Welcome to Google’s nightmare: US reveals plan to destroy search monopoly

DOJ goes for Google's throat with "staggering" remedies to end search monopoly.

See full article...

 

[Ravant]

I'm all for breaking up Google, but this seems an obtuse way to go about it. Who would buy Chrome and, more importantly, why? The only market for it is selling user data to tech and advertising companies like...I don't know...Google? Seems like a pretty small win. Make them sell off search or ads.

Thing is, if they sell off Search or Ads, another company will snap them up and become the next monopoly. That doesn't solve the problem, just shifts it around. Ads and Search would need to be broken up further, a-la the Bells.

 

[plugh]

I don't see what chrome has to do with search. I use google for search because it consistently delivers the best results. I've tried other search engines and they do work, just not as well as google. I use Firefox as my browser, but just like any other browser you can choose which search engine it uses. I don't care what the default is.

You (and I) are with the 3% of people who use Firefox. The great majority use whatever browser comes preloaded on their device or they get chrome when some other Google service recommends it for “best operation” while surfing.

 

[stormcrash]

You can tell by how hard Google is crying that this is the right move

 

[JoeJohnJackson]

I don't see what chrome has to do with search.

You mean other than the fact that Chrome by default funnels all search to Google?

 

[stormcrash]

Thing is, if they sell off Search or Ads, another company will snap them up and become the next monopoly. That doesn't solve the problem, just shifts it around. Ads and Search would need to be broken up further, a-la the Bells.

Except this new company wouldn't have the bundling acting as a high barrier to entry with the search product. You wouldn't be forced to use the spun off G ad business to advertise on Google if Google is required to sell ad space in the open

 

[Zephro]

The biggest risk to Google's dominance in AI search could even be its former partner, whom the court found was being paid handsomely to help prop up Google's search monopoly: Apple.

I think breaking up Google is probably a good idea. But I'm not sure adding an Apple search engine would do much to reduce the market power of gigantic incumbent tech corporations. Wouldn't Apple then face strong incentives to do what Google does now and bundle its own search with its phones? Then you just get even more vertical integration and an even more siloed experience between IOS and Android.

The better solution would for some new search engines to spring up that weren't appendages of incumbent players (so not Bing either).

 

[johnsonwax]

I called this when DOJ said that the customer acquisition payments to Apple were improper as Chrome and Android are both steering products to search. They perform the same function, it's just that Google is cutting the check to themselves.

 

[s73v3r]

People use google and chrome because its actually good. Why split up a company thats done things right? Its not like there is no alternatives to google, or the alternatives are better but google has suppressed them.

Because what they're doing is abusing their dominant positions. Why keep allowing a company to do that, so they can make things worse so they can charge higher rates?

You do know that Google deliberately made search WORSE in order to show more ads, right? Why on earth is that behavior we should tolerate?

 

[s73v3r]

I'm all for breaking up Google, but this seems an obtuse way to go about it. Who would buy Chrome and, more importantly, why? The only market for it is selling user data to tech and advertising companies like...I don't know...Google? Seems like a pretty small win. Make them sell off search or ads.

Right now, Google is the only one that can do that, though. There is no market, so they get to jack up the prices.

 

[CelicaGT]

Its not a monopoly. There are many alternatives. Google is dominate because its the best.

What is it with people drawing part of their identity from a brand or corporation in this manner? It's truly unhealthy. Those corporations do not deserve your loyalty, it's not like there's a reciprocal relationship there. I mean if you work for them or something I get it, but probably better to recuse ones self from the conversation in that case.

 

[Psychophant]

This does seem like overkill. After all, having a monopoly is not illegal...using unjust tactics and exercising monopoly power is what is illegal.

Which is exactly what the judge found they did. If their product was so great it could compete on an even field, why would they pay for exclusive deals that hinder competition?

 

[s73v3r]

you mean like how everyone started using internet explorer and have continued to do so? Oh wait.

ok so what other company has better search?

So you believe anti-competitive behavior is just fine?

 

[nzod]

[...]

on another note, my prediction is Musk/X buys chrome.

Then my interest in using Chrome would migrate from "Hell no" to "Fuck no".

 

[ERIFNOMI]

https://www.androidauthority.com/chrome-os-becoming-android-3500661/
Seems like Google is already getting ahead of this by planning to merge Chrome OS into Android. That would protect Chrome OS/Chromebooks from a possible Chrome divestment.

