Google illegally maintains monopoly over internet search, judge rules
Google illegally maintains monopoly over internet search, judge rules
A judge ruled that Google’s ubiquitous search engine has been illegally exploiting its dominance to squash competition and stifle innovation.
"WASHINGTON (AP) — A judge on Monday ruled that Google’s ubiquitous search engine has been illegally exploiting its dominance to squash competition and stifle innovation in a seismic decision that could shake up the internet and hobble one of the world’s best-known companies..."
I sincerely hope they get broken up.
Thoughts and prayers. (I don’t even know if I’m being sarcastic anymore)
Betchu they'll just send a check of 1 B to the FTC and say "that should pay the fine + interest" then go on with their day. Happened in a similar fashion before.
Happy cake day. Yes, I‘m afraid that could happen. We‘ll see.
This is based on older evidence but the exclusive deal Google just signed with reddit makes it pretty clear the monopoly is planned and ongoing.
The funny thing is that this probably screws Reddit more than anyone. Obviously fuck 'em but funny either way.
The punishment will be less big than the profit, they won't stop, as usual.
Did you do a crime? Well as the authority round these parts, you know I get a cut.
If the fine is not large enough to impact their business then breaking the law will be a normal business decision and fines a simple business expense. It's already like that.
Shatter the company like glass.
They are insanely huge. They should be 10 different companies.
Alphabet is 10 different companies. Google is one of them.
Google is Alphabet.
This distinction is meaningless. It is like arguing that Facebook isn't a company anymore and Meta is a totally new institution.
It's Facebook. It's Google.
Its FAANG companies not MAANA companies.
Even if the punishment is largely symbolic and Google only pays a tiny (compared to it's massive size) fine; I'd still call that a significant win.
- Google can be REQUIRED to give users A CHOICE of Search Engines.
- Google can be FORBIDDEN from giving their OWN ENGINE an advantage in search results or advertising
- Google can be FORCED to ALLOW THIRD PARTIES access to the SAME APIs used in Chrome and Chromium.
- Google can be FORBIDDEN from BLOCKING THIRD PARTY FRONTENDS from using Google Search, Youtube and more.
Google can be REQUIRED to give users A CHOICE of Search Engines.
Don't they, err, already do this?
I mean a search engine is literally just a website and absolutely nothing prevents you from just going to duckduckgo.com or bing.com or wherever. Don't think Chrome prevents you from accessing other search engines in general, and last time I used it (admittedly a while back) it had a setting to change the search engine used by default if you just typed something into the address bar.
Websites and articles that have nothing to do with search or Google have to be designed specifically for Google’s search algorithm. I think that’s pretty crazy.
Search Engine OptimizationGoogle OptimizationNot to mention googles push for an identification standard that would effectively ban any non chromium browser from all major websites.
Interestingly, SEO is increased with semantic HTML which benefits people who need screen readers since it is easier to parse. But, also. Fuck google
Next do chromium
I can't wait until Adobe, Shopify and every other company that's been screwed over get called in to testify
Good, fuck Google. Break up that site.
Never going to happen. Remember when the same thing happened to Microsoft in the 90s?
Unfortunately yes... I also remember when windows 98 crashed in a demonstration.
I hope windows will be next
what? split up windows home and pro editions?
Let's not get ahead of ourselves...
Google gained their initial position fair and square. They had the better search engine, and despite the likes of Bing being actually pretty good they were never able to compete.
All Google had to do was to follow its initial mantra of "don't be evil". That's literally all it needed to do. Sadly, they were evil, and these are the seeds of that evil. I maintain today that Chrome, YouTube, Maps, and Search would still be dominant if Google were to welcome third-parties to compete and take space on their devices.
This, IMO, is a case that is damaging to their CEO above anything else. It shows that over the last few years many of the steps taken that have alienated fans and employees have actually damaged the company too. The exec actions have damaged them, and as such the execs should pay the price or course-correct.
But... Aren't all of those things still very much dominant?
They're saying that google services are dominant and anticompetitive, but not dominant BECAUSE they're anticompetitive.
