619
submitted 3 months ago by mox@lemmy.sdf.org to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 110 points 3 months ago

Yes please. Google has become a monster.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 100 points 3 months ago

This is yet another reason we need President Harris.

Trump will let Google get away with it.

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] Matriks404@lemmy.world 77 points 3 months ago
[-] sxan@midwest.social 30 points 3 months ago

They already tried, in the late 90's, and a district court ordered a break-up. It was appealed endlessly, and the DOJ reached a disastrous settlement that gave them immunity from anti-trust prosecution in perpetuity. The current Supreme Court would probably use this as a precedent to protect other software monopolies, if it comes down to it.

Don't hold your breath on any of these cases.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] demizerone@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

My bet is going to Amazon, sadly that will make Jeffrey even richer.

[-] hanabatake@lemmy.ml 64 points 3 months ago

Breakup Divesting the Android operating system, used on about 2.5 billion devices worldwide, is one of the remedies that’s been most frequently discussed by Justice Department attorneys, according to the people. In his decision, Mehta found that Google requires device makers to sign agreements to gain access to its apps like Gmail and the Google Play Store.

It would be wonderful

[-] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 61 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If the Justice Department pushes ahead with a breakup plan, the most likely units for divestment are the Android operating system and Google’s web browser Chrome

Hell yes. If Android is divested from Google, that would significantly reduce Google's attempts to lock down the OS, and would probably make alternative app stores more popular as the Play Store becomes just one of many options for manufacturers that would no longer be required to provide it on all Android devices.

And as for Chrome, about damn time. A browser with that much marketshare shouldn't also be owned by the largest search engine and ad network. That's just a recipe for monopolizing internet standards and access.

Another option would require Google to divest or license its data to rivals, such as Microsoft’s Bing or DuckDuckGo

More competition in the search engine space? Sign me up. Google has too much control over the quality of search results simply due to their size.

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

Please.

Stop.

I can only get so erect! (And the headline alone already did a lot)

[-] ianonavy@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

I am curious how either unit would earn revenue as an independent company.

Will Android get to keep the Play Store? Does that include media? Do they charge Google to distribute the Maps app?

Will Google pay Chrome to stay the default search engine? Maybe Chrome can charge schools and libraries for ChromeOS updates?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 49 points 3 months ago

Break them up. and then don't let them slowly re-consolidate in the following 20 years.

[-] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 months ago
[-] Sabata11792@ani.social 11 points 3 months ago

I wish I could get ripped off by someone other than Comcast.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] baltakatei@sopuli.xyz 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

don’t let them slowly re-consolidate in the following 20 years

I too remember how AT&T was broken up only for most of its Baby Bells to remerge back into Ma Bell.

To prevent this for future breakups, I say the content and services sold by big tech should be made competitively compatible and interoperable via nullification of DRM laws; people buy music and movies and cloud storage; let them legally move their purchases to any competitor and big tech companies will break up naturally as local competitors emerge from people who dislike big tech for their own reasons. Monopolies cannot be trusted to lower prices for content and services. Legally nullifying DRM is like the FCC telling customers in 1968 that it was finally okay to ignore the “Bell equipment only” legal warning that had kept them locked into leasing their telephone sets for usurious amounts from AT&T for decades. A few years later, in 1982, AT&T was broken up. AT&T is almost a total monopoly again, but phones remain interoperable.

[-] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 7 points 3 months ago

This was a great comment. You argue this so effectively that it will influence how I argue about monopolies in future — I don't think it's reasonable to expect people who critique aspects of the world to know how to fix them, but it certainly does help if one has specific points for how things should be different.

[-] Gerudo@lemm.ee 47 points 3 months ago

If this goes through, every big tech company could be in the crosshairs.

I'm all for it.

[-] Louisoix@lemm.ee 46 points 3 months ago

I like how at the same time apple decided to fuck Patreon users (not even the first victims), and no one can or is willing to do anything, except maybe for eu in some cases. I say if we go for monopolies, let's go for all of them!