I don't think that is a response to this. There have been talks about merging the two forever. The halfway solution was getting Android apps on ChromeOS, but they've been working for awhile to make Android for Tablets not just Android for Phones but blown up a little bit. It now has a little task bar, better multitasking, and I think you can even do more classic windowing as well.

 

[Ushio]

That's... exactly the point of the case and proposed remedies?? Everyone jumping on the Chromium bandwagon. Default search deals with $$ payments. Apple not getting into web search despite liking first-party solutions.

Wait how would Apple being in search be better? they already have over 60% of the US smartphone market now you want them having 60% of mobile browser and search as well?

 

[s73v3r]

Its not a monopoly. There are many alternatives. Google is dominate because its the best.

Nope. It has been judged to be one.

Remember, in the legal sense, MONOPOLY DOES NOT LITERALLY MEAN THE ONLY ONE. The fact that you keep being deliberately ignorant on this point shows your inability to discuss things in good faith.

 

[Ushio]

So who will buy Chrome? Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, Dummy company owned by China or Dummy company owned by Russia?

 

[Dumb Svengali]

Google's nightmare? Is the author living in an alternate reality where Trump didn't win the election and his upcoming kleptocractic administration won't be arriving in late January? There's no way these plans survive long past inauguration day.

The DOJ lawsuit started under the Trump administration, and both Matt Gaetz and JD Vance are pretty anti-big tech monopoly. Josh Hawley, another influential Republican calls himself a Khanservative because he's such a big supporter of Lina Khan, Joe Biden's anti-monopoly FTC chair.

There's a fair chance that Trump does his Trump thing, and just uses the threat of the breakup to squeeze Google for some personal enrichment and free cloud services for the government or something.

But anti-monopoly sentiment is far from a polarized partisan issue. There are plenty of Democrats that are super pro-corporate power, and a decent number of anti-trust Republicans. There are plenty of antitrust Democrats and pro-corporate Republicans, too.

 

[s73v3r]

Thing is, if they sell off Search or Ads, another company will snap them up and become the next monopoly. That doesn't solve the problem, just shifts it around. Ads and Search would need to be broken up further, a-la the Bells.

So the idea behind selling off Ads would be that, then, they open up the ad market for things like Search.

 

[plugh]

Let’s be clear that Google is responsible for putting us and our government in this difficult situation. Google succeeded by developing superior products that that won in the marketplace (e.g. search and gmail). Then Google illegally stifled competition and innovative startups by abusing their dominant position (e.g. search and gmail).
I’m not sure I agree with the proposed solutions, but any remedy will be ugly because the problem is ugly. And it is a problem entirely of Google’s own making.

 

[Porcupine Calling]

Let's go! Bring competition back!

There is a typo in your sentence. The letter R should not be there.

 

[Dumb Svengali]

Its not a monopoly. There are many alternatives. Google is dominate because its the best.

They literally just had a huge trial for several months and years of discovery and determined that is actually, in the eyes of the law, not true. Thats what Google argued for months and months and the judge found their arguments full of holes and judged that to be wrong.

The context of this judgement is that judges have been blindly siding with companies for 40 years on cases like this so for a federal judge to find them to be an illegal monopoly means they are flagrantly and deeply violating the law.

It is an established legal fact that you are wrong. They are not an "alleged" monopoly. They are not a "potential monopoly". They are a monopoly guilty of anticompetitive practices.

 

[s73v3r]

This does seem like overkill. After all, having a monopoly is not illegal...using unjust tactics and exercising monopoly power is what is illegal.

Right. And given how long Google has been doing that, overkill is what's called for.

I'm normally a big fan of increased regulation (as long as it is right-sized against risk, cost and benefit), most especially when it comes to things like critical infrastructure, transportation, food, health, safety, etc.....but I'm just not seeing it here.

I'm not buying this argument that we need competition in some parts, but in others, it's just fine if prices go up because of anti-competitive behavior.

Google, as a search engine, largely won because they present the best product.

Did it? Or was it because they paid to be the default on everything?

Nothing is stopping consumers from changing search engines.

Being the default is very valuable because people rarely change it. That fact absolutely needs to be taken into account, and any commentary on "how easy it is to change search engines" that doesn't is completely without merit.

Again, ask yourself why Google is paying $20 billion a year to Apple to be the default if they were the best, or if they could just easily tell people to "change your default from Bing"?

