HN Distilled

Essential insights from Hacker News discussions

Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

Original Article

Hacker News Discussion

This discussion primarily revolves around a recent antitrust ruling against Google and its potential implications, particularly for Mozilla and the future of the internet. Here's a summary of the key themes:

Impact on Mozilla's Revenue

A central concern is how the ruling might affect Mozilla's significant revenue stream from its search deal with Google. If Google can no longer pay for default search placement or if those payments are significantly reduced, Mozilla's financial stability could be threatened.

  • "What does this mean for Mozilla? Where would Mozilla get their 80% of revenue from if Google now has to probably sever and end their search deal for Firefox?" (colesantiago)
  • "And the latter is going to be pretty bad for Mozilla." (thayne)
  • "This means Firefox needs a new buisness model and Open*Ai would love to take Google's exclusive place." (koolala)

The Nature and Severity of the Ruling

There's significant debate and confusion about the specifics of the ruling and its impact. Many commenters feel the penalties are too lenient, essentially a "slap on the wrist," while others interpret it as a victory for Google. The ability for Google to continue paying for browser placement, even without exclusivity, is a point of contention.

  • "Google is allowed to continue paying companies like Mozilla and Apple to be the default search engine." (mkl)
  • "The CNBC article is very unclear." (mkl)
  • "Google is permitted to pay browser developers, like Apple... However, the partner company must promote other search engines, offer a different option in various operating systems or in privacy mode, and are allowed to make changes to the default search settings annually, Mehta wrote." (thayne, quoting the judge)
  • "So I guess maybe Google can still pay to be the default, as long as there are more limits on the contract? But I suspect those limits are going to result in lower payments." (thayne)
  • "The verdict makes it's clear that Google got to its position via anti competitive practices which are illegal. However, for whatever reason, the judge decided that penalty was basically slap on the wrist and finger wagging." (stackskipton)
  • "This is an astonishing victory for Google, they must be very happy about it." (fidotron)
  • "IMHO: They got off easy." (seatac76)
  • "Google's punishment is to stop paying Apple and Mozilla for default search deals?!" (bbarnett)
  • "No, the actual remedy is not yet decided in detail (though sharing some search data is going to be part of it), this ruling was basically setting some parameters of what is on and off the table and then ordering the parties to meet on details before further court action." (dragonwriter)
  • "The ruling says they can pay for preload, but not for exclusivity." (Workaccount2)
  • "If Google pays Apple 3x more than OpenAI and Apple sets Google as default "because of market research, not because of the money", we're firmly in the status quo." (makeitdouble)
  • "The company can make payments to preload products, but they cannot have exclusive contracts, the decision showed." (LeoPanthera, quoting another article)
  • "Google is now required to syndicate their search text ads to "Qualified Competitors."" (hardtke)

The Role of AI and the Future of Search

A significant portion of the discussion centers on how the rise of AI, particularly large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, is impacting Google Search. Some argue that AI is already a significant threat to Google's dominance, potentially making the antitrust remedies moot or less impactful. Others believe Google's AI investments will allow it to adapt.

  • "The headline is not great because Google will obviously appeal the ruling to the appeals court of DC, and if they have to, the Supreme Court." (intsunny)
  • "With the rise of ChatGPT (I barely use Google anymore) and AI search engines potentially shifting the search landscape, who knows if Google will still be a monopoly 5 years from now." (Hansenq)
  • "Google is bleeding so hard right now from Gen Z and especially Gen Alpha deciding to use ChatGPT first and foremost when asking questions that Google wouldā€™ve answered previously." (judge2020)
  • "StackOverflow is dead because its rules are nonsensical and many of its users are dicks." (CamperBob2)
  • "AI is a competitor. You know how StackOverflow is dead because AI provided an alternative? That's happening in search too." (IshKebab)
  • "Iā€™ve been using ai chatbots more and more instead of google search (I still use google quite a lot but considerably less than a year or two ago)." (rafark)
  • "Google's biggest threat is their own deteriorating search results. Gen Z/alpha are interesting barometers, because many of them probably canā€™t remember a time when Google search didnā€™t suck." (deepsquirrelnet)
  • "My Google use has dropped noticeably, probably 90%." (ElijahLynn)
  • "For a search user, Google Search has not been effective for so long it's unbelievable people still use it." (yamazakiwi)
  • "A lot of regular users actually might prefer one company that makes all their choices for them so they don't have to deal with decision fatigue so often..." (solardev)
  • "It shows you how well the judge understands the situation. More or less the remedy is keep doing what you are doing." (dh2022)
  • "Under good Monopoly law, you would remedy the situation that got them to this point, not worry about their future. Chrome + Deals got to them to this point so that's what you unwind." (stackskipton)
  • "Why would the court proscribe something for a problem that no longer exists?" (tick_tock_tick)
  • "Google's AI summary includes links to sources:" (warkdarrior)
  • "Forcing Google to give up one of its best products is effectively eminent domain by the government to a private company." (Hansenq)

Google's Business Practices and Chrome's Role

Commenters discuss whether Google's dominance is due to superior product or anticompetitive practices. The role of Chrome as a key distribution channel is also examined, with some arguing it's a superior product that won on merit, while others see it as a tool for entrenching Google's monopoly. There's also discussion about whether the ruling adequately addresses Google's established practices.

  • "Google started, developed, and built Chrome into the best browser available today NOT through exclusive contracts, but because Chrome is just a better product." (Hansenq)
  • "People on HN just don't use Windows, at least not a freshly installed one. Windows does nudge you to use Edge [0]. On PC, Chrome is not just competing fairly: it's competing at a disadvantage! Yet it just wins." (raincole)
  • "Google started, developed, and built Chrome into the best browser available today" (pinkmuffinere)
  • "I donā€™t think this is as settled as you imply. I tend to like Google products, and do almost everything in the Google ecosystem. But my browser is normally brave or Firefox, because better Adblock is so so impactful." (pinkmuffinere)
  • "How is Chrome a better browser than Edge? They are both just custom builds of the underlying Chromium browser." (Stratoscope)
  • "The remedy also extends beyond the conduct Plaintiffs seek to redress. It was Googleā€™s control of the Chrome default, not its ownership of Chrome as a whole, that the court highlighted in its liability finding." (ankit219, quoting the ruling)
  • "Google is the new AOL" (solardev)

The US Legal System and Antitrust Enforcement

A recurring theme is dissatisfaction with the speed and effectiveness of US antitrust enforcement. Many feel the system is too slow, too lenient, and susceptible to corporate influence, allowing monopolies to persist.

  • "The US legal system seems quite broken." (lysace)
  • "It is. Enforcement is incredibly slow (all of the monopolies Google has been ruled against for were obvious in 2014, with appeals they will not face penalties until at least 2030 for most of it)..." (ocdtrekkie)
  • "This is the worst possible outcome for the internet. Google gets to enjoy the spoils of their illegal anticompetitive business practices, they're emboldened to continue violating the law, and the market remains utterly fucked." (bogwog)
  • "Why is it up to the judge versus the FTC or whoever to propose?" (supernova87a)
  • "The data sharing remedy and other remedies were not the judge's proposals. They were proposed by the parties." (1vuio0pswjnm7)

Discussion on News Reporting and Source Linking

A meta-discussion emerged regarding the quality of news reporting on the ruling, specifically the lack of direct links to the source PDF ruling. This is seen as a symptom of an ad-driven media ecosystem prioritizing engagement over transparency.

  • "By the way, a pet peeve of mine right now is that reporters covering court cases (and we have so many of public interest lately) never seem to simply paste the link to the online PDF decision/ruling for us all to read, right in the story." (supernova87a)
  • "External links are bad for user retention/addiction." (matt3D)
  • "ā€œNever link outside your domainā€ has been rule #1 of the ad-driven business for years now." (Workaccount2)
  • "This is an editorial decision and not something individual reporters get to decide." (jt2190)