Google sued by the Department of Justice over Antitrust laws

[Sandro Linux]

Just now, miagisan said:

So you have other options.  See, not a monopoly forced upon you by limited choice of service.  You can freely choose to use another search engine.  Just because the others aren't popular or work as well, is not googles fault.  

But they actively destroy competitors by trying to get every browser to be based on chromium.

[miagisan]

5 minutes ago, Sandro Linux said:

But they actively destroy competitors by trying to get every browser to be based on chromium.

Android and chromium are open source projects.   Commercially funded in the beginning by google.  Why do you think samsung and everyone uses it, it's free to use and are able to make your own fork.   How is that forcing it on people? I would love to see how you twist this.  

 

It's like saying linux is forcing all data centers to use their software.   

[spartaman64]

2 minutes ago, miagisan said:

Android and chromium are open source projects.   Commercially funded in the beginning by google.  Why do you think samsung and everyone uses it, it's free to use and make your own fork.   How is that forcing it on people? I would love to see how you twist this.  

they made chromium too good that discord, slack, and skype have no choice but to use it or else they slow down their performance. google should have made it worse so they have more of a choice Kappa

[Random_Person1234]

25 minutes ago, miagisan said:

Ok such as? I want to see the complaints, because I am fairly certain MICROSOFT and their Bing search engine would have sued a long time ago and won if this was the case.  

 

This is purely political if they are going after their search engine.  

Here's an excerpt from a CNBC article explaining the allegations against Google:

Spoiler

Quote

The crux of the complaint is that Google has allegedly used its monopoly power to tie up distribution channels for online search and related markets. The Justice Department claims that Google has “foreclosed competition for internet search” through exclusionary agreements that deny rivals the opportunity to achieve the necessary scale to challenge its dominance.

The DOJ claims Google holds 88% of the U.S. search market, with 94% of mobile searches occurring on its services. The department claims Google’s conduct has harmed consumers by lowering the quality of search services and reducing choice.

It also claims Google owns more than 70% of the search ads market and has used its monopoly power to charge more for lower-quality services than would be possible in the face of competition.

According to the lawsuit, Google has used its monopoly power to keep competitors out of the search distribution channels they need to scale up. It claims Google has “locked up” distribution through exclusionary contracts with Apple and distributors of its Android mobile operating system. As a result, the lawsuit claims, Google has suppressed innovation in the search market.

The government said one example of such exclusionary contracts is the kind Google requires Android device manufacturers to sign. According to the lawsuit, Google requires phone manufacturers who use its operating system to agree to strict limits on their ability to sell Android devices that don’t comply with Google’s standards. It then gives the manufacturers access to its “vital proprietary apps” in exchange for their agreement to take several other Google apps and prevent users from being able to delete some of them.

The complaint says Google has used its revenue-sharing model for distributors to expand its dominance. One senior executive allegedly told enforcers that revenue sharing in Google’s app store “is a bitter pill for carriers, and a generous revenue share is the sugar that makes it go down smoother.”

Google’s revenue-sharing agreements extend to rival browsers and device manufacturers, including Apple, according to the suit. Google reports traffic acquisition costs in its quarterly financial filings that amount to billions of dollars. That figure represents the payments Google makes to companies like Apple to be the default search provider on their platforms. The suit says that as a practical matter, consumers largely do not shift away from default settings.

In the U.S., according to the suit, more than half of search queries are “covered by Google’s exclusionary agreements” — 60% overall and 80% on mobile devices. Almost half of search queries aren’t covered by those contracts take place on “access points” owned by Google, like its Chrome browser and Pixel phones, giving it effective control of about 80% of general search queries in the U.S., the DOJ said.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/20/doj-antitrust-lawsuit-against-google.html

[wanderingfool2]

39 minutes ago, Random_Person1234 said:

Here's an excerpt from a CNBC article explaining the allegations against Google:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/20/doj-antitrust-lawsuit-against-google.html

Personally there is quite a bit of issues that Google has in regards to android (in the sense that the contract doesn't allow making stock android without a playstore if you have one phone which does use playstore).

 

With that said, it becomes a bit of a double edge sword with this sort of lawsuit...if Google is forced to not use their power and resources to benefit their company we could end up no having things such as Android.  (In the sense that Google didn't create it out the kindness of their hearts but to create a competitor that could make money off of things such as searches).  Essentially I am saying, Open Source projects like Android and Chromium might not have exists if Google gets handcuffed in terms of what they are allowed doing.

