Make no mistake. This is, first and foremost, a big, for-profit corporation fighting a bigger, for-profit corporation, for its own financial interests. Nevertheless, we may stand to benefit, if only incidentally.
In particular, if the legal authorities start to unwind Google, I actually think Chrome and Android are more important to wall off or spin out than anything advertising or AI related.
snielson · 2h ago
The solution proposed by Kagi—separate the search index from the rest of Google—seems to make the most sense. Kagi explains it more here: https://blog.kagi.com/dawn-new-era-search
ChuckMcM · 38m ago
At Blekko we advocated for this as well.
Google has two interlocked monopolies, one is the search index and the other is their advertising service. We often joked that if Google reasonable and non-discriminatory priced access to their index, both to themselves and to others, AND they allowed someone to put what ever ads they wanted on those results. That change the landscape dramatically.
Google would carve out their crawler/indexer/ranker business and sell access to themselves and others which would allow that business an income that did NOT go back to the parent company (had to be disbursed inside as capex or opex for the business).
Then front ends would have a good shot, DDG for example could front the index with the value proposition of privacy. Someone else could front the index with a value proposition of no-ads ever. A third party might front that index attuned to specific use cases like literature search.
It would be a very different world.
mullingitover · 2h ago
Crawling the internet is a natural monopoly. Nobody wants an endless stream of bots crawling their site, so googlebot wins because they’re the dominant search engine.
It makes sense to break that out so everyone has access to the same dataset at FRAND pricing.
My heart just wants Google to burn to the ground, but my brain says this is the more reasonable approach.
This is similar to the natural monopoly of root DNS servers (managed as a public good). There is no reason more money couldn't go into either Common Crawl, or something like it. The Internet Archive can persist the data for ~$2/GB in perpetuity (although storing it elsewhere is also fine imho) as the storage system of last resort. How you provide access to this data is, I argue, similar to how access to science datasets is provided by custodian institutions (examples would be NOAA, CERN, etc).
Build foundations on public goods, very broadly speaking (think OSI model, but for entire systems). This helps society avoid the grasp of Big Tech and their endless desire to build moats for value capture.
mullingitover · 1h ago
The problem with this is in the vein of `Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once` if it's going to replace googlebot. Everyone who only allows googlebot would need to change and allow ccbot instead.
It's already the case that googlebot is the common denominator bot that's allowed everywhere, ccbot not so much.
xp84 · 58m ago
Wouldn’t a decent solution, if some action happened where Google was divesting the crawler stuff, be to just do like browser user agents have always done (in that case multiple times to comical degrees)? Something like ‘Googlebot/3.1 (successor, CommonCrawl 1.0)’
toomuchtodo · 25m ago
Lots of good replies to your comment already. I'd also offer up Cloudflare offering the option to crawl customer origins, with them shipping the compressed archives off to Common Crawl for storage. This gives site admins and owners control over the crawling, and reduces unnecessary load as someone like Cloudflare can manage the crawler worker queue and network shipping internally.
CPLX · 1h ago
I mean if it’s created as part of setting the global rules for the internet you could just make it opt out.
sanderjd · 1h ago
Wait, is the suggestion here just about crawling and storing the data? That's a very different thing than "Google's search index"... And yeah, I would agree that it is undifferentiated.
toomuchtodo · 1h ago
If you have access to archived crawls, anyone can build and serve an index, or model weights (gpt).
bbarnett · 1h ago
One problem, it leaves one place to censor.
I agree that each front end should do it, but you can bet it will be a core service.
vasco · 1h ago
> The Internet Archive can persist the data for ~$2/GB in perpetuity
> Vault offers a low-cost pricing model based on a one-time price per-gigabyte/terabyte for data deposited in the system, with no additional annual storage fees or data egress costs.
What's the read throughout to get the data back out, and does it scale to what you'd need to have N search indexes building on top of this shared crawl?
oceanplexian · 2h ago
> Crawling the internet is a natural monopoly.
How so?
A caching proxy costs you almost nothing and will serve thousands of requests per second on ancient hardware. Actually there's never been a better time in the history of the Internet to have competing search engines since there's never been so much abundance of performance, bandwidth, and software available at historic low prices or for free.
sokoloff · 1h ago
Costs almost nothing, but returns even less.*
There are so many other bots/scrapers out there that literally return zero that I don’t blame site owners for blocking all bots except googlebot.
Would it be nice if they also allowed altruist-bot or common-crawler-bot? Maybe, but that’s their call and a lot of them have made it on a rational basis.
* - or is perceived to return
Aurornis · 8m ago
> that I don’t blame site owners for blocking all bots except googlebot.
I doubt this is happening outside of a few small hobbyist websites where crawler traffic looks significant relative to human traffic. Even among those, it’s so common to move to static hosting with essentially zero cost and/or sign up for free tiers of CDNs that it’s just not worth it outside of edge cases like trying to host public-facing Gitlab instances with large projects.
Even then, the ROI on setting up proper caching and rate limiting far outweighs the ROI on trying to play whack-a-mole with non-Google bots.
Even if someone did go to all the lengths to try to block the majority of bots, I have a really hard time believing they wouldn’t take the extra 10 minutes to look up the other major crawlers and put those on the allow list, too.
This whole argument about sites going to great lengths to block search indexers but then stopping just short of allowing a couple more of the well-known ones feels like mental gymnastics for a situation that doesn’t occur.
stackskipton · 2h ago
Not everyone wants to deal with caching proxy because they think the load on their site under normal operations is fine if it's rendered server side.
Onavo · 2h ago
In the past month there were dozens of posts about using proof of work and other methods to defeat crawlers. I don't think most websites tolerate heavy crawling in the era of Vercel/AWS's serverless "per request" and bandwidth billing.
immibis · 1h ago
You don't get to tell site owners what to do. The actual facts on the ground are that they're trying to block your bot. It would be nice if they didn't block your bot, but the other, completely unnatural and advertising-driven, monopoly of hosting providers with insane per-request costs makes that impossible until they switch away.
AlexandrB · 1h ago
They try to block your bot because Google is a monopoly and there's little to no cost for blocking everything except Google.
This isn't a "natural" monopoly, it's more like Internet Explorer 6.0 and everyone designing their sites to use ActiveX and IE-specific quirks.
luckylion · 19m ago
One possible answer: pay them for their trouble until you provide value to them, e.g. by paying some fraction of a cent for each (document) request.
tananaev · 20m ago
Google search is a monopoly not because of crawling. It's because of the all the data it knows about website stats and user behavior. Original Google idea of ranking based on links doesn't work because it's too easily gamed. You have to know what websites are good based on user preferences and that's where you need to have data. It's impossible to build anything similar to Google without access to large amounts of user data.
AtlasBarfed · 10m ago
Page ranking sounds like a perfect application of artificial intelligence.
If China can apply it for total information awareness on their population, Google can apply it on page reliability
Aurornis · 14m ago
> Crawling the internet is a natural monopoly. Nobody wants an endless stream of bots crawling their site,
Companies want traffic from any source they can get. They welcome every search engine crawler that comes along because every little exposure translates to incremental chances at revenue or growing audience.
I doubt many people are doing things to allow Googlebot but also ban other search crawlers.
> My heart just wants Google to burn to the ground
I think there’s a lot of that in this thread and it’s opening the door to some mental gymnastics like the above claim about Google being the only crawler allowed to index the internet.
hkpack · 2h ago
Most of the tech is set for being a monopoly due to the negligible variable cost associated with serving a customer.
Thus being even slightly in front of others is reinforced and the gap only widens.
shadowgovt · 50m ago
Of all the bad ideas I've heard of where to slice Google to break it up, this... Is actually the best idea.
The indexer, without direct Google influence, is primarily incentivized to play nice with site administrators. This gives them reasons to improve consideration of both network integrity and privacy concerns (though Google has generally been good about these things, I think the damage is done regarding privacy that the brand name is toxic, regardless of the behaviors).
mattmaroon · 1h ago
Are sites really that averse to having a few more crawlers than they already do? It would seem that it’s only a monopoly insofar as it’s really expensive to do and almost nobody else thinks they can recoup the cost.
natebc · 1h ago
A few?
We routinely are fighting off hundreds of bots at any moment. Thousands and Thousands per day, easily. US, China, Brazil from hundreds of different IPs, dozens of different (and falsified!) user agents all ignoring robots.txt and pushing over services that are needed by human beings trying to get work done.
EDIT: Just checked our anubis stats for the last 24h
CHALLENGE: 829,586
DENY: 621,462
ALLOW: 96,810
This is with a pretty aggressive "DENY" rule for a lot of the AI related bots and on 2 pretty small sites at $JOB. We have hundreds, if not thousands of different sites that aren't protected by Anubis (yet).
