They dominate the software ecosystem. Although it's not difficult to load 3rd party applications, it's certainly not common. Their removal of the Podcast Addicts app is a great example. Also you cannot interface with things like Android Auto without getting Google's golden approval (so no Android Auto for F-Drop apps)
I did a full post on all the gripes I had with Android a few years back, and I think they all still apply: https://battlepenguin.com/tech/android-fragmentation/
If some less popular app is banned they have little recourse except hope for their story to go viral.
On this topic. WSJ states DoJ is readying antitrust vs google ij near future. May turn out to be quite an accomplishment if done
It the same monopoly that a town center has in term of political activities. Anyone could easily choose to switch to hold demonstrations somewhere else, but the result of holding it where only 8% of people will see it will make that less of a choice for the ones organizing the event.
As a society where I live we recognize the benefit of political diversity, and we acknowledge that the disruption that such political activity bring is usually minor. As long it does not cause prolong and significant disruption to everything else then the benefit of giving everyone equal right to demonstrate in the town square is a benefit.
I do agree however that Browsers are more similar to regular monopolies worries. One company in control of the market will increase prices, decrease innovation and create perverse market incentives.
While people can be physically only in one location, they do get their information from a variety of source online. Comparing Google to a town square is dumb, when you account that Facebook has much more engaged users than YouTube.
At the time of writing I'm reading stuff on Facebook, Reuters, Yahoo Finance, Twitter, Reddit and watching YouTube videos in between.(HN as well) I'm present on all of those "squares" at the same time.
I would like to be wrong on this and that google do not have this kind of power.
They did. Maybe not in public, but it has been communicated clearly to the employees:
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-googl...
I'm not saying this is okay--it probably could've been conducted in a more (politically) inclusive manner. But my argument is that this doesn't apply to the GP.
Edit. Also of course the main post about comment censoring is troubling.
For this analogy to be correct, there can be no equally populous squares. But there are equally populous squares.
So, no. One square dominates viewership (ie the town square <-> Google). You can switch to another square (ddg) if you want, but you don't get the viewership that you'd want to get the reach that you need.
If Google were to block search results to DuckDuckGo for example, that would be monopolistic and warrant antitrust action. As it is now, Google isn't blocking competition, consumers are choosing to use Google despite the privacy-oriented preferences here on HN.
Can you share some of these occasions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/01/googl...
And some upcoming regulatory attention:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/technology/google-antitru...
I specifically didn't bring up the Shopping case because EU anti-trust law is very different, and the case doesn't qualify as anti-trust in the U.S.
> Google required direct partners to exclusively use Google's AdSense and could not engage with Google's competitors
> Google required that partners take a minimum number of Google ads and predominately place them above any other advertising, nor could place ads from other services above or alongside Google's ads;
> preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems
> Google entered into anticompetitive exclusive agreements for the distribution of Google Search on both desktop and in the mobile arena
> The Commission’s complaint alleges that Google reneged on its FRAND commitments and pursued – or threatened to pursue – injunctions against companies that need to use MMI’s standard-essential patents in their devices and were willing to license them on FRAND terms.
Again, the EU anti-trust law is different from the U.S. I already mentioned the Android Play services case already.
For me, this is blatant anti-competitive practice and should be punished.
All just speculation, but I haven't noticed the same issue.
It's since been fixed.
Is that consistent with the "it is because FF doesn't support new thing yet" explanation?
It is not the case.
But who would have the legitimate right to stop it? Do we want government dictating product features?
I'm not sure I'd agree with the word "despite". I still think the majority of the non-tech world is still oblivious to the privacy implications of G,FB,etc. Sure, I'm sure there's a percentage of people that have made the decision they don't care and are fine with it, but there are definitely don't know/understand.
In many 3rd world countries, smartphones were the "couple months salary" iPhone or an Android that's literally a tenth the cost.
To most of these people, Google has been an unalloyed good. Google is probably one of the most resilient brands worldwide. Even in America it's well trusted. For good reason.
Two types of trust though. Trust in the products which they've earned in spades, and trust to moderate political speech which they have not.
