Hacker News Reader

Comment by IshKebab | Hacker News Reader

So we can expect a similar decision against Apple bundling their own apps in iOS, or Microsoft promoting OneCloud in Windows, or Amazon not selling Google Chrome & heavily promoting their Firestick, or Bing doing exactly the same thing as Google (the only difference I see is the placement)?

I think it would be better if Google made it clearer that the shopping search was all adverts, but otherwise this seems idiotic. Every large tech company leverages its dominance in one area to compete in a different market.

View on HN

Anti-trust law in US & EU depends upon actually having significant market share. iOS has a significant minority share compared to Android, so it doesn't matter that Apple is bundling their own apps. The same logic applies to Bing, which employs many of the same anti-competitive tactics Google has used historically, though because market share is so low Microsoft will not garner any sanctions/fines (unless it becomes more comparable to Google.)

EDIT: per the OneDrive argument on Windows, I think you might have a point - though Windows is pretty open to deep integration with competitive services like Dropbox or Google Drive, so my guess is that MSFT would just have to offer an easy way to uninstall OneDrive, maybe? (or at least disable it.)

We have seen similar action against Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple in the EU... So, yes.

> this seems idiotic. Every large tech company leverages its dominance in one area to compete in a different market.

Then they will continue to be fined for anti-competitive behaviour. Which is also illegal in the US, the US just doesn't enforce their existing laws.

It is "idiotic" that the US fails to enforce existing US law. It isn't "idiotic" that the EU does.

But this is relatively meaningless with the current fine structure. Unless the EU's is drastically different, the fine never comes close to matching what the companies are making with these anti-competitive practices, ergo the companies are not sufficiently disincentivized to stop using them.

and to be honest, fines are not going to solve this.

Why? making fines to large and forcing companies to pay them up to the point that it hurts them will result in a severe economic impact, which will destabilize te economy.

For real gross conduct people should be held responsible in the company, even to the point that they might be personally responsible. People need a vested intrest to not do this kind of behaviour.

> making fines to large and forcing companies to pay them up to the point that it hurts them will result in a severe economic impact

Yeah, that's kind of the point. If it's not large enough to cause an economic impact then what good is it? If speeding fines were $10 and didn't subtract points from your license, I'd sure be speeding a lot more.

Correct. It's a lose-lose situation, and therefore should be avoided.

Your "speeding tickets" example demonstrates this beautifully. We all know people who need an externally imposed speed limit, a scalar number that is so OBVIOUSLY SILLY it doesn't even take into account primary safety factors such as the weather, surrounding traffic situation, vehicle condition etc (as drivers do instinctively). People who worship that number as the source of "safeness"... because some bureaucrat somewhere said so. These are sad, broken people; actually dangerous to be around when driving.

Put differently: a person who cares about the fines and "points deducted from their license" more than their own safety and self-preservation, is a great adept for the Darwin Awards. Applies to businesses equally.

If you expect any regulation, be it speed limits or anti-trust legislation, to have an effect on the situation the penalties for violating them must reflect that, i.e. there needs to be a real reason for the business/individual to obey them. Financial penalties are the most direct way to do so.

Where speed limits are often arbitrary and I think rather useless to maintain safety, to say that also applies to anti-trust and monopoly regulations is a stretch. People tend to forget that the first of these sorts of laws grew up next to companies like Standard Oil and US Steel, companies so large they literally held a stranglehold not just on the people who did business with them, but even to a great extent on their competition. Who's to say Google isn't a monopoly? Not so very long ago with a few keystrokes Google changed the fortunes of hundreds if not thousands of media companies by cracking down on linking and changing how their algorithm worked. Whether or not you agree with their decision (I do, but that's besides the point) is irrelevant; the fact is that Google has the power to greatly influence the flow of traffic on the web, and this power is completely, 100% unchecked and rife with opportunities for abuse.

And as for your co-opting my speeding metaphor, it's also worth noting that while speeding itself isn't so awfully unsafe, plenty of other things that will cost you "points on a license" are also things like drunk driving, reckless driving, driving without insurance, driving vehicles that have damaged components, etc. in other words: things that not only affect your safety, but the safety of those around you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com