[-] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 28 points 3 months ago

“Too big to fail” finance companies should have been sliced and diced.

[-] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 months ago

Apple is one of the planet's biggest companies and definitely a monopolistic player in many ways. Holding entire supply chains hostage, entire corporations and countries hostage. Hell, I was once laid off because Apple threatened my company's sales and the company flinched and wanted to keep shareholders happy. Their influence is palpable in way too many industries and lives.

Another commenter somewhere else on the internet posited that they're trying Google first to get the process down. Then go after the big fish with that defined precedent. Hopefully that is the case.

[-] Legge@lemmy.world 40 points 3 months ago
[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 25 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Next up:

  • Content providers like Disney
  • All big airliners that are left ( the big four, basically)
  • Boeing
  • All large ISP's
  • Any company that has more that 30% of the market share
  • All companies that are in a market that only has 3 or less suppliers
  • All insurers
  • All companies with more than 10.000 employees I can go on for a while.
  • All companies that pay less than 25% tax, for whatever fucking reason.
  • All companies whose owners pay less tax than their lowest paid workers
  • All companies that received more than a million dollar in government funds yet completely and utterly failed to meet any of the required targets for that money (Hello SpaceX and just about every Musk company!)

I'm all for capitalism, but not the current near limitless capitalism

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DmMacniel@feddit.org 40 points 3 months ago

Imagine living in a post Google internet.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 43 points 3 months ago

Many of us remember time before Google, too.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago

I remember when Gmail was new and invite only.

[-] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 12 points 3 months ago

Somehow, I doubt it'll be the same

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 11 points 3 months ago

The power vacuum would be insane, realistically speaking, Meta, Xitter, Amazon and Microsoft would race to fill it. It could be a good thing to split Google but it could also go sideways very quickly.

[-] DmMacniel@feddit.org 18 points 3 months ago

Those then as well shall be broken up :)

[-] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 6 points 3 months ago

One can dream about that indeed!

[-] grue@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

All of those need some antitrust attention, too.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

The best part of the trust busting hammer is it's re-useable.

[-] mlg@lemmy.world 34 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I'll believe it when I see it but it was nice to have a court case actually convicting them.

Edit:

the most likely units for divestment are the Android operating system and Google’s web browser Chrome, said the people. Officials are also looking at trying to force a possible sale of AdWords, the platform the company uses to sell text advertising, one of the people said.

That would be so nice, there was already a huge thread about how much Google screws over Android too.

[-] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 3 months ago

Battery life would suddenly be through the moon if all their tracking and metrics gathering in Android was removed. Wonder what the carbon footprint of all that is at scale.

[-] Sparky@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 3 months ago

Break em up! Break em up!

[-] Kalysta@lemm.ee 29 points 3 months ago

Would be the most based thing the FTC ever did.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 24 points 3 months ago

The interesting thing about a possible Google break-up is that there's only one part of the company that generates revenues.

YouTube, Google Search, Google Maps, Gmail, Android, Chrome, Google Drive, etc. are all money losers. Many of them don't even offer an option to pay for the service. And, those that do generate tiny revenues compared to the ads machine.

Android is a huge money loser, but it's worth it because all the things Android's required to have end up showing people Google ads. If Android were split off, what would happen? Would Samsung etc. have to pay a fee to license the OS? Since it's an open source project, isn't it more likely they'd fork the code and just roll their own distribution? Maybe Samsung just buys Android? If so, what happens to Huawei, Lenovo, Xiaomi, etc? Maybe all the Chinese firms band together and support a fork of Android?