Anubis and efforts like it are a xesend for companies that don't want to pay off Cloudflare or some other "security" company peddling a WAF.
zrm · 1m ago
This seems like two different issues.
One is, suppose there are a thousand search engine bots. Then what you want is some standard facility to say "please give me a list of every resources on this site that has changed since <timestamp>" so they can each get a diff from the last time they crawled your site. Uploading each resource on the site to each of a thousand bots once is going to be irrelevant to a site serving millions of users (because it's a trivial percentage) and to a site with a small amount of content (because it's a small absolute number), which together constitute the vast majority of all sites.
The other is, there are aggressive bots that will try to scrape your entire site five times a day even if nothing has changed. But then you set traps like disallowing something in robots.txt and ban anything that tries to access it, which doesn't affect legitimate search engine crawlers because they respect robots.txt.
robinsonb5 · 1h ago
A "few" more would be fine - but the sheer scale of the malicious AI training bot crawling that's happening now is enough to cause real availability problems (and expense) for numerous sites.
One web forum I regularly read went through a patch a few months ago where it was unavailable for about 90% of the time due to being hammered by crawlers. It's only up again now because the owner managed to find a way to block them that hasn't yet been circumvented.
So it's easy to see why people would allow googlebot and little else.
wslh · 1h ago
> so googlebot wins because they’re the dominant search engine.
I think it's also important to highlight that sites explicitly choose which bots to allow in their robots.txt files, prioritizing Google which reinforces its position as the de-facto monopoly. Even when other bots are technically able to crawl them.
rubitxxx2 · 2h ago
Assuming the simplified diagram of Google’s architecture, sure, it looks like you’re just splitting off a well-isolated part, but it would be a significant hardship to do it in reality.
Why not also require Apple to split off only the phone and messaging part of its iPhone, Meta to split off only the user feed data, and for the U.S. federal government to run only out of Washington D.C.?
This isn’t the breakup of AT&T in the early 1980s where you could say all the equipment and wiring just now belongs to separate entities. (It wasn’t that simple, but it wasn’t like trying to extract an organ.)
I think people have to understand that and know that what they’re doing is killing Google, and it was already on its way into mind-numbed enterprise territory.
lolinder · 1h ago
> Apple to split off only the phone and messaging part of its iPhone
Ooh, can we? My wife is super jealous of my ability to install custom apps for phone calls and messaging on Android, it'd be great if Apple would open theirs up to competition. Competition in the SMS app space would also likely help break up the usage of iMessage as a tool to pressure people into getting an iPhone so they get the blue bubble.
rubitxxx2 · 1h ago
> Ooh, can we?
If the dream of a Star Trek future reputation-based government run by AI which secretly manipulates the vote comes true, yes we can!
Either that or we could organize competitors to lobby the US or EU for more lawsuits in exchange for billions in kickbacks! (Not implying anything by this.)
gamblor956 · 24m ago
You jest, but splitting out just certain Internet Explorer features was part of the Microsoft antitrust resolution. It's what made Chrome's ascendancy possible.
486sx33 · 1h ago
Google killed Google. They should not have decided to become evil. Search can easily be removed, G Suite should be separate too.
luckydata · 2h ago
It's such a ridiculous proposal that would completely destroy Google's business. If that's the goal fine, but let's not pretend that any of those remedies are anything beyond a death sentence.
alabastervlog · 2h ago
If they're dominating or one of only two or three important options in multiple other areas and the index is the only reason... I mean, that's a strong argument both that they're monopolists and that they're terrible at allocating the enormous amount of capital they have. That's really the only thing keeping them around? All their other lines of business collectively aren't enough to keep them alive? Yikes, scathing indictment.
riku_iki · 2h ago
> It's such a ridiculous proposal that would completely destroy Google's business.
it won't. My bet is that bing and some other indexes are 95% Ok for average Joe. But relevance ranking is much tougher problem, and "google.com" is household brand with many other functions(maps, news, stocks, weather, knowledge graph, shopping, videos), and that's what is foundation of google monopoly.
I think this shared index thing will actually kill competition even more, since every players will use only index owned by google now.
ketzo · 2h ago
Really? Google would still have an astonishingly large lead in the ad markets.
riku_iki · 2h ago
Not sure how they could hold lead in case they lose search traffic.
sambeau · 11m ago
The really uncompetitive behaviour started when Google removed the search string from search links. That killed 3rd party (and home-grown) analytics, which in turn facilitated large scale tracking of users from site with analytics to site with analytics.
If you wanted to know how your keywords were performing you had to use Google Analytics.
light_triad · 2h ago
It's good for YC to do this and will benefit every startup in the long run. Google has been one of the sources of the AI boom, and provides liquidity by acquiring startups. But as YC argues they've monopolised distribution channels to the point where you need to go through the Google toll booth every time you want to access the market. This tax on founders to reach their audience makes many types of businesses unsustainable and impossible, especially for products where usage != sharing.
threeseed · 4m ago
Of course it is good for YC to do this. They have significant investments in OpenAI both directly and indirectly through the countless startups they've funded whose core is OpenAI.
And it's ridiculous to act like (a) you are forced to go through Google to access the 'market' and (b) that this is somehow unusual or untoward. They are an advertising company and not the only one.
bogwog · 40m ago
> and provides liquidity by acquiring startups
You mean kills potentially successful tech companies of the future by acquiring startups to cement their dominance.
I get why people on this site are in love with the idea of building an unsustainable, money-losing business where the only path to success is being acquired by a tech giant. It's like winning the lottery! But it helps nobody, it hurts your customers/users, and it hurts innovation. It's also stupid, as a successful tech company could potentially grow as big as the giants you're courting (ESPECIALLY now that the FTC has started finally doing its job). Why else do you think they're spending so much money to acquire you? It's easier on the ego to call it an "acquihire", but the truth is that they're just paying a maintenance tax on their monopoly.
Every time people complain about how detrimental big tech is to society, it ultimately comes down to this sad strategy.
beambot · 3h ago
This feels a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face...
Unlike Microsoft's antitrust case of the 90s, Google seems much less anti-competitive by nature. Sure, they have unprecedented scale in search... but even that hegemony is being threatened by others in AI.
If anything, going after Google with a DoJ kludgel will cause a servere freeze on startup M&A across all of FAANG. With IPO windows (mostly) closed, this removes the biggest exit dynamic the startup ecosystem has at its disposal. This is not a good thing from my perspective, and would seem counter to YC's interests.
Someone steelman this for me...?
felineflock · 2h ago
YC should benefit most from an ecosystem where distribution channels (search, ads, etc) are not monopolized.
Startups ideally should compete on merit, not on whether they are eventually allowed access to Google’s platforms or get acquired. Startups can still exit via IPO, PE acquisition, cross-industry buyers or M&A.
From this POV, Google’s control over the adtech stack may be seen as gatekeeping digital advertising, which many YC companies rely on.
lolinder · 3h ago
> seems much less anti-competitive by nature
It seems much less, but I don't believe it is much less anticompetitive. We're talking about the search market specifically in this case, and the government has presented strong evidence that Google is:
* Using its position in other markets (browser, mobile) to ensure that others can't compete in search.
* Paying the major other vendors in those markets (browser, mobile) enormous sums of money to ensure that ~100% of the market share in both markets is used to prop up their lead in search.
Both of these things are pretty blatantly anticompetitive: they're competing not primarily based on the quality of their product offering but instead based on their pre-existing revenue streams and their leads in other markets.
croes · 1h ago
Google killed the Edge browser with the same tricks MS used.
The use money and Google Play services to hinder competition.
Not really less anti-competitive.
cyanydeez · 3h ago
Google is now a basic utility. Unless you don't believe in basic public goods, allowing equitable access to the utility benefits everyone, especially businesses.
HaZeust · 50m ago
Public goods are non-excludable (impossible to prevent anyone from using the good) and non-rivalrous (one person's use doesn't diminish the availability for others). Google doesn't match the criteria.
photonthug · 1m ago
Interesting definition. This applies to almost literally nothing except Jefferson’s candle and IP. Actual literal fire is considered worthless and IP is bazillions of dollars of closely guarded secrets. Public transits, seemingly unlimited water sources, or neighborhood parks all suffer from overcrowding so this diminishing availability thing is tough to meet
s1artibartfast · 2h ago
Public goods is an economics term with an actual meaning, and it has nothing to do with public utilities.
Utilities and infrastructure can be considered public goods insofar as they have the characteristics of non-rivalry and non-excludability, meaning that one person's use of them does not diminish another person's ability to use them and it is difficult to prevent others from using them even if they have not contributed to their provision.
