Explain how that would work. YouTube cannot exist without Google. It gets a free ride on Google infrastructure, software, and R&D including custom silicon. If it had to pay nondiscriminatory prices for network, compute, and storage then it simply would not exist. I can't see how that benefits the consumer.
Because that type of service should not come from a private entity. In an ideal world our taxes would pay for these services and the government would provide video hosting. Same goes for map business searching and co BTW. This must not be from a private entity. But it is, because the government is not competent to do it.
Nothing is keeping congress from creating and managing a citizen video hosting service for its people. The US government does after all allow competition against the United States Postal Service. What they shouldn't do is annex existing platforms.
Not at all, commercial television has been a thing for a long time. Government gets involved when deciding who gets to use the limited radio frequency spectrum used to transmit television signals over the ether but it has been possible to offer a wide array of television channels over cable for a long time as well. Government gets involved when deciding who gets to run cables for cable television and tends (or tended) to mandate some specific channels which should be available but those were/are only a small fraction of the available choice.
That ideal world you're referring to is called Utopia and its spectre has been haunting the world for more than a century.
> This must not be from a private entity
The way it stands this sentence does not make sense. Rephrase it slightly and it makes a lot of sense: this must not be from a single private entity. There should be several, preferably many private entities offering such services.
In a truly ideal world everyone would be able to host a video service because there would be essentially unlimited bandwidth, with several competing indexing services providing discoverability. In a slightly less ideal but more achievable world people would still get to run their own services, discoverability would still be provided through competing indexers and the lack of bandwidth would be solved through some sort peer to peer mechanism. The only way in which the government should be involved is in upholding the law of the land by prosecuting those who break said law. That's it, really.
Youtube can buy those services from google as an independent entity, like everybody else. Not profitable enough? Good. I see a lot of people who don't understand that is not a side effect, but the point of antitrust action, to destroy business models that are only competitive as loss leaders for another arm of the monopoly business. Finally we'd get closer to fair competition between video platforms.
It's not a loss leader. It makes a huge amount of money, but only because of its tight integration with Google infrastructure. It is not an abuse of a monopoly any more than it would be for an oil refinery to sell both diesel fuel and petrol.
In the case of Chrome, I imagine it's because Google has used its control over Chrome to add built in user tracking that reports only to Google, while simultaneously seeking to remove access to the cookies that Google's advertising competitors must have access to in order to compete.
Do anticompetitive things, win anticompetitive prizes.
There are ongoing antitrust lawsuits against Apple, Amazon, and potentially one coming for Microsoft Cloud business.
In any case, this is more whataboutism than anything. The fact that you perceive others as not being targeted doesn't mean that nothing should be done about Google's monopoly on Search.
Probably because the entire world gets its information through Chrome, and since Chrome is becoming increasingly anti adblock, the danger is that billions of people will now be force fed ads.
Besides, plenty of governments had similar hard-ons against MS & IE in the early 2000s, people just have very short memories in the digital age.
> Apple / Microsoft / Amazon / … skate by without getting the same beat-down.
Their time will come. Defending something bad by pointing at others and saying they are also doing it is typically low-effort reactionism.
I'm surprised to see so much confusion here. Google pays some kind of "market rate" to Apple to be default search engine on iOS, this change'll first and foremost result in them paying similarly to be default in Chrome.
Hopefully through that Google will end up with less influence to force anti-consumer decisions, like the recent adblock downgrades, on Chrome.
Fair enough, right? Of course all this is assuming decent oversight by DOJ, not allowing the sale to someone with monopolistic incentives of their own, e.g. Microsoft.
Just thinking: So, Google makes life easier for users by creating Chrome and getting us respite from IE. When they moved the web really forward and way faster than others (Edge/Opera switched to Chromium too) - the DOJ wants them to give it away. It's like raising an exceptional child only to be asked to be adopted when they grow to be an adult.
Your analogy isn’t accurate because the child wasn’t exceptional, it only exists a vehicle for maintaining Google’s ad dominance.
It’s like raising an exceptional child who is a criminal and having people come out of the woodwork saying “he was so good, he didn’t do anything wrong”
Agreed that it brings search dominance. But, it's like siblings helping each other out in life. A child excelled in a field where other failed. Now this child also helps promote his/her sibling's business.
Many Apple products only connect with other Apple products. Microsoft keeps poking/pushing to use Edge on Microsoft. Brave browser did eat into share and made a mark.
What is stopping from other kids in the field (FF, Edge, Opera etc) to be better, beat Chrome and also blocks ads?
The removal of Manifest v2 support clearly shows there’s a conflict of interest there. The best thing for users is to allow ad blocking, but the best thing for Google is to not allow it. Since they’re choosing to impede/reduce those capabilities, we can clearly see who’s getting the benefit.
I know there are other arguments against Manifest v2, but they seem like parallel construction to justify the “real” reason.
Honestly, what would selling Chrome do for Google's search monopoly? I actually agree with a lot of the things the DOJ is requesting in there, but the Chrome part is a bit baffling to me and seems to come more from a "hell yeah break 'em up" vibe than actual remedy.