Even if they were playing fair with competitors, they would still be #1 because they were that good. But because they weren't okay with giving competitors a fair chance, they resorted to anticompetitive practices that hurt consumers, and now this ruling is going to hurt google in return. They could have played nice and everything would have been better for everyone, but they didn't so here we are
The judge said it was a monopoly but there does not seem to be any consequences at this time if ever.
Mehta’s conclusion that Google has been running an illegal monopoly sets up another legal phase to determine what sorts of changes or penalties should be imposed to reverse the damage done and restore a more competitive landscape.
The potential outcome could result in a wide-ranging order requiring Google to dismantle some of the pillars of its internet empire or prevent it from paying to ensure its search engine automatically answers queries on the iPhone and other devices. Or, the judge could conclude only modest changes are required to level the playing field.
Today was not about determining consequences / repercussions. It was only about deciding yes or no on the monopoly issue. The next step in the legal process is determining repercussions for Alphabet, and it seems like there are some pretty dramatic options on the table.
It already hobbled itself by letting the results quality slide for 15+ years…
It might not be much but it's still legal precedent that will hopefully help it reach critical mass. Like getting Al Capone on tax evasion
After reviewing [evidence from] Google, Microsoft and Apple... Mehta [gave a verdict]
Really, this is just a win for Facebhook?
We need a federated search engine. Whatever fedia.io runs on but for search.
So stoked to see this. A bit disheartening to read this kinda shit, though=
“This victory against Google is an historic win for the American people,” said Attorney General Merrick Garland. “No company — no matter how large or influential — is above the law. The Justice Department will continue to vigorously enforce our antitrust laws.”
Only to be followed a few paragraphs down by
...a drawn-out appeals process will delay any immediate effects for both consumers and advertisers. The appeals process could take as long as five years...
Sigh.
I may be misunderstanding but why are people saying take down chromium? Please correct me if I'm wrong but chromium is open source and only invested in largely by Google. Chrome is chromium with proprietary code implemented and in no way (as far as I can tell) do they own the chromium project. I quite like chromium just the de-googled version. I think people may be mistaking Chrome and Chromium for being the same or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe someone can explain if I'm missing something
Also I'd love to see the downfall of Google but nothing will change the power they have. The names too recognizable it doesn't matter if given a choice , Grandma or Grandpa or whoever that doesn't care about this sort of thing is picking Google because out of the common options they'll probably only recognize Bing or Google maybe some Yahoo too lol
Edit: I don't understand why I'm being downvoted , I was asking a question and explaining what I understood about the project but that's the internet I suppose haha
Chromium is open source but not free (as in freedom). In fact, it is developed by Google and only Google has the power to accept or refuse a PR.
As an example: Manifest V2 is going to be discontinued in favor of V3 on Chromium (and consequently Chrome) despite the outrage of the users and developers.
I don't think anything you said makes it not free, as long as you can fork it. The same can be said about most FOSS, since somebody, usually the creator, is in control of the repository.
That's the point of FOSS - your repository isn't becoming a democracy by virtue of using a permissive license, but it means somebody could outcompete you with a fork and effectively take over as the dominant project.
I think the main problem is that Chromium still contributes towards the browser engine monoculture, as it is bug-for-bug compatible with Chrome. Therefore if you switch to Chromium, it's still enough for the web sites to test for Chrome compatibility, which they will, because it has the largest market share. Users of competing browsers suffer, further driving the lure of Chrome (or Chromium).
On the other hand, if people switched to some other engine, one that does not share the same core engine or even the same history, this will no longer hold: web sites would need to be developed against the spec, or at least against all the browsers they might realistically expect their customers to use.
In other news rain is wet. Damn the legal system is so inept and corrupt. This has been clear for what, like 20 years now. Should have been deemed illegal all along. For profit companies will always seek market domination to maximize profits, always have and always will. It's the legal system & authorities job to regulate so it doesn't happen and take swift action when it does.