However, utilities are typically excludable (service can be cut off for non-payment) and rivalrous to some extent (there are capacity limits and usage can impact others), so they are better classified as private or quasi-public goods.
So why is this idea so prevalent: that public goods should be public utilities?
A key driver behind the transformation of some public goods into regulated public utilities seems to be the theory of "natural monopoly," which posits that certain industries are most efficiently served by a single provider, making competition impractical or wasteful. Then in 1919 the economic theory of public goods, notably developed by Erik Lindahl, further contributed to the myth by arguing that public goods should be funded through taxation based on individual benefit. This reinforced the notion that the government should organize and finance such goods, often through public utility models.
So I wouldn't say public goods have nothing to do with public utilities.
danboarder · 41m ago
This action comes a bit late, at the end of the "Search engine" era, at a time when AI responses from many sources are largely replacing the "Google Search".
Similar action happened against Microsoft Windows around 2000, just as the rise of web-based apps (online email, google docs, etc) largely made the underlying operating system less relevant to how people use their computers and apps.
So I read this as the dominant player can monopolize a market while it's relevant without an issue, and once the market starts to move on, the antitrust lawsuits come in to "make the market more competitive" at a time when that era is mostly over.
And trying to regulate early (as with the last administration's AI legislation that is now being repealed) we can see that only hindsight is 20/20, and regulating too early can kill a market. My conclusion is to just let the best product win, and even dominate for a while as this is part of the market cycle, and when a better product/platform comes along the market will move to it.
ChuckMcM · 36m ago
I would be you $1 that in five to ten years there will be zero "AI" players replacing search. But that's a different topic than this one.
danboarder · 35s ago
Google themselves are trying to figure this out, with the first (top placement) of search results showing their Gemini AI Response, at least for me. I read this as an attempt to keep users on Google instead of asking Chat GPT or other some other AI. What's your take on that?
MPSFounder · 32m ago
I will take that bet Chuck. Maybe not completely replace, but AI will be the defacto search platform. I find myself using Google less and less these days
bdangubic · 30m ago
I only use Google when I am in the mood to search for something and find it below the fold after scrolling through mindless semi-related sponsored links
SV_BubbleTime · 24m ago
If for no other reason that I can perform combination searches.
I don’t need to search MQTT and AWS and v3/v5 and max packet sizes all separately anymore.
xiphias2 · 3h ago
AI is the most competitive and healthy large industry I have seen. Having a search index helps just like having tweets for x.ai, but data isn’t the deciding factor.
Ekaros · 2h ago
Competitive maybe. Healthy almost certainly not. My definition for healthy industries is being able to fund operations and development either by revenues or debt. Not by continuously raising capital from investors and then burning it on hardware and operating costs.
Seattle3503 · 36m ago
> but data isn’t the deciding factor.
That remains to be seen. The fear is that Google can leverage its large search index to produce better LLM experiences and win in that market too.
fundaThree · 3h ago
It's not the deciding factor yet. You can bet the IP hammer is going to swing in again once the big players have been decided just to keep the small players out.
hermannj314 · 3h ago
Is an Amicus brief just a way the legal profession sells ad space in high profile cases?
You pay a lawyer a few thousand bucks to write some populist bromides you get to slap your name in the news. Seems like a good ROI.
Bender · 1h ago
In terms of fairness, competition and monopolies is there a chart that shows how much tax payer funding each search engine has received upon creation, annually and indirectly? e.g. donating NASA hangers for server hosting and experiments, heavily discounted real estate and land, tax breaks for power, etc... Put another way, who has the biggest monopoly on direct and indirect tax-payer funding?
grg0 · 13m ago
> Put another way, who has the biggest monopoly on direct and indirect tax-payer funding?
The Pentagon.
creato · 2h ago
It's disappointing to see the historical revisionism in these threads. Say what you will about google now, but the idea that they just bought their way into X industry doesn't seem right. Until maybe 10 years ago, tech people almost universally loved Google's offerings and adopted them eagerly because they were good. I remember the mad scramble on various forums for a gmail invite. I remember when google maps came about, it was a revelation compared to mapquest and so on. You could scroll the map instead of clicking buttons to jump half a screen at a time! For years 0-5 at least, chrome was almost universally loved by tech people. Process isolation, speed, lack of toolbar shitware, etc.
At every company I've been at, half the dependencies came from big tech, and more than half of those were built and maintained by google. bazel, kubernetes, test frameworks, tensorflow, etc. these are just the big ones. There are a lot of smaller libraries from google that we've used too, and more still that aren't owned by google but they invest a lot of engineering time into.
I don't know what the right answer is to the google of today, but the cavalier assumption that google has simply leveraged a monopoly in search to build everything else it has doesn't add up to me.
hu3 · 1h ago
Meanwhile Apple, also sitting on infinite cash, is easily entertained by toying with regulators around the world and contributes back almost nothing in comparison to Google.
Heck, they can't even be bothered to fund a single developer to help their hardware run Linux.
r0m4n0 · 3h ago
As others have pointed out, YC is definitely trying to get some of that Google money. Another important aspect that benefits YC is a turn of events that would improve the talent pool. Google retains tens of thousands of software engineers, I’d argue maybe the biggest reserve in existence. It’s the largest population of experienced engineers that won’t leave because the money and circumstances are too good. Startups would benefit if these circumstances changed
gnaman · 1h ago
that is not a google problem that is a big tech problem. people move where the money is and the money flows to google easily because ads is such a lucrative business. if you force the talent pool to move off google, meta or amazon will easily absorb them
Workaccount2 · 1h ago
The real killer is that Google perfected the ad-paid model, and launched an entire ecosystem on top of it
Paid competitors cannot compete because people won't pay. People want the death of Google because people hate ads and tracking.
Ultimately it is an everyone loses situation. No one is going to fly in a replace Google without either 1.) Charging a monthly sub or 2.) Invasive (yet most profitable) ad tracking.
This is exactly why youtube stands alone too. What company looks at youtube's userbase and says "Yes, I want to cater to people who despise subscriptions and block ads". Exactly what vid.me did in 2017, which everyone celebrated until the went bankrupt.
voytec · 4h ago
> As a result, YC has an interest in ensuring that U.S. technology markets are free from anticompetitive barriers to entry and expansion.
This part reads like a suggestion to loosen anti-competitive/antitrust law.
grg0 · 11m ago
Why? The point of antitrust is to promote market fairness.
I don't trust YC very much, but I do trust they want a share of the pie. And they're not wrong that Google has monopolized and stagnated search. I think you're reading too much into that sentence?
bloppe · 4h ago
Google is the reason for the current AI boom. Without the transformer architecture they invented by funding basic research, there would be no modern LLMs. YC is arguing that their incentive for funding that basic research should be taken away in order to spur innovation?
ViktorRay · 3h ago
But when AT&T had a monopoly it funded Bell Labs which was responsible for much innovation.
Then AT&T was shut down and Bell Labs went away.
If we take your argument seriously then AT&T shouldn’t have been dismantled. But it was a good thing AT&T was dismantled. It helped lead to the modern internet.
By your logic all Rockefeller had to do in the early 20th century was set up a lab to do basic research and then Standard Oil wouldn’t have been broken up.
Monopolies should be broken up. This is true regardless of any basic research that they fund.
mjcl · 2h ago
And it was an antitrust action that unlocked a lot of that value. The consent decree required Bell Labs to license its patents (e.g. transistors) for reasonable royalties. The same consent decree also forbid AT&T from entering new industries like computing. So after they built UNIX, they sold the source code 'as-is' to universities for $200 ($20k for businesses).
Aerroon · 2h ago
You could also say, though, that this is what caused AT&T to be what it is today - disliked by their customers.
throwaway173738 · 2h ago
Ask anyone who was alive back then and they will tell you stories of how legendarily awful AT&T was to deal with. My father has told me several. The antitrust action made things better for regular people by allowing them to do things like buy their own handsets or haggle over price.
kjkjadksj · 2h ago
What telecom today will actually haggle
smcin · 27m ago
All of them, in regions where they don't have a vertical monopoly. You can negotiate away installation fees and monthly package pricing on DSL, TV, internet phone... also sometimes get a no-contract deal instead of locking in for 24/28 mths with the dreaded ETF which is a large part of Comcast's profitability.
nradov · 1h ago
They won't haggle with consumers, but for large business customers the prices and other terms are absolutely negotiable.
pixl97 · 2h ago
As the other person said, you must be young.