The best argument I could make is that owning chrome allows you to see the searches people make on Google in the address bar (and if you were unscrupulous, on Google's Search page as well)? Maybe that's strong enough?
I'm genuinely concerned as a lover of the web that this will slow the innovation we've seen in the space to a crawl. The web has grown so much since the bad old days in no small part due to Chrome. I wonder if Google's vested interest in growing the web (since as when the web grows, so does search and ads usage) would result in them investing in Firefox instead, but I strongly doubt it (at least, not to the same level).
Who do you sell _Google_ Chrome to? This seems ill-advised. Who could possibly run it? Oracle? Broadcom? Is Elon Musk going to buy it and then we'll have X Browser?
None of these options seem likely to create anything better than what we have now.
On the upshot, Firefox is going to see a resurgence. Hey, maybe Mozilla buys it?
The exact opposite. Mozilla is no longer allowed to receive a payment from Google to be the default search engine, and that payment was 90% of their revenue
> Other remedies the government is asking the court to impose include prohibiting Google from offering money or anything of value to third parties — including Apple and other phone-makers — to make Google’s search engine the default
If this happens, Mozilla is going to be fighting for survival, it’s not going to be in a position to make acquisitions.
The point of antitrust action is exactly this, to destroy noncompetitive business models like chrome and allow true competition to thrive between actors in a free market. Given that you do not seem to understand the core point of antitrust i'm not sure you're in a position to judge it as ill advised.
Surprised this didn't reach the top of HN earlier.
This is outrageous from the DOJ, hopefully Google can appeal. Given how the Google ecosystem works together, I don't see how this doesn't hurt consumers in the end.
It's a huge blow to open source in practice. It means the government doesn't accept the business strategy of making excellent open source software as a complement to main business aims.
Discussion (1189 points, 2 days ago, 1407 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42177767
> and it left the door open to requiring the company to spin out Android, too.
Hell yes. Next YouTube!
Explain how that would work. YouTube cannot exist without Google. It gets a free ride on Google infrastructure, software, and R&D including custom silicon. If it had to pay nondiscriminatory prices for network, compute, and storage then it simply would not exist. I can't see how that benefits the consumer.
Because that type of service should not come from a private entity. In an ideal world our taxes would pay for these services and the government would provide video hosting. Same goes for map business searching and co BTW. This must not be from a private entity. But it is, because the government is not competent to do it.
Nothing is keeping congress from creating and managing a citizen video hosting service for its people. The US government does after all allow competition against the United States Postal Service. What they shouldn't do is annex existing platforms.
Government YouTube: easily the worst idea I've heard in years.
And the fact that it is a bad idea (I agree, it is!) says a lot about the trust we have in the government and their competency, sadly…
That being said, it’s basically TV before the internet.
Not at all, commercial television has been a thing for a long time. Government gets involved when deciding who gets to use the limited radio frequency spectrum used to transmit television signals over the ether but it has been possible to offer a wide array of television channels over cable for a long time as well. Government gets involved when deciding who gets to run cables for cable television and tends (or tended) to mandate some specific channels which should be available but those were/are only a small fraction of the available choice.
> Because that type of service should not come from a private entity.
Why?
That ideal world you're referring to is called Utopia and its spectre has been haunting the world for more than a century.
> This must not be from a private entity
The way it stands this sentence does not make sense. Rephrase it slightly and it makes a lot of sense: this must not be from a single private entity. There should be several, preferably many private entities offering such services.
In a truly ideal world everyone would be able to host a video service because there would be essentially unlimited bandwidth, with several competing indexing services providing discoverability. In a slightly less ideal but more achievable world people would still get to run their own services, discoverability would still be provided through competing indexers and the lack of bandwidth would be solved through some sort peer to peer mechanism. The only way in which the government should be involved is in upholding the law of the land by prosecuting those who break said law. That's it, really.
Youtube can buy those services from google as an independent entity, like everybody else. Not profitable enough? Good. I see a lot of people who don't understand that is not a side effect, but the point of antitrust action, to destroy business models that are only competitive as loss leaders for another arm of the monopoly business. Finally we'd get closer to fair competition between video platforms.
It's not a loss leader. It makes a huge amount of money, but only because of its tight integration with Google infrastructure. It is not an abuse of a monopoly any more than it would be for an oil refinery to sell both diesel fuel and petrol.
Never understood why the government seems to have such a hard-on against Google.
Somehow, Apple / Microsoft / Amazon / … skate by without getting the same beat-down.
In the case of Chrome, I imagine it's because Google has used its control over Chrome to add built in user tracking that reports only to Google, while simultaneously seeking to remove access to the cookies that Google's advertising competitors must have access to in order to compete.
Do anticompetitive things, win anticompetitive prizes.
There are ongoing antitrust lawsuits against Apple, Amazon, and potentially one coming for Microsoft Cloud business.
In any case, this is more whataboutism than anything. The fact that you perceive others as not being targeted doesn't mean that nothing should be done about Google's monopoly on Search.
