We won't know what the arguments are until the lawsuit is actually filed, or until it leaks. We don't even know what laws Google are alleged to have broken, nor what remedy the government seeks. And one thing we for sure won't know for a long, long time is whether they'll be able to make anything stick.
I think a big part of this case is actually going to be the PR challenge of breaking up monopolies when there are so many moneyed individuals currently profiting from that monopoly's expansion. People don't dream of building their own livelihood anymore, most employees of tech companies these days just want their company to be consumed by another, bigger company so they can GTFO.
This kind of short term thinking is actually bad for the economy and bad for customers because it leads to the proliferation of pump-and-dump businesses which exist solely for the purpose of being bought and sold rather than actually providing some kind of utility to the customer. This can have real consequences, such as how Arlo purports to be a "security company" to which people should entrust their safety despite the fact that their interface is so dysfunctional it would be a small miracle if any of their customers could actually figure out how to use their arlo footage in court. I know this because I spent the last summer running a small surveillance operation, and doing so required an off-site file server with high speed internet and a few python scripts to glue all the pieces together.
And to anyone thinking "well if it doesnt provide utility it wouldn't get bought" you can hold your tongue because I don't believe that. That's an irrational argument. Useless, low quality goods and services make a killing on the market and we all know it. Anyone who has taken a real close look at any "smart" device certainly knows it.
on the flip side, I believe I read on a different thread how Amazon.com acquiring ring (the webcam doorbell company) was scary because Amazon.com had all the cards not the least of all was market information about ring and it's competitors. A lot of searches just begin and end on Amazon.com simply because we have prime and we don't understand how sunk cost works.
I'm sure Google isn't 100% clean but I'd have hoped for attention to be on Amazon.com
What's funny is that ring or nest or anyone else clearly has all the security issues above not to mention all these devices are just garbage if they can't connect to the Internet or if the server dies.
Long story short, Google is using its search dominance to provide unfair advantage to other Google and Alphabet products. This is primarily done through features or "snippets" competitors cannot earn or even pay for.
Many of the details are not yet public. The individual investigations (some being conducted by states) are said to focus on multiple issues, but the one with the most discussion and evidence centers on the issue I described.
For example, google a flight you may take regularly, or just "LAX to JFK". Your first result after ads will probably be a Google widget. Can sites like Kayak or Expedia get that widget? No. Can they compete with Google showing real-time prices right in the SERP? No. It's the definition of anti-competitive behavior.
Google originally argued they don't advantage their own products. They've since admitted they do. Meanwhile they company is moving into more and more verticles and squeezing others out using its search engine as the weapon.
The vast majority of qualified traffic comes from search engines, and for my sites it's more like 95-97% Google. Many have argued the 90% market share figure is too low, because Yahoo and Microsoft include their internal searches to sound better. If Google decides to create a search widget competing with some function of my site, even if Google's version is really shitty, my business suffers badly. This isn't theoretical. Go Google "speed test." Your first result is a Google widget they added to search results. Ookla IMO has a much better product. But Google's widget is first for basically everyone who searches for a speed test. The M-Lab/Google test caps out for me well short of my real bandwidth. But I guarantee Ookla's traffic took a beating when Google decided to insert their own product at the top.
Unfortunately, Google has a lot of lawyers, and it's also reported that Barr is trying to rush this thing forward to provide a win for Trump. The actual career lawyers are arguing they can build a solid case, but they need more time. My fear is we'll see this thing rushed through and the changes will be cosmetic. And I do think Google's actions are a real problem. The most recent testimony before congress was pretty shocking. Facebook and Alphabet execs were basically admitting to anti-competitive behavior.
"LAX to JFK" - at the top, after 3 ads, I see links to Expedia, Orbitz, Kayak, Travelocity and Skyscanner. Then comes the flights widget. Then Expedia direct link, another widget - this time a COVID alert for how many flights are still operating this route - quite useful and well placed. After that many more direct links.
I don't see anything wrong. It's a good response page. If they didn't provide the widget the page would be worse, I would have to dig through all the links and filter the noise to find information.
There's an assumption that people come to Google in order to find websites. No, they come for information. They can get information in many ways. People are not there just to provide sales to organically ranked sites.
In a few years voice interfaces will probably replace text for search. In a voice interface, you have to provide the answer directly in plain language, not a link to a website. What would the displaced websites do, sue for monopolistic practices again?
The entire screen is filled with the Google Flights widget. There are no ads from competitors or organic results visible on the screen at all unless you scroll down.
For the longest time to competition was a click away. Now its a drag away. Google is providing the information you likely want, and your can still type in or use a bookmark to go to your favorite travel site.