They are disliked now as much as they were disliked then. Except back then they charged you a hell of a lot for long distance.
dehrmann · 2h ago
> it was a good thing AT&T was dismantled
Citation needed. I hear this repeated, but the consumer experience was it was split into regional monopolies, and consumers now had to deal with both local and long distance, and both were still monopolies. It only got better with competition from mobile providers.
com · 1h ago
I was looking for a citation and instead found a number of vague or biased papers.
Suprisingly there’s an archived DoJ page that says that the same remedies may have been much cheaper to achieve through other means.
YMMV. I don’t agree with the narrowness of this analysis, and would like to see some links to academic studies in economics and the study of innovation tbh.
Long distance was not a monopoly once competitors came along that provided better and cheaper service, all before the rise of mobile.
gopher_space · 2h ago
The consumer experience was AT&T telling you to go fuck yourself. Everyone hated them with a burning passion.
sanderjd · 1h ago
I'm pretty sympathetic to both sides of this. I don't really know the history well enough to say whether you're right that breaking up AT&T "helped lead to the modern internet". But even stipulating that it did, the loss of monopoly era Bell Labs was tragic.
Both things can be true! It's entirely possible (probable even) that breaking up monopolies has both positive and negative impact.
And I would be a lot more sympathetic if we had a lot more public investment in technology. But we don't. What I see is both public and private research investment under major attack. I think that's a recipe for disaster.
efavdb · 2h ago
“Monopolies should be broken up” doesn’t imply we should disincentivize research though, does it?
thatguy0900 · 2h ago
I think the implication is that in a high competition area Noone has the spare funds for massive research projects that may go nowhere
No comments yet
shadowgovt · 47m ago
There's actually a pretty solid argument to be made that the railways were never more effective than during the days of Rockefeller, when he could throw his money around to force otherwise-competing railways to optimize their work in an industry that has some fundamental strong incentives to be non-competitive (it rarely makes any sense to run two rail lines purely for competition reasons and leads to a race to the bottom on pricing).
... but that's more a story of the failure of the US government to go far enough and nationalize the rail network and its operations. The most efficient era of US rail was during World War II, when the military took it over and prioritized schedules by optimal throughput over profit concerns.
wslh · 2h ago
Right, if you look back through the history of ideas, every breakthrough builds on prior research and inventions. In the realm of patents and copyrights, this is acknowledged formally: they expire after a certain time and enter the public domain. This also supports the view that the current state of the world, for better or worse, owes much to the past and those who came before (living or not living elements).
ajross · 2h ago
Bell Labs being defunded by a deregulated/competetive AT&T was precisely what led to the attempted commercialization of Unix and the near death of what would eventually be called "open source", though. In history as it stands, we had GNU and Linux and all that we lost was a few years.
But it's easy to imagine a world where that didn't happen and BSD was just killed dead. So no OS X, no iOS, no Android, no ChromeOS, and the only vendor able to stand on its own is the one we all agree had the worst product.
Ironically the world where the Bell monopoly was left in place seems to me to be one where we're all stuck running Microsoft Windows on everything, no?
I mean, fine, there's nuance to everything but the idea that "well, open research isn't so important" seems frankly batshit to me. Monopolies fall on their own all the time (Microsoft's did too!). You can't get stuff into the public space that wasn't ever there to begin with.
throwaway173738 · 2h ago
You’re making the assumption that only corporations can fund or perform basic research. But the transistor was actually the culmination of decades of research by materials scientists and physicists in university and other labs into semiconductors before anyone realized there were applications.
pixl97 · 1h ago
>Monopolies fall on their own all the time (Microsoft's did too!)
What in the heck are you talking about??? After Microsoft was convicted, even though they never received any actual punishment, the were very internally cautions about any behaviors that could be perceived as monopolistic. This is like a total misinterpretation of what actually occurred on your part.
And yes, monopolies do fall, after very long periods of time. Some monopoly sitting around 25 years may not seem like much, but that's half an average persons working life.
chpatrick · 4h ago
You can do basic research without being monopolistic.
derektank · 3h ago
Yet empirically, the biggest funders of basic research have historically been monopolies. The US government was, at least up until the last few months, the largest funder of basic research globally and it obviously maintains multiple different monopolies, a monopoly on legal use of force, a functional monopoly on financial transactions as the global reserve currency, and I'm sure others. Excluding national governments, Bell Labs and IBM were both probably the biggest funders of basic research in the last century during their respective heydays. Bell was obviously a monopoly and while IBM might never have faced anti-trust penalties, they did at one point control 70% of the mainframe market and the DoJ did bring a case against them (that was eventually dismissed by the Reagan administration.)
I think there are many good reasons to pursue anti-trust action against companies that are in a dominant market position, but we should be honest about the tradeoffs. Businesses that have to aggressively compete to maintain market share don't have the slack to fund basic research.
OtherShrezzing · 3h ago
Is this not a bit "tail wagging the dog" thinking? There wasn't much innovation in telecommunications once Bell's monopoly was entrenched. Once it dissipated, innovation was everywhere in the space. Similarly, computers had less innovation while IBM was a monopoly than they've had since its monopoly dissipated.
Though both companies created novel & useful inventions, the biggest shifts in those industries during those monopoly eras were from outside those organisations by competitive startups. As an example, IBM should have produced Microsoft, but they didn't. They missed out on a multi-trillion dollar value creation opportunity as a result.
derektank · 2h ago
There's a difference between conducting basic research and bringing new inventions to the market in the form of consumer goods or services. Monopolies are much, much worse at doing the latter than normal businesses because they have no competition pressuring them to improve their offerings.
mjevans · 3h ago
Which is why, like the 'monopoly on violence' the government should also be funding a _lot more research_.
It should be at, or partnered with, higher learning institutions and since it's public funded all of the results should be free to use*. I'm willing to entertain the idea of: Free use for people and corporations within the country/countries that funded research, everyone else pays compulsory license fees.
briandear · 2h ago
But public funded research isn’t “free to use.” In many cases, you can’t even read it without paying a scientific journal for a subscription. See the Bayh-Dole Act as well: universities can patent discoveries from federally funded research.
jpeloquin · 9m ago
Publications with public funding have already escaped the paywall, partially as of 2013 and completely as of this year:
The intent of the Bayh-Dole Act was to deal with a perceived problem of government-owned patents being investor-unfriendly. At the time the government would only grant non-exclusive licenses, and investors generally want exclusivity. That may have been the actual problem, moreso than who owned the patent. On the other hand, giving the actual inventors an incentive to commercialize their work should increase their productivity and the chance that the inventions actually get used.
sanderjd · 1h ago
These aren't contradictory ideas. Governments should fund more research and should also make it free.
> I think there are many good reasons to pursue anti-trust action against companies that are in a dominant market position, but we should be honest about the tradeoffs.
Okay. I’ll take the monopolostic government over the monopolistic corporation. Thanks.
steveBK123 · 3h ago
This line of argument to defend monopolies is the same line of argument against progressive taxation of high incomes. Just because those with trends excess use some small fraction of that excess to do good does not justify the means.
I have been close enough to billionaires and how they spend their money to not be fully impressed by such arguments.
And certainly the robber barons of the 2000s spend far less on the public good than when tax rates were higher and they used to fund universities, libraries, hospitals and the like.
ctvo · 3h ago
The biggest funders of basic research are those with the most resources. This is your insight? I don't think anyone disagrees. Then you conflate correlation with causation and move it to _monopolies_ fund basic research. Bravo.
antonvs · 2h ago
Major monopolies tend to have the most resources, particularly excess resources that are available to spend on things like research.
layer8 · 1h ago
That’s not suprising at all, though. It doesn’t imply that monopolies are a net benefit for society.
jeroenhd · 3h ago
That's true, but if it weren't for Google's monopolist position, I doubt they'd have the money to throw at the wall for random research. For every AI transformer they revolutionized, there's a self-driving car project that's dragging on for decades.
Had Google operated like a normal company, the risk/reward of this kind of research would've looked completely differently.
Google's monopoly helped research along in the same way totalitarian countries like China are developing infrastructure at break-neck speed: if you don't need to care about pesky rights and regulations, you can do things that would otherwise be impossible.
I don't think Google's monopoly is worth having the current generation of lie generator bots around, but I don't think generative AI would be where it is right now had Google been forced to comply with antitrust regulations ten years ago.
sanderjd · 1h ago
It's funny that you use self driving cars as a negative example. We have a perfect natural experiment to look at to compare the slower research-driven approach (Waymo) to the "normal company" short term profit driven approach (Tesla).
From where I'm sitting it's pretty clear which approach has been more successful.
sdenton4 · 3h ago
"self-driving car project that's dragging on for decades."
And yet, waymo seems to have got the correct risk reward trade-off compared to all of the move-fast-and-get-banned competitors...
notimetorelax · 3h ago
I think that you’re supporting the argument that you’re replying to.
callc · 3h ago
You certainly have a point. Places like google and bell labs have pushed innovation, apparently enabled by monopolies.