Probably because the entire world gets its information through Chrome, and since Chrome is becoming increasingly anti adblock, the danger is that billions of people will now be force fed ads.
Besides, plenty of governments had similar hard-ons against MS & IE in the early 2000s, people just have very short memories in the digital age.
> Apple / Microsoft / Amazon / … skate by without getting the same beat-down.
Their time will come. Defending something bad by pointing at others and saying they are also doing it is typically low-effort reactionism.
I'm surprised to see so much confusion here. Google pays some kind of "market rate" to Apple to be default search engine on iOS, this change'll first and foremost result in them paying similarly to be default in Chrome.
Hopefully through that Google will end up with less influence to force anti-consumer decisions, like the recent adblock downgrades, on Chrome.
Fair enough, right? Of course all this is assuming decent oversight by DOJ, not allowing the sale to someone with monopolistic incentives of their own, e.g. Microsoft.
Just thinking: So, Google makes life easier for users by creating Chrome and getting us respite from IE. When they moved the web really forward and way faster than others (Edge/Opera switched to Chromium too) - the DOJ wants them to give it away. It's like raising an exceptional child only to be asked to be adopted when they grow to be an adult.
Your analogy isn’t accurate because the child wasn’t exceptional, it only exists a vehicle for maintaining Google’s ad dominance.
It’s like raising an exceptional child who is a criminal and having people come out of the woodwork saying “he was so good, he didn’t do anything wrong”
Agreed that it brings search dominance. But, it's like siblings helping each other out in life. A child excelled in a field where other failed. Now this child also helps promote his/her sibling's business.
Many Apple products only connect with other Apple products. Microsoft keeps poking/pushing to use Edge on Microsoft. Brave browser did eat into share and made a mark.
What is stopping from other kids in the field (FF, Edge, Opera etc) to be better, beat Chrome and also blocks ads?
The removal of Manifest v2 support clearly shows there’s a conflict of interest there. The best thing for users is to allow ad blocking, but the best thing for Google is to not allow it. Since they’re choosing to impede/reduce those capabilities, we can clearly see who’s getting the benefit.
I know there are other arguments against Manifest v2, but they seem like parallel construction to justify the “real” reason.
[dupe]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42201261
Honestly, what would selling Chrome do for Google's search monopoly? I actually agree with a lot of the things the DOJ is requesting in there, but the Chrome part is a bit baffling to me and seems to come more from a "hell yeah break 'em up" vibe than actual remedy.
The best argument I could make is that owning chrome allows you to see the searches people make on Google in the address bar (and if you were unscrupulous, on Google's Search page as well)? Maybe that's strong enough?
I'm genuinely concerned as a lover of the web that this will slow the innovation we've seen in the space to a crawl. The web has grown so much since the bad old days in no small part due to Chrome. I wonder if Google's vested interest in growing the web (since as when the web grows, so does search and ads usage) would result in them investing in Firefox instead, but I strongly doubt it (at least, not to the same level).
Why just Chrome? Why Not Android too?
I'm wondering if they count custom ROMs or forks of Android to be legit competition like Lineage and Graphene?
Its a silly notion, but I'm just thinking out loud.
I think the filing says Android too, not sure why the focus is on Chrome.
I didn't read the actual filing, but the linked article days that Android is excluded, but implies it could be included later:
> While the government isn’t going as far as to demand Google spin out its Android business, it’s leaving the option open.
Who do you sell _Google_ Chrome to? This seems ill-advised. Who could possibly run it? Oracle? Broadcom? Is Elon Musk going to buy it and then we'll have X Browser?
None of these options seem likely to create anything better than what we have now.
On the upshot, Firefox is going to see a resurgence. Hey, maybe Mozilla buys it?
The exact opposite. Mozilla is no longer allowed to receive a payment from Google to be the default search engine, and that payment was 90% of their revenue
Google destroyed Mozilla by giving them free money until they became lazy and incompetent.
> Other remedies the government is asking the court to impose include prohibiting Google from offering money or anything of value to third parties — including Apple and other phone-makers — to make Google’s search engine the default
If this happens, Mozilla is going to be fighting for survival, it’s not going to be in a position to make acquisitions.
Probably spun out as an independent film
The point of antitrust action is exactly this, to destroy noncompetitive business models like chrome and allow true competition to thrive between actors in a free market. Given that you do not seem to understand the core point of antitrust i'm not sure you're in a position to judge it as ill advised.
Is that kind of the point? Chrome makes no business sense if it weren't for the anticompetitive edge it provides.
Who does this REALLY benefit? I am concerned this will hurt the US Tech industry more than it helps in the current economic climate.
Surprised this didn't reach the top of HN earlier.
This is outrageous from the DOJ, hopefully Google can appeal. Given how the Google ecosystem works together, I don't see how this doesn't hurt consumers in the end.
It's a huge blow to open source in practice. It means the government doesn't accept the business strategy of making excellent open source software as a complement to main business aims.
It'd be crazy if Microsoft purchased Chrome? The DOJ should be ashamed.