Hacker News Reader

Comment by cwhiz | Hacker News Reader

It took less than 20 years for Google to go from "Don't Be Evil" to dominating the market in a similar way that Microsoft did. I think this speaks more to the fundamental problems of market pressure than anything else. Once Google became public they were beholden to shareholders to continue to grow and increase value. It's hard to do that without purchases, acquisitions, and defense of existing territory.

I do think Google, and other companies, need to be fundamentally broken up. However, there seems to be some underlying problems in the public market way of life in America that almost forces companies down this path.

I also think we need some broad new antitrust laws. Any market with fewer than 4 competitors is not a competitive market. Any market where a single competitor has more than 50% of the share is not a competitive market.

View on HN

One of the main things that makes me think Google is a harmful monopoly is how they cancel products just for not going to the moon.

It's like search+ads is such a dang money printer that they just churn products over and over looking for something that goes to the moon and anything that doesn't, even if it would be a stable, competitive, profit-generating product if it were its own company, they just bin it because it doesn't even register on their enormous operating profit from search.

I think that definitely hurts consumers. And isn't that the main measure of if a monopoly is bad? Demonstrating harm to consumers?

Isn't it a little ironic to complain about Google wanting their new products to go to the moon on a forum run by a VC with the exact same goals?

There are plenty of successful YC companies that wouldn't register on Google's financials and would probably be shut down/ignored by Google if they owned them though. Obviously YC would like all their portfolio companies to be massive but I don't think they force companies to shut down if they don't become Google massive.

Not YC itself, but other investors that have an actual board seat and invested more than 125k likely have a vested interest in seeking a lucrative acquisition.

By that kind of judgement, this forum should be just fund raising? No more open source or tech heavy articles?

A lot of us who are in this forum are here for the "news", not for the "ycombinator".

On the other side of this, it can be beneficial for startups and competition if Google does shut down products. If Google keeps services running that lose them money, they are also basically closing off entire markets to start ups who have to compete against a service that doesn't need to be profitable with an endless money pit behind it.

The parent specifically says:

> “even if it would be a stable, competitive, profit-generating product if it were its own company, they just bin it because it doesn't even register on their enormous operating profit”

That seems a bit witch-hunty given that doing the opposite and putting out new products to flood the market place even if they aren't successful would also be called monopolistic subsidization.

Just because a business practice sucks for consumers and it is done by a big company doesn't make it monopolistic. Anti-trust shouldn't be a "free for all gripes welcome" fest.

They dominated back during the "don't be evil days" not because they were evil, but because they were better. I don't believe for a second google ever had to play a single dirty trick or underhand tactic to reach the position in search they currently have, other markets maybe, but not search.

Google made a good browser and defaulted the search to their own engine. Then Google bought a mobile OS, bundled all the Google apps and services by default, and defaulted everything to their own browser with their own search engine. Google also paid Mozilla and Apple to default to Google search.

Google made good products and good services and aggressively defended them through acquisitions and paid placement deals. It may be your opinion that these acquisitions and placement deals are not "dirty" or "underhanded" but I find them to be fairly anticompetitive.

When google made Chrome, they already totally dominated the search market. Google search was launched 1997, Chrome was launched 2008.

The point by the parent is that Chrome was a moat (as was Android, that's why they bought it and pursued mobile in the manner they did; Android was a subsidy program to protect the search monopoly moneymaker), which Google used to ensure the position of search, to ensure that search was unassailable by competition. In the case of Android, Google was terrified of being leaped or replaced in the shift to mobile, inflection points in the landscape are when monopolies in tech are at their most vulnerable. The parent's point was not that search wasn't already dominant, it's that Chrome helps to protect that dominance.

Microsoft used the exact same tactic repeatedly. It's one of the cornerstones of any dominant corporation, to build and leverage moats to keep competition at bay.

Google had 61% of the search market in 2008. Google used their free browser, paid placement deals, and acquisitions to further enhance their position to the 90%+ that it is now.

Why do you think Google bought Android? Google panicked after seeing a private demo of iOS. Remember, back then Google execs were sitting on the Apple board.

Your premises are undisputedly true and your conclusion is provocative. What is your reasoning?

Google Search was built on an "unlimited download" datacenter networking contract because the seller has no idea how astronomical Google intended to with its downloading.

> Once Google became public they were beholden to shareholders to continue to grow and increase value

Absolutely false. First, there's no obligation to grow and increase value. Second, Google is controlled by 3 shareholders: Page, Brin, and Schmidt

> Once Google became public they were beholden to shareholders to continue to grow and increase value.

That's the extra special thing about Google's brand of evil. They were not beholden to the great masses of shareholders or big institutional money. They have less excuse than some other prominent companies, because Larry and Sergey (plus Schmidt) controlled the company courtesy of their stock class arrangement. They were not beholden, they chose to behave evil without the typical shareholder pressure.

Which tells you a lot about these people.

I think Larry and Sergey fundamentally don't think Google is in the wrong in any way at all. The slow boil. I think Schmidt is just a cutthroat businessman.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com