I would rather we don’t allow monopolies since they are so bad for society, regardless of some benefits.
Government funded research and private investment are still a thing, that doesn’t try to break the whole capitalism thing.
kaladin-jasnah · 3h ago
My first thought was Bell Labs here. The lack of time pressure for research results sounds like a big reason why so much innovation happened—people could pursue projects that may not have immediately benefitted the company's bottom line, because Bell had money to throw. I think UNIX was an example of this, because MULTICS was a failure and Bell was wary of similar projects, but I might be wrong.
mtillman · 3h ago
According to Kernighan in UNIX: A History and a Memoir, the Unix team was constrained with regards to hardware capital at the time of Unix's creation. The Multics team got to use a fancy GE-645 (36-bits!) while the Unix team had to beg for "cheaper" systems like the PDP-7 and eventually an 11. Thompson has a great quote about how ultimately he was thankful they didn't have as much money to play with as the Multics team did but at the time he was annoyed he had to beg for a PDP-11. Fun book!
dghlsakjg · 3h ago
> You certainly have a point. Places like google and bell labs have pushed innovation, apparently enabled by monopolies.
I've heard this argument before (and recognize that you aren't defending it), but telecommunications, network and technology innovation has hardly suffered since Bell was dismantled in 1982.
jeroenhd · 3h ago
Telecommunications is still led by small groups of companies. Giant backbone providers stitch the internet together. Telecoms providers within a country, the ones that actually have hardware in the field, can often be counted on one hand, and often in one hand after a fireworks accident. 5G/6G/7G research is led by a small handful of companies that actually build the switches, transmitters, and modems. Cell tower frequencies are sold to a tiny group of carriers that sublet their network equipment to smaller companies they eventually buy up (if succesful) or disappear from the market (if not succesful).
Fiber rollout in countries where a government funded phone line rollout has already succeeded is laughably slow, taking decades and many billions with little to show for it. Even in countries where no phone lines were rolled out back in the day, fiber is more and more being skipped as 5G allows for cheaper (though less reliable and less capable) deployment.
I'm not saying monopolies are good or anything, and I think our problems would be even worse had we stuck to the monopolist systems that brought us telecoms as we know it, but I wouldn't consider the industry one where there's enough competition to drive innovation, especially since at least half of the entire sector is competing against Chinese government-controlled companies with seemingly endless coffers.
Mond_ · 3h ago
You cannot possibly know which innovations and standardizations happened past 1982 in the world in which Bell was not dismantled.
Macha · 1h ago
Right, but there other, real, negative impacts of monopoly, whereas the positive impact of R&D funding seems to be at best a maybe as to if it's better than the alternative.
globnomulous · 3h ago
This is debatable, I think. What I've read is that, whereas Bell Labs did foundational, groundbreaking research that radically altered the course of human history, technological innovation since then has more often followed the lines Bell Labs, and their ilk, laid down. Giving the world a faster computer or faster network is fine and nice but pales in comparison to the consequences of giving the world modern computers, Unix, and C.
bigyabai · 3h ago
Counterpoint, C and Unix still don't have serious successors 50 years on.
soulofmischief · 2h ago
Google's position is a result of capitalism, not in spite of it.
prepend · 55m ago
Every corporation’s position is a result of capitalism. I’d like to know more about your point.
photonthug · 19m ago
This is debatable and probably a US centric POV, I think you could argue that much of the world is better at public / private partnerships and so no, their position is not due to capitalism, even if their continued existence is.
I’m not an expert on the economic history, but you could probably argue that the last big public / private partnerships in the US were in the railroad days. Defense spending I would not count in this category either. Although it builds whole ecosystems it is too insular and incestuous compared to something like transportation, or deliberately nurturing any other budding industry in a cooperative rather than competitive fashion
bloppe · 3h ago
That's an interesting question. A lot of basic research is done in pursuit of creating entirely new markets. Being the first entrant to a new market makes you a monopolist in a way by default. It doesn't necessarily have to be anti-competitive.
I'd argue the fact that Google publishes much more of their research than their competitors do is a strong indicator that they're actually not the anti-competitive ones.
concinds · 3h ago
It's normal for mature industries to evolve into oligopolies. The filing goes far beyond fighting cartel-like behavior, into pretty ludicrous stuff (like "open access to Google’s datasets and search Index").
Zigurd · 3h ago
Debatable. I visited the down at the heels post break up Bell Labs and it was sad.
antonvs · 2h ago
I worked for a while at the company that used to be named Bellcore (Bell Communications Research), which was originally a research consortium for the Baby Bells. By the time I joined, it was a zombie cash cow shell that did no research, and it met the common fate of such businesses: acquired by a private equity firm.
DrillShopper · 3h ago
The greatest private sector basic research institute that has ever existed was the result of a government granted monopoly, so you have to admit, it helps.
lacy_tinpot · 3h ago
What monopoly?
Google's entire business model is currently under threat right now.
Larrikin · 2h ago
There are lazy developers reading this very comment thread that broke basic website functionality this week because they only tested on Chrome
ikiris · 2h ago
Just because the competition is trash doesn't make chrome a monopoly.
xyzzy9563 · 3h ago
There are many other search engine options, why should Google be punished for hiring the best people over decades to make the best one? Many consumers also switch their search to Google when presented with other options or defaults.
mcherm · 3h ago
> why should Google be punished for hiring the best people over decades to make the best one?
Google should not be punished for having gained a near-monopoly by hiring the best people.
But perhaps their near-monopoly is due to other reasons like paying large amounts to ensure that they are the default option on various platforms. In this case, legal restrictions might be more appropriate.
How do we determine which of these proposed reasons for the near-monopoly is correct? We use a legal process where each side presents their evidence and a neutral party decides which is most credible.
ayewo · 3h ago
> There are many other search engine options, why should Google be punished for hiring the best people over decades to make the best one?
I’m guessing this whole court case wouldn’t have been a thing if Google wasn’t bribing Apple, to the tune of $20 billion a year [1], to remain the default search engine on iOS.
Because the data they possess is the monopoly, they have better search results because it is too expensive for competitors to gather the data at this point as(I also think people who are unfamiliar with finance do not understand the quantum, Meta has a similar type of business but was under huge pressure with investing tens of billions into VR...it would cost hundreds of billions to get parity with Google, there is no way to finance this).
It is nothing to do with "hiring the best people". Google's exec-level leadership is extremely poor, Mr Magoo-tier management. This is largely due to their share classes, the people at the very top are not very good at business so Google largely isn't run like a business. They have one business that is probably worth $4-5tn, and the rest is worth -$3-4tn. The number of "best people" out there is usually under 500 in a country the size of the US, a country that has hundreds of thousands of employees is not hiring the best.
I would guess under 100 people at Google actually positively impact financial results in any way because the advertising business grows rapidly, uses no capital, and requires no staff. This is true of many of the tech companies do, you aren't getting the best if you pay an exec $50m because the best will always do their own thing and make more. Rather you get someone like Pichai or Cook who sounds good and will get shareholders to believe that setting fire to $200m/year to pay them is a good idea, they are indistinguishable from politicians.
Google is under-earning massively. Staff aren't a monopoly, you just pay someone to leave and they are yours now (you see this in other areas like HFT where staff actually know useful stuff, you don't see this in tech because most staff don't know anything, they are looking for drones).
surajrmal · 3h ago
It's incredibly naive to think Google's continuous growth is automatic. It happened because of all the work the employees do, not in spite of it. Are there employees who don't contribute? Sure. But that's different from only 100 contributing to positive growth.
skippyboxedhero · 1h ago
Do you actually understand how and why they are growing?
They start with a page with zero ads, they add one ad to that page one year, ad sales pushes that placements, then a few years they do it again, etc. Meta are the same.
Google do sell at a higher price than offline ads because of targeting/intent but this is inherent to the product: search has inherently better intent and their targeting tech is no better than anyone else such that their prices are higher/grow faster.
That is their growth model: higher ad density, the CEO deciding to add another ad to a page and earning $100m/year. There is no value-added otherwise because you don't need many people, you don't need capital and you are making $300bn/year.
And, again, if you own the shares you understand that you are getting the ads business, and because of the dual class you are also getting this tech bureaucracy that sets fire to tens of billions every year employing people to do nothing. If these people are so productive...where is the revenue? It is all ads or ancillary business, they have GCP now but there is nothing else...because these people aren't doing anything.
It is like owning a business that turns lead into gold, the process is automatic, requires no capital...and then employing a bunch of monks to pray for the lead and saying the business couldn't exist without them. Lol.
nmz · 2h ago
How?
The software world was basically created by Xerox and AT&T research.
lesuorac · 1h ago
Isn't this actually an argument for breaking up Google?
They came up with Transformers back in 2014 and sat on it for a decade until somebody else (OpenAI) forced their hand?
oceanplexian · 2h ago
> Without the transformer architecture they invented by funding basic research, there would be no modern LLMs.
Without Google the researchers who invented the Transformers model might have launched their own startup instead of sitting on the technology for 5 years while it's mismanaged at a big company. We would have had LLMs in 2018 not 2022.
oofbaroomf · 54m ago
A little bit unrelated, but the rise of Transformers in 2022 was because of the compute available - in 2018, it would have been almost impossible to make something like GPT-4.
riku_iki · 2h ago
Actually, most researchers of transformer paper founded various startups.
pyrale · 1h ago
> YC is arguing that their incentive for funding that basic research should be taken away in order to spur innovation?
Ma Bell is arguing that Bell labs has been a fountain of knowledge everyone admires and has contributed tremendously to the advancement of telecommunication systems.
SV_BubbleTime · 26m ago
I’m pretty sure we didn’t need a global Monopoly on the Internet to come up with the paper attention is all you need written by eight people.
ldjkfkdsjnv · 1h ago
Yup. Arguably could not have invented the transformer without the resources of a behemoth like google
beagle3 · 21m ago
Juergen Schmidhuber and his students came up with much of the basic NN elements, such as RNN, LSTM and others without behemoth resources (and several years earlier). Ttbomk, the one thing they DIDN’T come up with was the transformer; however it is very likely someone would have within a 5-10 year time frame.
ldjkfkdsjnv · 16m ago
I well aware of Schmidhuber, still the scaling of the compute was critical. The reason Schmidhuber didnt go all the way is still scaling/capital, which accrues to monopolies who can afford wildly speculative research. Also, LSTM, RNN, etc, while effective for their time, were dead ends.
constantcrying · 2h ago
Yes, large monopolistic corporations can spend large amounts of money on, presumably, completely unmonetizable research.
Nevertheless anti-Trust law exists because of the belief that monopolies should not exist and that it is the governments function to dismantle monopolies. The consequence of that is that corporations who can freely spend hundreds of millions on basic research will be dismantled as well, as happened with AT&T, and the funding for the basic research will cease.
>YC is arguing that their incentive for funding that basic research should be taken away in order to spur innovation?
No. That is the stance of the government. YC is arguing that the remedies the government is seeking are appropriate.
croes · 1h ago
Kings and nobles funded many scientists, do want to take their money and power away?
riku_iki · 2h ago
> Without the transformer architecture they invented by funding basic research, there would be no modern LLMs.
one could argue that transformers are nothing without attention layer, which was not invented at google.
philipov · 3h ago
You're saying this would hinder LLM research? Don't threaten me with a good time.
thomastjeffery · 2h ago
Researchers at Google are the reason for the current AI boom.
FTFY
tucnak · 2h ago
Potato potato
echelon · 3h ago
> Google is the reason for the current AI boom.
OpenAI is the reason for the current AI boom. Google wasn't productizing anything and didn't put any of this stuff out in the open. Where was their productization of the transformer?
If anything, it should show that Google malinvests. Maybe none of it would have seen the light of day. Only now that they've been threatened are they building products.
currymj · 3h ago
The BERT model, which uses the transformer architecture, was deployed by Google for every English language Google search by the end of 2019.
This is about concurrent with OpenAI's release of GPT-2. But GPT-2 was not really a product.
jayd16 · 3h ago
They had AI assistants and machine vision aplenty. The current hype cycle seems to stem from the discovery that going big on these models was worth it.
victorbjorklund · 3h ago
I usef BERT before chatgpt was a thing.
luckydata · 2h ago
OpenAi just decided they could jump the gun while Google CORRECTLY deemed the tech not ready yet. What you're breaking your neck to find fault with was Google being responsible.
jeffbee · 3h ago
That you are unaware of the applications of transformers is on you, not them. Search query understanding, search result ranking, translation, voice recognition, all other natural language applications, and generative applications like Gmail Smart Compose are all based on transformer architecture.
xnx · 3h ago
Google is a "monopoly" because their competitors with massive cash reserves (Microsoft, Apple, Meta) are too risk averse to compete in the marketplace and are hoping that the courtroom will deliver them a win.
lolinder · 3h ago
Which market are you talking about specifically? The outstanding cases against them are in search and in adtech. This amicus brief is for the Search case (this one [0]).
In search (the relevant market here), Microsoft does compete in the marketplace, and Microsoft's evidence that Google's anticompetitive practices have prevented them from gaining any meaningful ground in search were a keystone of the government's case, including the fact that Microsoft has invested nearly $100 billion into Bing [1].
In adtech much the same can be said about Meta.
So, again, I'm curious: in which market does Google not have competitors spending massive amounts of cash which Google still manages to hold back from being able to meaningfully compete?
all that would make sense, but Bing is worse. Wasting money building a bad product does not entitle you to market share.
lolinder · 3h ago
That's (a) a different argument than the competition is "too risk averse", (b) subjective, and (c) arguably the result of a number of flywheel effects. That is, Bing's ability to compete is hampered by the fact that Google already has an overwhelming majority of search traffic from which to learn and improve.
For example, from the second filing I linked to:
> After search began appearing on phones, Google started logging information about user location, swipes, and other user-related movements. PFOF ¶¶ 1003–1004. This data is now vital to every aspect of search, including figuring out where and when to crawl specific websites, how to index the information retrieved from that crawl, what documents to retrieve from the index in response to a user query, and how to rank the retrieved items. Some elements of Google’s search engine are trained on 13 months of data—a volume that would take Bing over 17 years to accumulate.
BobbyJo · 2h ago
Also, what is Bing's retention on windows? They try to cram it down your throat, but people still go straight for chrome/google.
luckydata · 2h ago
Do you not understand that a search engine is not a business by itself? I'm struggling to understand why so many supposedly smart people don't seem to grasp the obvious fact that Google can only exist in the current form or not at all and that any viable business of the same form has to look the same. Chrome is not a self standing viable business. YouTube is definitely not one either. Ads only works because the search engine exists. The search engine without ads would be a money pit. It's a synergistic business.
lolinder · 2h ago
This argument can be made about nearly any anticompetitive monopoly, and that should not stop the government from deciding that, if the business can only exist in its current form, then the business should not exist.
You're not entitled to a business model if your business model is harmful.
Ajedi32 · 2h ago
What evidence do you have that their business model is harmful? As a consumer search seems like an extremely healthy sector right now with plenty of competition. Google just happens to be by far the best.
What exactly do you think is stopping you from using a competitor? Can you not find the setting to change your default search engine in Chrome? Is Google blocking you from making that choice somehow? All the arguments I've seen for Google being anti-competitive in this sector are extremely weak.
bdangubic · 2h ago
Microsoft does compete in the marketplace
They compete much like I compete for People’s Most Beautiful Man in the World :)
drivebyhooting · 3h ago
Bing has a brand problem.
KHRZ · 2h ago
You have been a bad user. Bing has been a good Bing.
drivebyhooting · 46m ago
Bing sounds to my ears ridiculous. Is it a Chinese pancake? Or Mr. Bing?
Also as a verb it’s hard to pronounce.
voytec · 3h ago
No. The US vs. Google antitrust cases scope are Google's monopolistic practices in the search and adtech markets, not the browser market. The DOJ pushing for Google to sell Chrome is related to the search-related case.
georgeecollins · 3h ago
A shareholder in those companies wouldn’t support it. You could easily spend $10b trying to win back a fraction of the search market and Google could just spend $10b back to greater effect to bury you. Google is entrenched at every level: consumer awareness, browser, SEO, advertisers, ad-tech.
timewizard · 28m ago
A country as large and prosperous as the United States should have more than 4 providers. We should have more than 3 cellular companies. We should have more than 8 major ISPs.
These are monopolies. You might not see it because the economy is so _over monopolized_ it's hard to have perspective.
YCombinator loves to pretend it invented the idea of startups and entreprenourism but those have been vigorous and healthy throughout _most_ of America's existence. When they weren't we wrote some of the most comprehensive and consumer friendly anti-trust laws in the entire world. A feat which still stands today.
slater · 3h ago
Am I misremembering, or doesn’t Apple already have its own “stealth” search engine they could deploy at the drop of a hat, but instead use it as a bargaining chip w/ Google? Coulda sworn I read about it a decade ago in breathless “Is Apple working on its own search engine???” articles
dangoodmanUT · 2h ago
A bitly link is an insane choice
xyzzy9563 · 4h ago
Google is effectively being punished for retaining their earnings and re-investing in tons of software R&D over the years. Their "monopoly" is because people choose to use them, not because they have to. Not to mention they are are being disrupted by ChatGPT and other LLMs anyways right now. There have always been lots of web browsers and search engines, but Google simply did a better job making and refining their software and hiring people to do that.
nixonaddiction · 2h ago
ok so google paid companies like apple to make google the default search engine. you cannot claim everything was just because their product was good. you can argue that striking the deal with apple was just a smart business move, but google isn't winning just because of their r&d.
Ajedi32 · 2h ago
It's just a default, you can change it. Did Google coerce Apple into taking that deal somehow? Or did they simply offer them the most compelling deal in a free market?
Keep in mind that if paying to be the default search engine in a browser is illegal, then Firefox's primary revenue source is out the window.
voytec · 4h ago
No. They are being punished for unfairly limiting competitiveness with repeated monopolistic practices affecting the browser/search markets relation.
xyzzy9563 · 4h ago
But they only have high market share because people want to use Google instead of the competitors. Many consumers switch their search engine to Google when presented with other defaults. Because Google search works the best and people know that.
voytec · 3h ago
The aggressive marketing of Chrome on Google Search website to users using other browsers was a significant part of Chrome adoption success.
And no - some people didn't willingly and consciously switched to their search engine. It was pushed down their throats by browser vendors being paid-off by Google for setting it as the default one. Mozilla has overwritten user-changed search engine setting in Firefox with several updates.
Non tech-savvy users simply accept changes made in software they use.
Workaccount2 · 3h ago
I don't know if you remember but it was just a few years ago that using search engines like bing was a shameful meme.
voytec · 3h ago
Nowadays using Google Search is, since they pivoted from from being a "search company" to "adtech company" which resulted in the degradation of Google Search quality.
"Engines like Bing" is an ambiguous term. There are better options than Bing.
alabastervlog · 3h ago
When by far the most generous reading of a post is that it’s a low-effort troll, I’d recommend ignoring the poster entirely.
nicce · 4h ago
> Their "monopoly" is because people choose to use them, not because they have to.
If I give you only one reasonable option and you choose that, is that selection? What if this one option distinguished others?
xyzzy9563 · 4h ago
It's the only reasonable option because they did the best job making a search engine. The competitors have search engines but their software is worse.
kittikitti · 3h ago
Google's research departments hyped up DeepMind's success in board games and enabled huge amounts of marketing which makes you believe this. However, DeepMind was a resounding failure after GPT's were released. If you look at the multiple documentaries, they now seem cringeworthy because of Google's arrogance about AI. Google did not simply do a better job, they acquired the companies that did and then convinced you that they were part of Google the entire time so they can take the credit.
I'm really glad that YC brought this against Google but it should be clear that YC also enabled them. It's a lie that YC is independent from Google as it partners and promotes their engineers and Big Tech allies. They see the writing on the wall and their lawyers see this as a hedge against lawsuits against them. "We didn't cause this mess, see look! We're trying to help!" YC also doesn't serve American startups at all and their entrepreneurs strongly favors California or India.
repelsteeltje · 3h ago
> Google is effectively being punished for retaining their earnings and re-investing in tons of software R&D over the years
They have indeed invested tons in r&d, but with excessively little results. Besides web search it's tough to see succeses that Google didn't buy their way into. Gmail, maps, ... maybe?
xnx · 3h ago
Who knows when or if this current AI wave would've happened without Google.
dghlsakjg · 3h ago
That argument cuts both ways: Who knows how much longer we had to wait for this AI boom because google was sponging up every genius to work on ad selling algorithms.
jeffbee · 4h ago
One wonders how these people imagine accessing a search index, from the practical, technical standpoint. If you believe that Google has only unfair business practices, then it makes perfect sense to believe that your organization will simply access their data.
tiahura · 2h ago
How Orwellian. Free market means buyers and sellers set terms of deal, not G.
sidibe · 4h ago
A. The Remedy Should Open Access to Google’s Datasets and Search Index.
B. The Remedy Should Prevent Google from Extending Its Monopolies into
Query-Based AI Tools.
Good luck with that YC...
itopaloglu83 · 2h ago
The number of searches started to decline and everybody knows that Google is going to start pouring all their cash into AI tools now.
It looks like this is a strategic case to prevent Google from getting into AI search space and even gain access to their search index data so that they can train their own models on it.
Wright brothers invited the aircraft but almost all their patents were cancelled when the Great War started. If we believe the AI race is indeed an existential threat then let's cancel all patents that prevent anyone from innovating.
hedora · 1h ago
Much better idea:
1) Eliminate Google Play Services for android and the oem non-compete deals.
2) Right to privacy. All data collection and storage (even on customer owned hardware if used for targeting decisions) must be opt-in, by purpose and annually renewed. It must be easier to only opt in to data collection for use cases that provide application functionality / business transactions than it is to opt into blanket data collection.
scarface_74 · 4h ago
And Netflix shouldn’t have been able to extend its monopoly in shipping DVDs to streaming
DrillShopper · 3h ago
That's not comparable. Netflix did not have a monopoly on "shipping DVDs". Plenty of retailers, online or brick-and-mortar, did that at the same time Netflix did, and video rental places were still going. Some of which would deliver movies (the local Marcos near me had a deal with a local Family Video where if you bought a large pizza they would bring you both the pizza and a movie of your choice from Family Video, assuming it was in stock).
Nor has Netflix had a monopoly on streaming.
mschuster91 · 2h ago
The document metadata... ffs: "Microsoft Word - YC for filing FINAL DRAFT Y Combinator Amicus Brief"
People, clean that shit up before publishing. That's an embarrassment. At least it's not "FINAL FINAL2 REWORKED" or something equally grotesque.
pingou · 2h ago
As a google's shareholder that terrifies me.
As an european, I am happy to see that the US administration may be ready to kill the one of the most powerful and unassailable company in the world and allow any other country to build a replacement.
Workaccount2 · 3h ago
Meanwhile, YC has happily and excitedly fed it's start-ups to Google over the years.
So pretty much "We don't want google to develop new things, we want them to have buy those from us"
dang · 7m ago
> Meanwhile, YC has happily and excitedly fed it's start-ups to Google over the years.
I'm curious what you've seen or heard that led you to that conclusion? It's the opposite of correct.
YC supports what founders want to do, so if they want to sell to $BigCo, so be it—but such outcomes aren't successes for YC itself. YC's success depends on outlier companies which grow much larger than that.
redczar · 3h ago
Can YC prevent startups from selling to Google? Even if they could why should they? There is nothing wrong with believing Google abuses its monopoly and selling to Google.
BobbyJo · 2h ago
They could almost certainly prevent it in most cases, and they likely promote it in some.
redczar · 1h ago
I don’t see how they could prevent a sale since they own such a small percent of the startup.
kmeisthax · 1h ago
What YC is complaining about is that they've been turned into Google's farm league.
The thing is, Google doesn't develop anything new. Everything new they make fails horribly, so they can't and don't compete with YC in the way that you think.
Examples of failed Google homegrown technologies include:
- Social media: Google Buzz, Google+
- Messaging: Google Chat, Hangouts, actually there's too many to list
- Video: Google Video
Almost all of Google's successful products are acquisitions:
- Homegrown: Search, Gmail
- Acquisitions: YouTube, Analytics, most of their adtech stack, Android, DeepBrain (the people who did all the AI work at Google)
Furthermore, whenever Google or Facebook buys any startup, that startup gets an immediate moat and capital injection that can be used to crush any other startup that didn't sell out fast enough. So YC only has one option for an exit: sell the company to Google at a price Google decides.
scarmig · 50m ago
> DeepBrain (the people who did all the AI work at Google)
"DeepBrain" isn't a thing. Google acquired DeepMind, which was the second biggest research lab in AI at the time. The first biggest was Google Brain. They existed in parallel until being merged in 2023.
Brain was entirely homegrown, and it was responsible for AIAYN, BERT, PaLM. Which is to say, transformers.
brap · 3h ago
It’s amazing how twisted the term “anti-competitive” has become. Where anti-competitive companies push for anti-competitive regulations under the false pretense of preventing anti-competitiveness.
Google is being competitive.
YC is being anti-competitive.
Because they suck at competing against Google and they want to get unfair, unethical advantage themselves.
Imagine spending years and billions building something and then I show up and say “hey man that’s not fair, give me a slice of that thing for free. Oh and also I’m probably going to sell it back to you someday for a lot of money”.