They should also break up Google's stranglehold on the browser market but I guess that'll take another decade or two at least as well. Sadly meanwhile this ruling could lead to Mozilla losing its main funding if Google can't keep paying to be default search engine which could lead to even less choice in the browser space.
Google is the best internet search according to Bing.
If that was true, duckduck and others wouldve dried up and faded away by now
They are way smaller than Google market share wise
Bit confused, Google has its own browser, its own search engine, and provides a somewhat easy method to access the majority of the Internet and does it well but some people are upset because they cannot compete? What is the point in doing something so good that you become the best in the business? Everyone comes to you for your service, but you get punished because you're a monopoly? I'm thinking about Valve here as well. It's a major retail platform for PC games because nobody does it better. Publishers get upset its top dog, and their shity half arsed clients get no light.
Is it not the point of a business to make money and be good at their service that they increase revenue yearly and drive innovation?
It's about exploitive behavior. Note that your example, valve, hasn't been sued successfully about monopolistic behaviour as they don't try to shut down competition, they just remain better than their competition, which is how it's supposed to work.
But shitty businesses who lose customers start interfering in the ability of others to compete with them. F.i. Google cutting a deal with Reddit to be the only search engine to index the site.
Google has its own browser, its own search engine, and provides a somewhat easy method to access the majority of the Internet and does it well.
The problem isn't that it does it well, it's that it did it well and it doesn't anymore.
They dominate the market and can afford to make the search AI-inflated bullshit without any revenue losses.
Another part of the problem is the integration. Some google websites are rendered inoperable on Firefox, while others are made to have a worse experience.
A third part is giving its services preferential treatment onstead of having thekr algorithm be unbiased towards in-house services.
Edit:
Once upon a time the best browser game in town was Internet explorer. Similar stuff happened (actually even less blatant then Google). Microsoft basically controlled Web standards. The biggest sin they did was bundle IE with Windows, at least according to the US suit.
The problem is not having the monopoly, it's exploiting it's qualities. Google for example exploits the fact that they know how much ad revenue each site makes them and thus can rank them higher. They also can rank their own products such as YouTube or Chrome. Another exploitation of their monopoly is that Google is the default search engine of Chrome instead of giving the user choices
There is no issue with YouTube, another monopoly, since it's business model is driving engagement and making money from ads but not exploiting its position.
Valve is another monopoly but it doesn't block people from putting their own launchers onto their platform. It doesn't block you from installing another store like Apple does and in general is nowhere near as all-encompassing as Google.
The problem is, if one company dominates search, you have no way to evaluate whether they are doing it well.
The problem is, if one company dominates search, you have no way to evaluate whether they are doing it well.
You could just go to other search engines and run the same queries and compare results.
For example, I did a search on 6 different search engines earlier today looking for a specific Reddit thread related to an update to a certain Skyrim mod without quite naming the mod (because I couldn't remember the exact name of the mod, and was hoping to find the Reddit thread to get the mod name or Nexus link). All 6 had the Nexus page for the mod itself within the top 3 results, and all of them but Google and Yandex had the Reddit thread in question on the first page.
For the record Valve is very much not a monopoly. They have very big competitors including Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and more recently GOG.
I'm with you on this.
In this thread are people who screams monopoly, thinking they know what it means. One comment said Google is a monopoly, followed by "along with <other giant companies>"
They're giants because they're successful and good at what they do. They're successful because people are benefiting and find values from the products they use. The moment these giants stops "exploiting" people will be when they stop bringing values to society.
They've confused economic reality with their own ideal reality.
There's much more to company's popularity than just the product quality.
Google, along with some others, pays money for browser developers to be the default engine - so that people never bother to try something else and actually see how good or bad Google is compared to everything else.
Facebook (Meta) is known for predatory business practices like forcing startups to sell out or have their concept forcefully stolen and them destroyed.
Amazon dominates by plunging the prices of their in-house products below payback to drive the competition into bankruptcy, then acts as a monopoly, driving prices up.
There's plenty more such examples, but let me stop here for now. Giant corporations have powerful levers that are only available to them as they approach market dominance. And when they get 'em, fair play is over.