[miagisan]

So they mad that google is too good at what they do and the common person is happy with their service and don't want to switch, gotcha.  So it's a bs lawsuit.  Good to know.  

[Trik'Stari]

It's about fucking time.

 

Break them. Break them into tiny pieces and never allow them to merge back together.

[CTR640]

1 hour ago, Sandro Linux said:

But they actively destroy competitors by trying to get every browser to be based on chromium.

Not to mention Youtube is very slow and lagging on newer versions of Fiefox.

[divito]

Well, exclusivity deals aren't wholly monopolistic on their own unless there are other factors involved. A lot of the points brought up, I would imagine, have more documentation behind them; because otherwise it's more about Google is just good and effective in their business.

I don't really think breaking Google up will result in anything positive. But if they can force some of these "contracts" to be changed or eliminated, perhaps there can be some diversification that will satisfy people. 

As pointed out though, people are more than capable of using alternatives across all software and platforms.

[rawrdaysgoby]

Google aren't even trying to stop the competition... Just that Google is Leagues better. 

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, miagisan said:

So they mad that google is too good at what they do and the common person is happy with their service and don't want to switch, gotcha.  So it's a bs lawsuit.  Good to know.  

Well Google wants you to have an account on Chrome, which conveniently lets you use Google services in the browser, despite it taking your data, and Google were making youtube load faster in Chrome while slowing it down in Firefox. I would consider that monopolizing the browser market.

[miagisan]

23 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Well Google wants you to have an account on Chrome, which conveniently lets you use Google services in the browser, despite it taking your data, and Google were making youtube load faster in Chrome while slowing it down in Firefox. I would consider that monopolizing the browser market.

Wants you too yes, but you don't have to.  Most services require an account, even outside of google.   Again, not catching your point.   

[TimeOmnivore]

4 hours ago, Sandro Linux said:

I use DuckDuckGo and Firefox

Except Google's default search engine deal with Mozilla is the only reason they're still in business. If this lawsuit goes through and those default search engine deals become illegal, that will only bolster Google's dominance in the browser marketplace by killing off Firefox.

[GhostRoadieBL]

this is likely a strategic move rather than a squared off fight, 

what I mean is the justice dept needs to setup a precedent for future cases similar to this and allow subpoenas to collect the information on how the data is collected, how it is being used and by who. This leads to much easier cases against the advertising industry as a whole and hopefully sets up some better internet regulations. Too large of a senate population don't even have cellphones and are making/passing complex laws they have no hope of understanding, which is exactly why companies like Google, Apple, Amazon etc can get away with monster advertising profits and no one (until now) is pushing back. 

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

this is likely a strategic move rather than a squared off fight, 

what I mean is the justice dept needs to setup a precedent for future cases similar to this and allow subpoenas to collect the information on how the data is collected, how it is being used and by who. This leads to much easier cases against the advertising industry as a whole and hopefully sets up some better internet regulations. Too large of a senate population don't even have cellphones and are making/passing complex laws they have no hope of understanding, which is exactly why companies like Google, Apple, Amazon etc can get away with monster advertising profits and no one (until now) is pushing back. 

Assumes an actual law enforcement function.   One of the weirdnesses of the big data companies recently is congress has gone after Facebook much harder than Google.  This smells political more than actually justice oriented.

[GhostRoadieBL]

13 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Assumes an actual law enforcement function.   One of the weirdnesses of the big data companies recently is congress has gone after Facebook much harder than Google.  This smells political more than actually justice oriented.

eventually there will be a law enforcement of some kind, likely many many years off after these companies are too large to regulate

Facebook is in a weird position, they are claiming to be a social platform for users to see each other's content but then using advertising as if it is user generated content. I think that's why congress is so bent on hammering facebook down. It's the underhanded methods which they collect data and types of ads they use. It would be quite different if facebook made it very obvious what was an ad, like google, having sidebars, top and bottom bars, but they (FB) don't want that. 

The sheer volume of data these companies collect is shocking; eye tracking, dwell time on links, mouse hover time, click through rate, page read tempo, it's way out of control. When facebook can predict someone's pregnancy before they take a hormone test, it's a little too personal and predatory. 

[SansVarnic]

-= Topic Locked =-

 

This is previously posted, go here to continue contributing.