This story is suggesting that they are willing to enforce standards set by the Chinese propaganda departments - which is to be expected, really, given their interest in regaining a presence in China. They aren't trustworthy in the political sense.
You're just raging that other people have a different opinion about their online activity.
Now imagine you quantify the cost of having Google Search. If you search for florist - Google could charge you $10 for the results(florist CPC is very high) and up to $30 per search for a hotel in NYC.
So dramatic. It's an amazing product that billions of people depend on that you don't have to use if you don't want to. Pretend it doesn't exist if it makes you feel better. Try Bing and Proton mail on an iPhone and never look back.
>If these products were just the products they appear on the surface
They're not a charity. If you're not paying for it upfront, you're paying for it with your eyeballs. Don't like it? Take your eyeballs elsewhere.
Monopoly power is different from abuse of monopoly power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Establishing_dominanc...
I was capable of doing this before and regularly did. But, from what i've been able to tell, my web searches must all go through google now, either through the built in search feature or the browser.
[0]: https://ddg.gg/html
[1]: https://ddg.gg/lite
Conversely, a monopsony is the lack of other options for buyers. Words matter.
Google censors information relating to that 10% for everyone else. They don't care enough to switch.
Centralization is an issue _a priori_. It's giving power to a single entity that we have no reason to trust will act in everyone's best interests.
Google Search is a consumer focused product, if they don't serve up the stuff that the users want - they loose viewers. No viewers - no revenue. Their bottom line depends on giving each person the best search results possible.
Pretending that they'll just decide to cut off even 1% of users is insane.
If they can make 2% more by selling out half their users and giving them inferior results to serve the interests of somebody or something willing to pay Google money to screw over the users, they will do that without an instant of hesitation, in the absence of oversight. They are in an absence of oversight.
You are wildly in error to believe that people magically can tell they're not being harmed. People absolutely have no idea whether they are being 'given the best' anything possible, much less something like search results (or information in general).
It is highly profitable to screw over mass audiences for one's own benefit and there's largely no mechanism to prevent this… again, in the absence of oversight.
The most annoying bit is that it's never the majority. It's at best plurality that "gets" to decide.
No, "controls" means decides the rules and what is happening on that part of the market. Any number that is not 100% automatically implies it's not a perfect monopoly and it's possible to switch, but once you are within the area controlled by Google, it's Google's rules. Including removal any content Google doesn't like for any reason, blocking any action Google doesn't like for any reason, etc. So for 91% of the searches, Google decides what you can and can't see.
Google hasn't leveraged their ownership of the browser to enact censorship (frequently on behalf of most vile dictatorships) yet as far as I know (surveillance is another mater) but it certainly did and is using its control over search, advertising, video hosting, etc. markets to do that.
All available search engines run on ads and offer roughly the same service. There is no competition in the market from the perspective of the consumer. How is this healthy?
Because people are conditioned by defaults. Google knows this, and so does every other business. Google had a good product, but Google also bought market share by bundling their products with random software (like adobes flash player, which later they unsurprisingly tried to kill), making a deal with Dell to bundle their software/toolbar, etc. Yes anyone in theory can switch, but its not really how people think. People are not as informed as we think they are, or aware of the pros and cons of various competing services and products. That includes most people, even people on this site, so its really not an elitist thing.
Just because a company is providing value that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be regulated. Just because you can technically leave a service doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't realistically locked into it and that that service isn't going to exploit that fact.
Usually I consider terms like “control” to be hotheaded but if you substitute “is in control of Which results are returned” you can see the consequence could be nefarious. This understanding informed antitrust theory up to the 1980s.
I don’t use Google for anything myself except for communicating with my gf’s kids’ scout troop. That doesn’t mean I think they have a bunch of evil geniuses cackling and rubbing their hands in building 42. The rehetoric makes me think some people do think this.
Browsers would be a different issue. In that case, there are network effects like about what standards are supported and how, which make it difficult to launch a competing browser, even with technological superiority, and in that case, it would be reasonable to worry about too much market share.