With Chrome, Google can afford to spend hundreds of millions a year developing it and then give it away for free because it not only sends people to Google Search, but it also collects all kinds of data on people's browsing habits that can be used to tailor the ads they're shown. If it's spun off then what, do they think that for the first time ever people are going to be willing go spend $79.99 and actually buy a browser? Or a $19.99 monthly browser subscription? Almost certainly not. Which means people would use a free browser. On non-Apple OSes every browser other than Firefox uses the Blink codebase, which is basically Chrome, and developed by engineers working for Google. If Chrome is split off into its own company, what will happen to Blink? The existing codebase is open, but what's the business model for coders at the new Chrome Inc. to keep working on it? So... does Microsoft now start paying Chrome Inc. to keep working on Blink? Or do they bring the browser back in-house again and we see the return of Internet Explorer? As for Firefox, it spends hundreds of millions per year on developing software, mostly Firefox. But, 90% of that money comes from Google, and that's almost certain to stop. So, they'll need to find a new business model too.

This is so different from previous break-ups. When AT&T was broken up, all that really happened was that instead of paying AT&T for their phone service, people now started paying NYNEX or Bell Atlantic or US West. But, now you're dealing with a company where virtually every service they offer is free, subsidized by the ads they show, which can only exist when that service harvests personal data to feed the ad machine.

My personal suspicion is that this is such new territory that the Justice Department is probably not going to try to break Google up. They're probably going to forbid things like paying off Apple and Firefox. They may force Google to license key search engine data. They may put restrictions on the ad machine. Breaking it up would be like knocking over a domino without knowing what the chain reaction would be. Also, I personally hope that if they take the win and choose a simple remedy, it will allow them to set a precedent and move on to all the other monopolies.

[-] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 33 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

YouTube, Google Search, Google Maps, Gmail, Android, Chrome, Google Drive, etc. are all money losers.

Only if you view them in isolation. In fact, they are what enables Google's advertising dominance, by providing detailed insight into people's lives, thereby powering the targeted advertising of AdWords and making it as valuable as it is.

Android is a huge money loser

Have you forgotten about the Play Store?

With Chrome, Google can afford to spend hundreds of millions a year developing it and then give it away for free

We used web browsers just fine before Chrome existed, before even Google existed, and nobody was paying $79.99 for them. (In fact, Chrome was originally built upon one of the free engines.)

I would personally be glad to see Chrome disappear, since it is now starting to cause the same problems that Internet Explorer caused more than 20 years ago. Monoculture is bad in this realm. Yes, Google does seem to pour a lot of resources into their browser, but most of that is self-interest; very little of the results are actually needed for a useful, healthy web.

Breaking it up would be like knocking over a domino without knowing what the chain reaction would be.

The same fear could have applied to the Bell System. I'm not worried. :)

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 18 points 3 months ago

You have a lot of details slightly wrong. The Play Store makes money. People already have forked Android.

As for where Google makes and loses money... Don't assume that we actually know. Large corporations are very good at hiding and shifting revenue for a variety of practical reasons, especially including tax reduction (both legal and illegal).

As for the chain reaction, by your reasoning nothing could ever be done in public policy. We never know exactly how the future will play out. But we have to deal with the damage currently occurring, and address that in a reasonable way, now. That's how government works. That's how the law works. There's no better option.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

But if you break apart Google, how will they afford to keep killing off their own services!?!

[-] SuperCub@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 months ago

Too good to be true! There's a lot of monopolies. Please do Amazon too.

[-] madcaesar@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

Google NEEDS to be broken up badly. They are essentially a monopoly in the online space, from chrome to search to maps to youtube.

Every service is abusing the power of the others to grow their market share and kill competition.

I used to love Google. They pushed the web and tech in the right direction.

But somewhere along the way they've been taken over by marketing cunts that only looked at the bottom line and didn't care how evil or anti consumer they became.

[-] hperrin@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Way too rare, if you ask me.

[-] Commiunism@lemmy.wtf 7 points 3 months ago

Good, but why now? For years, Google has been way more dominant both practically and culturally until very recently, and only now after they stumbled hard with their AI venture, Bing catching up, and their public opinion dropping do they decide to break the company up.

Does this mean that a monopoly is good as long as it's successful, but once it starts stumbling and outlives its use that's when the government is gonna do something about it?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

I'll believe it if I ever live to see it.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
619 points (98.7% liked)

News

23287 readers
3694 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS