This Hacker News discussion primarily revolves around Google's alleged anti-competitive practices and the effectiveness of regulatory responses. Here's a breakdown of the key themes:
Google's Dominance and "Pane of Ingress" Control
A central argument is that Google's control over multiple fundamental aspects of the internet, particularly search and the browser, gives it an unfair advantage. Users express concern that Google owns "every pane of ingress to the internet," controlling defaults that influence the vast majority of users. This dominance extends to leveraging its position to benefit its own services.
- "Google is one of the most anticompetitive companies to have ever existed." (echelon)
- "Google owns every pane of ingress to the internet. They own the defaults, and that's what matters to 99.9% of normies." (echelon)
- "Google doesn't like the concept of a "URL bar". It's a search bar. My closet competitors can pay for placement against my trademarked name and there's not a damned thing I can do to stop it." (echelon)
The Ineffectiveness of Current Fines and Penalties
A significant portion of the discussion focuses on the inadequacy of the fines levied against Google. Many users feel that the penalties are too small to act as a meaningful deterrent, effectively becoming a "cost of doing business" for a company of Google's size and profitability. There's a call for fines to be a percentage of global revenue or to include personal liability for executives.
- "This is moving the goal posts. They still have done a tremendous amount of work creating and maintaining platforms that millions of people are building upon. Companies can always do more, but you can't say that they are doing nothing at all." (charcircuit, in response to a user highlighting stock buybacks)
- "The goal isn’t to stop Google from doing business, it’s to make this behaviour unprofitable with a little wrist slap too." (petesergeant)
- "It's like a millions of dollars to none gambling, profits no one caught you, a slap on the wrist if you got caught. Not useful." (throwawayxcmz)
- "$55 million is pocket change for Google." (rs186)
- "When you frame it like that, the fine goes from “headline punishment” to “cost of doing business.”" (SwtCyber)
- "Until the penalties actually hurt, there's zero incentive to stop" (SwtCyber)
- "The principle of fines being made proportional to income - and set at a % level that hurts - is one of the few possible paths to fairness in this area." (crtified)
- "If we want to stop bad behaviour, there can be NO PROFIT from illegal actions." (newsclues)
- "Because 55m is a rounding error." (supermatt)
The Need for Structural Change and Breakups
Echoing sentiments reminiscent of the breakup of AT&T (Ma Bell), some users advocate for breaking up Google as the most effective solution to address its monopolistic tendencies. They argue that the value of the company's various components could be unlocked if separated.
- "Break these MFs up already." (echelon)
- "If it was good enough for MaBell, it'll be good enough for Google. It'll be worth more as parts anyway - so much of that value is locked away trying to be the sum of parts. YouTube alone is bigger than Disney and Netflix." (echelon)
- "So, iiuc your argument, they're too big to punish by lawful process in democratic countries. Then I argue they should be split up, which is another popular argument." (throw_a_grenade)
The Decline of Search Quality and the Rise of Alternatives
Many commenters lament the perceived decline in the quality of Google Search results. They describe sifting through "shitty Google search results" and note that it stopped being a "powerhouse tool" when advanced search predicates were removed. This has led users to explore and even adopt alternatives, including LLMs and privacy-focused search engines.
- "It's so laborious to sift through shitty Google search results when ChatGPT will uncover unknown unknowns." (echelon)
- "Google stopped being a powerhouse tool when they dropped advanced search predicates a decade or more ago." (echelon)
- "I don't want OpenAI to become the new monopoly de jour, but I'm certainly happier as a user with their platform than I am with Google search." (echelon)
- "I haven’t been using Google search for years. It is far worse than it used to be." (adastra22)
- "The web is also far worse than it used to be. Content was so much better 15-20 years ago, when Google’s tooling was also better." (jader201)
- "I use Kagi on my phone. Pretty easy switch. Will anyone switch? Demonstrably yes?" (shazbotter)
- "I have not used Google for like 4 years now. Their search has not been close to the best for a long time now." (chillfox)
- "The end result is that most content, even if decent, is ruined by ads." (jader201)
The Role of Defaults and Ecosystem Lock-in
The discussion highlights the power of defaults, particularly in the context of mobile operating systems and browsers. Google's ability to ensure its services are pre-installed and set as defaults is seen as a key driver of its market dominance, making it difficult for competitors to gain traction.
- "Google owns the defaults, and that's what matters to 99.9% of normies." (echelon)
- "Defaults and distribution matter. Google has your parents and grandparents on lock." (echelon)
- "Why would Google have to waste money pre-installing them as defaults? Because most people can't even change the search engine even if they wanted to." (ulfw)
- "The ecosystem lock-in is strong" (SwtCyber)
- "Seems more obvious when written out like this: 'Google search pre installed, is not just a normal thing. As in it is pre install because Google pays for it, not because vendors thinks it’s the better search.'" (qwertytyyuu)
The Interconnectedness of Google's Services
Several users pointed out that Google's anti-competitive strategy is not just about single services but the integration and leveraging of multiple dominant platforms (search, browser, mobile OS, advertising, AI). This "combination" of services is seen as particularly problematic.
- "Other companies have search, other companies have ads, other companies have apps, other companies host video, one other company has a mobile platform and a browser, but they don't have all of those combined, and the one company that has most of those (Apple) is just as anti-competitive and just as problematic as Google. What makes them anti-competitive is how they leverage their dominance in ALL of those areas to smother any fair alternative in their crib." (dns_snek)
- "The browser / web / search / ads thing is insane, and the fact that they've made it so companies have to pay to protect their own brand is beyond fucked. It ought to be illegal." (echelon)
Government and Corporate Capture
A cynical perspective offered is that the government, which should be regulating corporations, is itself owned by corporations. This sentiment suggests a deeper systemic issue where regulatory bodies lack the "spine" to effectively challenge powerful tech companies.
- "That spine belonged to the government, which is now owned by the corporations. To be fair, they still have that spine, probably stronger than ever, but it's being used to protect themselves now." (ares623)
- "Because the politicians and "regulators" rotate back into the private sector and earn generational wealth for playing ball." (StanislavPetrov)
Concerns about Platform Monetization and "Taxing the Internet"
Google's business model, particularly its search advertising, is described as "taxing the whole internet." The argument is that by controlling access points, Google can extract value from other businesses and creators by requiring them to pay for visibility for their own brands.
- "Google just sits there taxing the whole internet. (And half of mobile...)" (echelon)
- "If I own a brand, I have to pay Google ads to rank for my own brand." (echelon)
Debate on AI's Role and Future Monopolies
The discussion touches on the emerging role of AI in search. While some users are embracing AI tools like ChatGPT over traditional search, there's also a nascent concern that AI itself could become the next great monopoly, shifting the focus of anti-trust concerns.
- "Search is dead to me now. I'm using LLMs, mostly ChatGPT, for most of my inquiries." (echelon)
- "I don't want OpenAI to become the new monopoly de jour, but I'm certainly happier as a user with their platform than I am with Google search." (echelon)