to label the 5th largest public company on the planet, by market cap.
... yes, it is smaller than the 2nd largest public company.
2nd one has screwed over consumers in the past and continues to screw over consumers. Can you even buy MS office any more or do you have to rent it now? What’s with putting ads in the software you purchased?
It's not just apple, basically every company that is bigger than google is going to benefit from this. Apple, Microsoft, even Nvidia is getting their only real competitor and the biggest company that isn't dependent on them (google TPUs) kneecapped.
I look forward to running my searches through Saudi Aramco.
You joke, yet a Saudi PIF company will probably try to buy Chrome if Google is forced to sell it.
It does make one wonder if "sell Chrome" is the opening offer and "place Chrome in a multi-party foundation" might be the eventual compromise.
In order to say Apple is a monopoly you need to define a very narrow market. The search market is obviously relevant and very dominated by Google.
Google claims their in the ad market. Not the search market.
The former Microsoft lawyer leading this prosecution is doing Microsoft's bidding.
Wouldn't Microsoft be scared to suffer the same faith, if this were to really happen?
The status quo is bad for Microsoft, anything with the potential to shake it up is worth doing. And they'd get a head start.
Microsoft doesn't want Google to control the codebase Edge is based on and doesn't want anyone to counter the MSFT + OpenAI partnership, and the DOJ is trying to hand them their wishes. Hopefully the judge rejects this overreach and rules on lawsuit scope.
preferable would be preventing google+anthropic but also breaking up ms + openai
Doubt that’s on the table unless Microsoft is also sued. Without a joint ruling this wouldn’t be balanced
Doesn't mean we
a) can't hope
b) shouldn't hope
Ideally the feds would stay out of it and let the market do its thing.
As someone who remembers a time before Google, no.
Letting "the market do its thing" only works until a few companies accumulate enough power to monopolize the market.
The last two decades have seen being the next Google transformed into being acquired by Google, which has been to the detriment of everyone.
I remember the time before google. We were all stuck IE with no competitive browsers and everyone was using Windows machines. Now we have three browsers and multiple platforms. I just bought a Chromebook plus, that can run linux apps but is easy enough for my kid to use. My wife uses windows laptop and I use a mac. We have Amazon Echos through out the house. We have 4 major players in the tech space instead of one. Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
Netscape? IE didn't become dominant until 2000+.
And those four players are more of a cartel than competitors, having agreed to mostly stay out of each other's ways.
The primary overlapping markets between them are consumptive devices and cloud services -- which I presume they're all in because they consider it strategically important enough to their other businesses to incinerate money.
Apple and Google makes phones. All of them make tablets. Microsoft and Apple make laptops. All but Apple sell cloud computing. Google, Apple and Microsoft have office suites. Apple, Amazon and Google offer paid streaming platforms. Amazon, Apple and Google All offer smart assistants. I can keep going with things like game platforms, consumer storage,streaming music. Failing to see how they stay out of each other's way or have agreements with each other. Apple and Google literally give away their office apps which is the bread butter of Microsoft,
I'm sorry, you're alleging that someone who used to work for Microsoft, but doesn't anymore, is ... well, still secretly working for Microsoft? Like, he's a spy inside the DOJ, but you've figured out his clever game? I don't understand.
A common argument is that former corporate insiders remain loyal to their former employers once in positions of authority in the government so as to obtain lucrative positions once their time in government ends. It’s also possible there are corrupt private contracts in place to entice those actions.
I’m not sure why you’re being so sarcastic as it’s not a novel idea and it’s less “figured out the clever game” and more that even the appearance of impropriety removes faith and trust in the institution.
> even the appearance of impropriety removes faith and trust in the institution.
This seems like a nuanced and reasonable take, but a rather generous interpretation of the GP comment. I think it’s reasonable for the parent comment to push back against a definitive statement laying an accusation with no evidence.
Interestingly, that same argument was made for Nokia and in the end seems like it was probably true in that specific case.
[flagged]
> Instead, they decided to make an existential bet and risk of creating enemies.
What are you talking about?
[flagged]
[flagged]
Why? Genuine question.
To me, it doesn't feel extreme at all, relative to former antitrust regulations or to what's needed for a functioning market. I would have felt bad about these about two decades ago, but Google has not been a good player in recent years.
Geopolitically, it feels off.
Maybe it's like what the FBI does, when they go for you it doesn't matter if they win for the original primary reason because they'll find something to get you with and you'll negotiate down to some form of them winning.
Sometimes it ends up with US government splitting businesses - like Bell being split into AT&T and the others 50 years ago
The chart on the wiki page showing the subsequent consolidation of the Baby Bells is pretty fascinating though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Compan...