Hacker News Reader

> Punishing Google (or Apple) because they make good products that people like is beyond stupid.

These companies are squeezing blood out of every company in existence, and there is no way out.

This racket hurts consumers, because there's no competition. Competition is impossible.

Apple and Google are an invasive species that have destroyed the ecosystem diversity, and now it's time for the government to step in and restore balance.

> big, successful companies

Disney is a big, successful company. Apple and Google are Blunderbores [1]. They control nearly all of computing. I can't think of a way you aren't paying them. They have their grubby hands on every part of the funnel, taxing it piece by piece.

They force you to pay for search, they force you to pay to deploy software, they tax your business transactions, they steal information about your business transactions, they keep you from forming a customer relationship yourself. They control what technology you use, they force you to make unscheduled updates, they prevent you from updating on your own or making your own choices.

They're Blunderbores, and the world is their kingdom until we cut them down a notch.

[1] If we don't have a better term than monopoly, let's use this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunderbore

> They control nearly all of computing.

Ummm, what? What about Microsoft that has a stranglehold on corporate computing? IBM, SAP, TSMC, ASML all dominate certain aspects of computing. Nvidia? Meta has a near monopoly on social networks (Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram).

I personally do think Apple behaves very anti-competitively but none of these are actual monopolies IMO (ASML might be the closest but only because no one else has figured out how to do what they do).

Apple is creating a large marketplace where it controls everything. It can be argued that the 30% tax is probably reducing the amount of useful software being produced, as is the case with other store rules like browser engine restrictions. Also, it allows Apple to compete in unfair ways against e.g. Spotify has to pay the 30% tax if they want to offer the same service as Apple, which is to offer in app subscription options, where Apple pays nothing. It may or may not meet the legal definition of a trust, but it surely seems to have all of its negative effects.

I don't quite agree with your conclusion. When these companies get as huge as they are, it's quite easy for them to abuse their size in ways that harm consumers and smaller businesses. This is different than just critiquing them for being large companies.

In the case of Google, I (and the DOJ) believe they clearly are/were suppressing other search engines. Additionally, with Chrome, its not just as simple as using a different browser. Keep in mind Google has control of Chromium and can do things like pushing manifest v3 that benefit them. Their control over Chromium also allows them to essentially dictate what will become web standards. If you think web standards should be change to allow users more privacy, there's nothing you can do because Google leverages their power to prevent that.

In the case of Apple, I don't think there's many people hating because they make nice products. You don't have to agree, but people are arguing that things like their app store policies are unfair, NOT that apple doesn't deserve to be large and make a profit. Apple is is a position of power, that is OK. What is not OK is them taking advantage of that in an anti-consumer manner.

I think the issue is not that there are huge companies, and it also is not that these huge companies are for-profit institutions. It's that these companies are using their size to make a profit, and sometimes this is in ways that make the world a worse place.

These institutions are beholden to their shareholders to try and make a profit. They are only trying to fulfill this duty. It is difficult for a company to grow to massive scale and not sometimes seek profit in ways that negatively impact consumers and smaller businesses. If we want these large businesses to fulfill their fiduciary duty in a way that does not negatively impact us, it is the duty of government to provide regulation/guidance/action.

>In other words the "new antitrust" is just people who dislike big, successful companies trying to bring them down a peg. Apple is "large and powerful" because it sells products people love. Why is that unjustifiable?

Because punishing success for success's sake incentivizes people and businesses to just not bother. "Let no good deed go unpunished." is supposed to be a joke, y'all.

>Apparently the DoJ is pressuring Google to sell Chrome. But if you don't like Chrome due to all the tracking, you can just use a Chromium-derived browser (or just Chromium)!

Google engages in forcing other browsers out of the market, which is a monopolistic act that is prohibited by law. Microsoft with Internet Explorer got busted for a lot of what Google does with Chrome today.

> Because punishing success for success's sake incentivizes people and businesses to just not bother.

This is often said as justification for striking down higher taxes or whatever, but does it actually happen in reality? Was the pace of American innovation any lower in the 1950s with the high tax rates then? Was there any less dynamism in the black market during Soviet rule? Seems like when you set restrictions, people will still compete and find ways to get ahead- it just might not be in a desirable place.