Problem is that Google can easily bulldoze their way into any market just by creating their own service and then putting at the top as a widget. They did that with flights as you can see here and they were sued for it 8 years ago already, although I think that case is still active.
On the other hand I don't think it's OK to put limits on their creativity and efforts to improve user experience. If they want to make a topic specific widget, why not?
If you type 123+321 it will say 444 first, then display search results. That's how it should be, they don't have to protect the "123+321" keyword market.
Ah, you replied just as I did! I too share this sentiment that people are going to Google not to search for a plethora of websites, but for answers.
You can still certainly look at websites if you want and Google does not bury them or delist, but the widget is very useful and probably answers a high amount of the incoming queries.
The information comes from the websites. If the websites die, due to lack of traffic, the information suffers or disappears.
I agree that users just want their information, but unless Google plans to start generating, fact checking and sourcing data and content itself, it would do it well to not burn it's bridges with the content creators.
You picked a fairly good result page, but there are plenty of examples of unattributed scraped information being the first block users see. It's often scraped incorrectly too, and frankly I think Google are getting ahead of themselves as it can be wrong or unrelated data but stated as fact right there. They don't seem to realise they are taking on a role as information curator, not gatherer, with this type of work. Their scraping, machine sorting and tagging is good, but if you are trying to be a source of truth you need to be better than good.
> The information comes from the websites. If the websites die, due to lack of traffic, the information suffers or disappears.
Actually no, the widget for flights is Googles own service, it wouldn't disappear just because other sites disappear. They have already been sued for putting it on top though. Google gets sued quite a lot.
>In a few years voice interfaces will probably replace text for search.
I was thinking that wouldn't work because that would mean search results would tend to be crap, but then I realized that for most search the results are crap so why not use a voice interface!
Seeing as how some of these comments about their search results claimed the Google widget dominated while others said that competitor results were plainly in top spot, it seems that Google selectively does both one and the other for the sake of plausible deniability while also giving itself a certain discreet edge for Google products in its own supposedly unbiased search system.
A factor to consider is that Google Search is a mess internally, I worked there. There isn't a regexp deciding whether to show a widget or not, they use machine learning for that. Likely it considers something else it knows about you to decide whether to show it or not. There are so many data-scientists creating models based on outputs from each others models that I would be surprised if there aren't a lot of strange subtle interactions going on.
I see where you are coming from, but...I don't see how its the responsibility of a search engine to provide fair and unbiased access to the web's ability to answer your query.
Ex. speed test - Google's responsibility is to the customer who wants to most likely conduct a speed test. Displaying an in-result widget that does so completes the query that the user requires.
The line is certainly drawn if you searched "in-home IoT device" and Google showed its own Nest/Home products at the top even above ad space without paying for it, but the example you provided doesn't really break it for me.
Google doesn't prevent you from finding Ookla, doesn't bury it or delist it, doesn't stop you from going direct to the site... I don't see how that is going to hold up in court. There are competitors to Google that can offer a user a search experience that gives them lots of choice on how to answer their query, Google is just choosing (and customer's are probably responding to it as well) a better way to answer the query.
Posing this as a hypothetical argument, I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
While this is a commonly understood argument on HN, this doesn't appear to be the Federal Government's argument at all.
Instead, they are arguing that Google should be forced to share user data with rivals (like Bing).
This might surprise many in the tech community - even those who are sympathetic to the idea that big tech is too big (because it seems a terrible idea).
However, it appears to be a fairly common lobbying point. Notably in Australia a similar argument against Google in the news field is seen where news organisations don't get access to audience preferences for advertising.
TL;DR: The government appears to be looking to force Google to share personal data with other companies which is likely to be the opposite of what many consumers want.
I wonder if sharing "user data" with Bing would even make it more useful. It seems like the biggest problem with Bing and all other search engines is they are still >22 years behind Google in their search algos.
Ok,they are basically telling Google to share data about it's users and user preferences to it's rivals and probably also US Government.
So,first thing, spying on users is bad. It might be ok to collect user's information with their consent to improve the service(like Google is doing now),but isn't it written in Terms and conditions that those data will be used to improve services(not sharing/using them for personal gains)?
Also, is Microsoft sharing data of Windows users with other rivals too?
> but isn't it written in Terms and conditions that those data will be used to improve services(not sharing/using them for personal gains)?
Most T&Cs do not stand up once they get to court. Part of contract negotiation requires that the person agreeing, is capable of understanding and agreeing. Walls of text don't fit that definition.