Chrome, as a browser, also largely won because it is the best product for most people.

Did it? Or again, is it because Google keeps pushing it at every point?

It is also trivially easy to switch

And again, see the part about how defaults rarely get changed, and how refusing to acknowledge that means the commentary is invalid.

Consumers in the free market.

We don't have that.

And the prohibition against using their "data scale advantage" (whatever that means) in AI seems rather ridiculous, given the very nature of LLMs and AI development now.

Why? Why should they get to abuse their monopoly in yet another market?

All in all, these seem like bad suggestions, and as much as I despise Trump and fear the upcoming administration? One of the few things they will do right will likely be to quash these requirements.

Then what's your suggestion for actually increasing competition? What's your suggestion for making it so Google doesn't think they can actively make their search results WORSE so they can sell more ads?

 

[saltenjoyer]

you mean like how everyone started using internet explorer and have continued to do so?

You must have forgot that IE is deprecated now which kind cuts your argument off at the knees buddy, but I guess you also don’t remember the oughts when tons of folks continued using IE out of habit when better alternatives were available and it was a huge security issue.

ok so what other company has better search?

None, that’s why you gotta bust the trust

 

[saltenjoyer]

Its not a monopoly. There are many alternatives. Google is dominate because its the best.

Are you google’s mom?

 

[s73v3r]

A problem that can be fixed in literally 10 seconds with a trivial search and a handful of clicks? You mean THAT "problem"?

And a problem in which most people don't fight the inertia of the defaults? The one where most people leave them as they are? That problem.

 

[MacBrave]

ok so what other company has better search?

MS Bing of course.

 

[saltenjoyer]

A problem that can be fixed in literally 10 seconds with a trivial search and a handful of clicks? You mean THAT "problem"?

Found the guy who’s never had a work computer without root privileges

 

[MehWhoCares]

The pain will continue until the ad supported model of 'free' Internet is banned. Companies should produce and sell products and services instead of creating skinner boxes to mine consumers for value to sell to other companies. Over 20 years since the dot com bust and we're still dealing with the side effects of the fake 'free' Internet.

 

[Aurich]

They literally just had a huge trial for several months and years of discovery and determined that is actually, in the eyes of the law, not true. Thats what Google argued for months and months and the judge found their arguments full of holes and judged that to be wrong.

The context of this judgement is that judges have been blindly siding with companies for 40 years on cases like this so for a federal judge to find them to be an illegal monopoly means they are flagrantly and deeply violating the law.

It is an established legal fact that you are wrong. They are not an "alleged" monopoly. They are not a "potential monopoly". They are a monopoly guilty of anticompetitive practices.

There is a stunning amount of ignorance in these comments over this very basic fact that you just clearly laid out that I'm struggling to understand.

Even if they haven't been following everything it's literally laid out plain as day in this article that they apparently didn't read.

 

[MacBrave]

Because what they're doing is abusing their dominant positions. Why keep allowing a company to do that, so they can make things worse so they can charge higher rates?

You do know that Google deliberately made search WORSE in order to show more ads, right? Why on earth is that behavior we should tolerate?

How much would you personally pay Google for an ad-free, BETTER, search engine?

What is the phrase? Oh yeah. You get what you pay for.

 

[Aurich]

The pain will continue until the ad supported model of 'free' Internet is banned. Companies should produce and sell products and services instead of creating skinner boxes to mine consumers for value to sell to other companies. Over 20 years since the dot com bust and we're still dealing with the side effects of the fake 'free' Internet.

I don't really disagree with you, but it's tricky.

We have a subscription program for Ars that is entirely ad and tracker free. You can pay us directly and completely escape the box. No privacy issues, no advertising, just pure content and some extra perks, especially ones we can offer because we don't have to serve subs ads, so we get more flexibility in layout and presentation.

And yet only a relatively small fraction of our readership opts for that.

What's our option? Put up a paywall to force you to either pay or not read?

 

[Sajuuk]

While there needs to be something done with Google/Alphabet...that last sentence in the article shouldn't be what we are hoping for. One super huge tech company get's slapped down so another super huge tech company can save us from anti-trust issues?? I get that they are different markets, but the reality is that two behemoths controlling a market is usually no better than one. Make it make sense.

It makes perfect sense when you realize that 99% of the news content you consume is funded by an equally giant corporation that would also like to control the market.