This Hacker News discussion revolves around the recent antitrust ruling against Google, with a strong undercurrent of public sentiment regarding Big Tech's dominance and the effectiveness of regulatory action. Here's a summary of the key themes:
Disappointment with the Outcome and Continued Corporate Power
Many users expressed disappointment with the ruling, viewing it as a continuation of unrestrained corporate power and an insufficiently strong penalty for Google's alleged monopolistic practices. There's a sense that Big Tech is largely getting away with practices that stifle competition.
- SilverElfin: "Pretty disappointing and sad. The reign of unrestrained megacorps continues."
- siwakotisaurav: "Antitrust in US seems more and more of a joke for every new one. First few literally broke apart big companies, then we have Microsoft with âjust donât make IE default browserâ and now basically nothing for google, forget selling off chrome now, not even banned from making search deals, just âmaybe in a few years perhaps reconsider the search deals? Totally non binding thoâ"
- rudimentary_phy: "I think the AI reasoning in the ruling has a little bit of truth to it. I have found myself using search quite a bit less. I'm still not sure what that means in the long run, but it does feel like times are changing." (This user notes a changing landscape with AI, but implies the ruling itself didn't fundamentally alter the power dynamic.)
User Agency vs. Ecosystem Lock-in
A significant debate emerged regarding the extent of user agency in switching away from Google services. While some argue that users can easily opt for alternatives, others contend that the deep integration of Google services into the digital ecosystem, particularly on mobile, makes switching practically impossible for "normal users."
- freediver: "Only if people keep using them. But user agency is still a thing - and there are alternatives ;)"
- carlhjerpe: "That's the problem with megacorps, people can't just switch. Technical people could, can and do. "Normal users" will use what the broligarchy wants them to use."
- carlhjerpe: "If you're an Apple user, hard. If you're an Android user, borderline impossible."
- bitpush: "I dont understand. I can browse the internet using a non-Google computer, use a non-Google browser, go to a non-Google website, use a non-Google programming language etc etc. Nobody, including Google, is stopping you from doing that. ... The barometer is whether there's meaningful alternative. Can I do X without the $company in question = not a monopoly."
- bix6: "You said you you can browse the internet independent of Google and Iâm saying you canât because yes other people can force Google onto you"
- akagusu: "I cannot use my bank app without Google Android. This it count like a monopoly?"
- dietr1ch: "Yeah sure you can avoid typing google.com and think you just ghosted Google forever, but that won't end Google's relationship with you as it runs deeper than you know through its advertisement and tracking platform. And what about services beyond search at this point? Youtube, GMail, Google Calendar, GoogleFi, Maps, Play store (movies, apps), Photos, Drive. I can try stop using those services immediately, but with a huge cost of data and connectivity loss (there's no easy email redirection, accounts are usually tied to emails). You'll also miss out on things that don't have a nice alternative and you are socially pulled into..."
The Nature of Monopoly and Competition
The discussion delves into defining what constitutes a monopoly in the digital age, particularly for search engines. Some argue that if a user can physically choose a different search engine, it's not a monopoly, while others highlight the subtle ways Google's dominance, through default settings, ecosystem integration, and tracking, creates insurmountable barriers to competition. The argument is made that the harm is not necessarily to consumers choosing a search engine but to competitors trying to enter the market.
- ApolloFortyNine: "In my opinion, the search 'monopoly' is just not the best poster child for antitrust cases in the US. Perhaps the US is too lax on antitrust, but if you, literally anyone reading this, can stop using Google search on every device you own in the next 5 minutes, I just can't see that as a monopoly. Perhaps another word and legislation is required. You can't even argue the network effect like you can with chat apps or social networks. You can literally cut Google search from your life forever before your lunch break is over."
- airspresso: "Cutting Google accounts out of your life, however, is an entirely different undertaking that would take much longer and have a big impact on how you use the web."
- noosphr: "You've got starlink. Not a monopoly. ... Are you really saying that there is no other search engine you can use besides Google?"
- bix6: "Around half of all websites use Google analytics so good luck totally avoiding Google. Just use an ad blocker. O wait all the chromium browsers just made that harder with manifest v3. 75% of browsers are chromium based? I donât think itâs fair to compare digital services to something like PGE."
- mortoc: "That's the wrong lens to use. Determine monopolies based on the view of a potential competitor. Say I'm a new search engine startup that has some better tech than Google has, we invented a better wheel. How hard would it be to compete on merit?"
- matthewdgreen: "If youâre a search engine competitor of Googleâs, and Google owns the largest browser and mobile OS and pays the remaining browsers to make them the default, your business is vastly less likely to succeed. Thatâs what I understood this verdict to have determined."
Geopolitical and Economic Considerations
Some participants touched upon the broader implications of antitrust actions, particularly concerning national interests and the role of government in supporting domestic champions. There's a sentiment that the U.S. government might prioritize its own companies over fair market competition, especially against foreign rivals.
- dzonga: "let your homegrown champions stay strong and keep getting stronger. because the alternative if Google got broken up, a foreign competitor would replace google not a homegrown one. markets don't work the way libertarians think."
- pyrale: "...Until they start getting banned abroad because your government openly tries to manipulate election in ally countries. And once that happens, you're perpetually weaker and your reputation is done for a century. People arguing for this kind of hard power are just too weak-minded to understand the extent and strength of US' historical soft power."
Skepticism about Regulatory Effectiveness and Enforcement
A strong theme is the perceived ineffectiveness of antitrust enforcement in the U.S., with past cases (like Microsoft) and present ones being seen as yielding lenient outcomes. There's cynicism about politicians' ability or willingness to curb Big Tech's power, with suggestions that corporate lobbying and influence render regulatory actions toothless against companies with vast financial resources.
- ktosobcy: "And at the same time behive mind here absurdly complain where others countries/unions want to reign the BigTech monopoly⌠I kinda wish the EU would kick out google/facebok/x. It would hurt in the short term but would be way better in the long term⌠And as the things look - US administration is incapable ot curbing their cancerish monopoliesâŚ"
- CursedSilicon: "The spray painted king sure did kick up a big fuss and then immediately let them go without a second thought. As they say, "TACO" (Trump Always Chickens Out)"
- thewebguyd: "Unfortunately I don't think we're going to get the chance to try again. This, and Apple's upcoming case which they'll probably get off free as well, was our chance. These companies are now even more emboldened, and with market caps bigger than the GDP of most countries, there is no one to stop them. Every politician has a number, and this administration has shown that open bribes are legal and expected. Good luck prosecuting any big tech when they can pay billions of dollars to the administration to make anything go away."
- dizhn: "I remember back in the day the case against Microsoft looked huge too. I don't remember the details but it "felt like" Bush Jr got elected president and that whole thing went away."
- lapcat: "There's a reason nobody remembers: the DoJ announced it was no longer seeking the breakup of Microsoft on September 6, 2001. A few days later, 9/11 occurred, and all other news was erased. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, by the way, just stating the facts."
The Role of Browsers and Ecosystem Control
The discussion frequently circles back to the browser as a critical point of contention, with arguments that controlling the dominant browser (Chrome) and mobile OS (Android) gives Google an unfair advantage in search and other areas, even if users could technically switch. The difficulty of avoiding Google's pervasive tracking and data collection is also highlighted.
- matthewdgreen: "If youâre a search engine competitor of Googleâs, and Google owns the largest browser and mobile OS and pays the remaining browsers to make them the default, your business is vastly less likely to succeed. Thatâs what I understood this verdict to have determined."
- bix6: "I donât think itâs fair to compare digital services to something like PGE. Fundamentally different." (Implicitly referring to Google's control over digital "infrastructure" like analytics and browser defaults.)
- raw_anon_1111: "How is your argument that you canât avoid Google supported by the argument that with manifest v3 you canât block Google analytics even though you can?" (This points to the technical barriers being raised against ad blockers rather than outright bans.)
- croes: "We can, but what about all the people who type facebook into the browser address bar to get to Facebook.com per Google?" (This highlights how users even performing simple actions are routed through Google.)
- heisenbit: "If you are in the business of selling goods can you afford to walk away from Google? Remember you as consumer are not the customer but the product."
Nuance and Specificity of the Ruling
Some participants grappled with the specifics of the ruling, questioning how certain remedies like divesting Chrome and Android would truly help search competition. Others felt that search itself might not be the strongest case for antitrust, preferring to focus on different areas of Google's business.
- nashashmi: "Iâm still scratching my head how chrome and android divestment will help search business competition."
- ApolloFortyNine: "In my opinion, the search 'monopoly' is just not the best poster child for antitrust cases in the US."
- username332211: "Isn't the lawsuit (and the entire discussion) specifically about a search monopoly? Also, I'm curious, how many of the things you listed would be normally used by a prolific user of Apple hardware and software? Just YouTube, right?"
- johndhi: "That would be an antitrust case against Google Ads though, no? This case was about consumer search."