Google tries very hard to work around limitations such as these in the "About these Terms" [0], with such gems as:
> If it turns out that a particular term is not valid or enforceable, this will not affect any other terms.
Which in itself may not always be legal to say. It isn't as simple as Google simply making statements. Unless the two involved in the contract, Google and the user, have an equal say in things, then the contract enters into grey areas of law. Where they have found themselves unprotected on occasion.
If Google says they're not going to share data, and then shares the data 'because it wasn't really a contract, cause you all didn't really consent', that's pretty ballsy.
I think you've taken my explanation the wrong way. You're not in the grey if you do something outside of the agreement. You will definitely get hurt if you do that.
But just because Google says they can do something... Doesn't mean that they can.
Almost every contract has terms like "If it turns out that a particular term is not valid or enforceable, this will not affect any other terms" in it, because some specific terms may not be enforceable in some jurisdictions.
Every contract I write has this term, and I can't think of one I've signed that doesn't.
That statement, called a "severability clause", is there precisely because otherwise some other unenforceable provision would void the entire contract anyway. Judges can decide to just throw out your contract in a dispute, rather than pare it down for you. In fact they probably would do that as a rule.
> And that statement can be used to revoke the entire contract in certain jurisdictions.
Are you claiming that including language similar to "If it turns out that a particular term is not valid or enforceable, this will not affect any other terms" will make the contract unenforceable?
What jurisdictions? Do you have any examples?
I've never heard of this and I've spoke to lawyers about it previously, and some quick searching terms up nothing like this.
In Australia it falls under "terms that enable one party (but not another) to vary the terms of the contract." and "terms that enable one party (but not another) to avoid or limit their obligations under the contract" which contravenes the Unfair Contract Terms regime under the Australian Consumer Law.
I'm in Australia, and this is categorically not true.
This term doesn't allow Google to vary the contract. Instead it says if a court finds a specific term is unenforceable that doesn't invalidate the rest of the contract.
Here's guidance from the Australian government clausebank, which is a shared resource for common contract clauses in Australia:
"This clause provides that any illegal or otherwise unenforceable contract terms are removed from the Contract, with the remainder of the Contract remaining valid and enforceable between the parties.... While use of this clause is optional, it is common for contracts to include a clause of this type."
So the complaint is basically "Google isn't selling user data to us"? What is the intended end result, all user data should be free for purchase in order to maximize corporate profit?
The USG always works to make capitalism work for the consensus of the biggest companies (in this case, all of Google's pissed off rivals). Just work from that perspective and it will always make sense. I am always shocked when I see a decision at the federal level that does anything for anyone that isn't a bigco.
This is the most concerning factor - Facbook reach is tremendous across it's media platform and most people still do not associate WhatsApp or Instagram as Facebook properties, even though they literally updated the apps to say "By Facebook" on them.
I do not know how to rate the governance or ethics of either company (FB/Alphabet.)
Does anyone know if this type of litigation is to do with the presidential election? Bytedance seemed transparently political at least. Is this too? Or does the DoJ just move insanely slowly AND with no consideration to political events?
It doesn't seem like the case itself is political, since we've been hearing about it for quite a while now. Most of the naked partisan attacks have been (thankfully) easily debunked; e.g. the supposed case of discarded ballots in a swing state, which turned out to be a manufactured hoax and was exposed as such pretty quickly.
The timing may be political though. We shall see when they file the case.
Maybe, instead of debating what the current laws are we should be debating how we regulate/govern/exist in the thing that is the reality we live in and see coming to fruition.
I totally think that if the feds(most powerful force we have today on the planet) decide you did something wrong they will find you did.
THAT IS REALLY WHAT IS AT ISSUE IN THIS SITUATION.
Citizens of the united states have no right to redress their grievances against the united states outside of the united states. EVEN WHEN THEY ARE AS LARGE AS GOOGLE.
Let me be clear. I AM NOT CALLING ON THE COMPLETE USURPATION OF THE USA'S LEGAL AUTHORITY.
I do think that certain issues that have a international legal consequence are going to be needed if the usa does not want to lose prowess in this area.
In all honesty google should just shutdown for 1,..2, ...3,... 7 days and extort the gov to actually operate in a legal manner.
> In all honesty google should just shutdown for 1,..2, ...3,... 7 days and extort the gov to actually operate in a legal manner.
Just speaking logically... considering how rarely another government doesn't suffer consequences for such shenanigans... how do you think that would go for a corporation? Long term, probably not well.
“... looking to disadvantage rivals such as Microsoft’s Bing by depriving them of the data about users and user preferences that they need...”
Anyone care to sum up the argument?