Hacker News Reader

Comment by beambot | Hacker News Reader

This feels a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face...

Unlike Microsoft's antitrust case of the 90s, Google seems much less anti-competitive by nature. Sure, they have unprecedented scale in search... but even that hegemony is being threatened by others in AI.

If anything, going after Google with a DoJ kludgel will cause a servere freeze on startup M&A across all of FAANG. With IPO windows (mostly) closed, this removes the biggest exit dynamic the startup ecosystem has at its disposal. This is not a good thing from my perspective, and would seem counter to YC's interests.

Someone steelman this for me...?

View on HN

YC should benefit most from an ecosystem where distribution channels (search, ads, etc) are not monopolized.

Startups ideally should compete on merit, not on whether they are eventually allowed access to Google’s platforms or get acquired. Startups can still exit via IPO, PE acquisition, cross-industry buyers or M&A.

From this POV, Google’s control over the adtech stack may be seen as gatekeeping digital advertising, which many YC companies rely on.

> seems much less anti-competitive by nature

It seems much less, but I don't believe it is much less anticompetitive. We're talking about the search market specifically in this case, and the government has presented strong evidence that Google is:

* Using its position in other markets (browser, mobile) to ensure that others can't compete in search.

* Paying the major other vendors in those markets (browser, mobile) enormous sums of money to ensure that ~100% of the market share in both markets is used to prop up their lead in search.

Both of these things are pretty blatantly anticompetitive: they're competing not primarily based on the quality of their product offering but instead based on their pre-existing revenue streams and their leads in other markets.

Google killed the Edge browser with the same tricks MS used.

The use money and Google Play services to hinder competition.

Not really less anti-competitive.

Anecdotal, but I wanted to give Edge a chance. I found out that it is quite possibly the most feature-creep rich browser on the market. Its sole purpose seems to be “let Microsoft monitor your entire browsing experience”.

I also feel like Microsoft’s heavy handed dark patterns trick less computer savvy people into using it, and those people probably aren’t aware of how much info Microsoft is collecting about them. As a result, I seriously question that Edge’s market share is organic because people actually like it.

Chrome has become that for google.

If you believe that, you are mistaken. If you're making the assertion on false pretenses, then it is tantamount to trolling.

Google didn't kill the Edge browser, Microsoft gave up. If Mozilla can have an independent from scratch browser, Microsoft of all companies could have one too. It's just easier and cheaper for them to rebrand Chromium and call it a day.

And I'm not buying the argument that progress on the Web (tech stack) should stop so that it's easier to make/maintain a browser.

Some of us would have preferred for "progress" on the web stack to have stopped about 20 years ago.

I grew up in the dial-up era but personally think it's incredibly cool how I am able to use a full featured IDE, flash an ESP-32 or my phone via USB, make low latency Zoom/Teams calls with screen sharing, run language agnostic bytecode and utilize low level GPU access, all in a highly secure sandbox on my Macbook, Linux/Windows Thinkpad, $100 Chromebook, tablet and phone.

By one measure, Edge has 5% market share, twice that of Firefox.

On Desktop it’s 13%, which is second place.

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl...

Corporate is a huge, huge part of this.

Lots of people working just use whatever browser is preloaded. In addition, you can't even download another browser in a lot of environments.

Does that chart differentiate between before and after edge internals became chromium though?

Does it matter? It seems like distribution is more important than the internals.

When people say that Google killed the Edge browser they generally mean that MS gave up on maintaining their own browser engine and the world moved that much closer to a web monoculture. To put this in historical perspective, a reskinned IE would not have been a meaningful or useful competitor to IE.

I don’t think it’s a meaningful comparison because Microsoft has the resources to fork Chromium if they need to. But since it works pretty well, there’s little incentive to do that. It would be like Electron forking V8 for no reason.

Google is now a basic utility. Unless you don't believe in basic public goods, allowing equitable access to the utility benefits everyone, especially businesses.

Public goods are non-excludable (impossible to prevent anyone from using the good) and non-rivalrous (one person's use doesn't diminish the availability for others). Google doesn't match the criteria.

You've cherrypicked the phrase "public good" and applied an out of context definition that doesn't fit. The thing being discussed was public utilities. Those are a sort of public good in the same sense that public parks, public libraries, and free education are all public goods.

The local electric utility isn't "non-excludable" (unless you ignore criminal law) but it is certainly a public utility, a natural monopoly, and public good by most metrics. The vast majority of jurisdictions regulate it accordingly.

As a consumer, I agree with the parent comment and disagree with your comment. Google is closer to a public utility than any other tech company and most of their valuable services, we get to use for free and it benefits our whole family and probably the families of every home from here to the west, north, south and east of us, mostly all for FREE.

Interesting definition. This applies to almost literally nothing except Jefferson’s candle and IP. Actual literal fire is considered worthless and IP is bazillions of dollars of closely guarded secrets. Public transits, seemingly unlimited water sources, or neighborhood parks all suffer from overcrowding so this diminishing availability thing is tough to meet

It is the actual definition since economist Paul Samuelson coined it in 1954.

Things like public parks and public pools would be classic examples of a "Common resource." Rival and non-excludable.

Classic examples of true public goods would be public radio broadcasting or national defense.

At some point in the past couple decades, people have come to misunderstand the term. Having heard the argument that public goods justify taxation to fund them, they come to believe that anything they like must be a public good.

Public goods is an economics term with an actual meaning, and it has nothing to do with public utilities.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp

Interesting distinction!

Utilities and infrastructure can be considered public goods insofar as they have the characteristics of non-rivalry and non-excludability, meaning that one person's use of them does not diminish another person's ability to use them and it is difficult to prevent others from using them even if they have not contributed to their provision.

However, utilities are typically excludable (service can be cut off for non-payment) and rivalrous to some extent (there are capacity limits and usage can impact others), so they are better classified as private or quasi-public goods.

So why is this idea so prevalent: that public goods should be public utilities?

A key driver behind the transformation of some public goods into regulated public utilities seems to be the theory of "natural monopoly," which posits that certain industries are most efficiently served by a single provider, making competition impractical or wasteful. Then in 1919 the economic theory of public goods, notably developed by Erik Lindahl, further contributed to the myth by arguing that public goods should be funded through taxation based on individual benefit. This reinforced the notion that the government should organize and finance such goods, often through public utility models.

So I wouldn't say public goods have nothing to do with public utilities.

Fair, definitionally they are entirely distinct. In the real world, the concepts interact. The number one in distinct from the number two, but they relate and interact in a vast number of ways.

As it relates to Google search, I think it is very difficult to construct an argument that search is a natural monopoly. There's no limitations on parallel processes the way there are with roads or railroads or electric infrastructure. In fact, people have access to a long list of competitors at all times.

You can make it much better case that they are engaging in monopolistic practices, which is a claim very different from a natural constraint

> it has nothing to do with public utilities.

This doesn't follow from the linked article. Taxes can be levied in various ways, oftentimes related to usage. Involving a private entity doesn't suddenly change the nature of the thing. There's a marked difference between a sack of flour and my electric meter.

We as a society decide to make certain things into public goods. This is frequently the choice for natural monopolies.

Critiquing the article you linked - when taken literally non-rivalrous applies to approximately nothing. Non-excludability is simply a matter of law, which is a matter of what the voting public wants.

See my response here

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43950097

Reply on news.ycombinator.com