And before someone tells me “that’s the law”, I don’t care. If that’s the law then it should be changed. Laws have been written (and lobbied) for all sorts of reasons and surprisingly not all of them are fair and ethical.
visarga · 3h ago
Google benefits at scale from infrastructure, systems and laws that create the opportunity to make such revenues. It is only natural they should not harm the host.
caesil · 3h ago
It’s amazing how twisted the term “anti-competitive” has become. Where anti-competitive companies push for anti-competitive regulations under the false pretense of preventing anti-competitiveness.
Standard Oil is being competitive.
The U.S. oil refining and distribution industry is being anti-competitive.
Because they suck at competing against Standard Oil and they want to get unfair, unethical advantage themselves.
Imagine spending years and billions building something and then I show up and say “hey man that’s not fair, give me a slice of that thing”.
And before someone tells me “that’s the Sherman Act”, I don’t care. If that’s the law then it should be changed. Laws have been written (and lobbied) for all sorts of reasons and surprisingly not all of them are fair and ethical.
(I hope this illustrates how easy it is to make this exact argument about literally any monopoly.)
No comments yet
legitster · 4h ago
None of the proposed remedies benefit consumers.
echelon · 4h ago
We have two major phone operating systems and they charge a tax of 30%, which gets passed onto consumers. This should be zero if there was unlimited competition or web installation. There's also so much innovation happening in the mobile space right now. It's not like they're parked and reaping untold benefits.
By having search monopolies, they've gamified paying for placement above your competitor's trademarks. Rather than spend on engineering or lowering costs, you have to pay to defend your brand.
There are thousands of ways these monopolies are horrible for the consumer, for small business, and for innovation.
These companies force their way into new markets, kill the sustainable incumbents by give away services sustained on unrelated business unit profit, then raise rates once the field has been salted and acquired. Amazon is a grocery store, primary care doctor, home electronics company, and James Bond.
Why should Amazon get free advertising for their films on their web storefront, plastered on the side of their delivery vans, emblazoned on their packaging, when competing studios have to spend millions on marketing? To top it off, they're outsourcing the film crew labor to Eastern Europe where there are no crew safety laws and are putting American film workers out of business.
And the current price pressure on your salary is directly a result of their market power. They don't have to fear you starting a company that can impact their profits anymore.
These companies should all be dismantled. Large companies should be exposed to evolutionary pressures, but because of monopoly they become invasive species and dominate entire ecosystems. Regulation is the path to healthy competition and innovation.
jeroenhd · 3h ago
If developers bothered to put their apps on alternative stores with much lower rates, we wouldn't be in this mess. Amazon is shutting down their store because it turns out nobody is really all that interested in actual alternatives. Samsung has their own store but all I hear about it is people bitching that they already have Google Play and that it's "bloatware".
Huawei even sells phones without Google Play in the west! Of course the first thing people try to do on them is get Google Play working, because the cheap hardware is all people care about.
Sure, Apple has proven to be pretty shit about app cost, but Android does and always has offered alternative app stores, and it's the leading example of how much companies like Epic are lying through their teeth.
Consumers pay the 30% app tax on Android because the companies claiming to want to get rid of it don't actually want to invest in alternatives, they just want Apple and Google to host their games for free so they can make more money.
The same goes for a lot of these monopolies. People want options, but they don't want to pay for options. The result is a quick race to the bottom where only a few high-profit, low-margin companies dominate the market.
belorn · 1h ago
Andoid users install google play because the applications they want to use is only available on google play, regardless of personal choice. Andoid developers put their applications on google play because that is the only places where they can access enough number of users, which has nothing to do with developer choice.
It is not about price. It is about platforms. A 0% app tax could not compete if there is 0 users on the platform, and google could increase the app tax to 100% if they wanted and people would still use it.
Workaccount2 · 3h ago
Ironically, Google has always allowed people to side-step the 30% tax.
echelon · 1h ago
With a burried setting and scare wall that they know fewer than 0.01% engage with.
alabastervlog · 4h ago
> By having search monopolies, they've gamified paying for placement above your competitor's trademarks. Rather than spend on engineering or lowering costs, you have to pay to defend your brand.
I would love to know how much money Google makes just from this extortion.
… which is enabled by their intentionally-misleading search ads, which also enable scams. I’d further love to know how much money they make promoting scams.
Aerroon · 2h ago
About the phone OS: unfortunately, other companies and governments give this duopoly to Apple and Google.
If I need my phone to access my bank and my bank's app only works on official Android or iOS then that's it. I don't have a choice in what phone OS I'm running.
And the bank most likely does that because of government regulations.
surajrmal · 3h ago
Amazon doesn't get free advertising. They lose out on revenue they could have gotten by placing another paying ad there instead. The opportunity cost is not 0.
echelon · 1h ago
Amazon chooses not to advertise third party products on those surfaces. They realize they have product synergy in giving away free films and movies to their customers, which is why they do it. It's a massively unfair platform advantage.
UPS and FedEx don't emblazon ads on their delivery trucks. Nobody is buying up those ad spaces.
amazingamazing · 4h ago
The solution is for people to make web apps which are agnostic to platform and device, no?
unyttigfjelltol · 4h ago
Yeah, the root of many monopolies today is an IP monopoly explicitly granted by government. Government policy is prohibiting monopolies via one relatively weak pathway, and literally establishing them via the IP pathway.
Zak · 3h ago
A finding that preventing or discouraging installation of apps from anywhere but the first-party store constitutes use of market power to exclude competitors and fix prices in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act sounds like a great solution to me.
echelon · 4h ago
No, the solution is web installs without platform scare walls.
We have sandboxing, permissions, app scanning heuristics, and databases of bad apps. If the web works from a technical standpoint and security posture, so can native.
briandear · 1h ago
Free apps don’t cost any “tax.”
> This should be zero if there was unlimited competition or web installation
Is credit card processing, billing, storage, distribution, “free?”
And the 30% figure is inaccurate. Most developers don’t pay that.
How about stripe charging 2.9% +$0.30 per transaction? They are almost double the actual cost of the interchanges.
echelon · 1h ago
Businesses have hundreds of billing and payment options, and the fees are relatively small and straightforward.
Google and Apple charge an order of magnitude more for a straightjacket distribution mechanism that is inferior to web search.
sidibe · 4h ago
Garry Tan is a consumer too!
DonHopkins · 3h ago
He's been consuming his own exhaust too much.
the_duke · 4h ago
Key quotes:
> "Our experience has been that entrenched monopoly power often deters new entry and chills investment in disruptive innovation."
> "independent venture-capital firms like YC often hesitate to fund startups in the “kill zone” —the area of deadened innovation around a monopolist like Google."
> "We agree with Plaintiffs' proposal that the remedy package should create pathways for startups and innovators to access Google's monopoly-derived datasets and search index."
> "The remedy order should also prevent Google from entering into exclusive agreements to access AI training data..."
> "An effective remedy package should help to leverage the current moment by ensuring that next-generation search and query-based AI tools can reach users free from exclusion, interference, or cooption."
> "the remedy package should prevent Google from anticompetitive self-preferencing, and this prohibition should apply specifically to Google's use of its monopoly search product to boost its query-based AI tools or discriminate against rivals' tools."
I think they have a good point with AI. After lagging behind initially, Google really went at it hard. Gemini is great now, and they are building a good set of tooling.
It's easy for Google to suffocate the startups in that area. They already have a massive advantage with all the data they are sitting on.
NitpickLawyer · 3h ago
> I think they have a good point with AI. After lagging behind initially, Google really went at it hard. Gemini is great now, and they are building a good set of tooling.
> It's easy for Google to suffocate the startups in that area. They already have a massive advantage with all the data they are sitting on.
What is the solution, though? Should they not be allowed to compete in the LLM + search space? Should they handicap their models till perplexity &co. catch up? Will they be allowed to do something then? I honestly don't see what's asked of google here.
Yes, they are massive. But they're massive because they've invested billions ($, manhours, etc) into their infra and have gathered a huge baggage of data, know-how, tech and expertise in this field. But what exactly are they to do from now on?
MatthiasPortzel · 30m ago
> The remedy order should also prevent Google from entering into exclusive agreements to access AI training data…
Google, for example, bought exclusive access to Reddit's data. No one else can train on Reddit unless you have more money than Google (you don't). So one of the asks is that that sort of exclusive deal be prevented. If everyone is allowed to buy Reddit's data, and Google makes the best model, that wouldn't be a problem.
NitpickLawyer · 16m ago
> So one of the asks is that that sort of exclusive deal be prevented.
Thank you, that actually sounds reasonable.
hu3 · 3h ago
These are the key points as I understand them:
Amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief is being submitted by Y Combinator to pile on the US vs Google anti-trust case.
YC asks court to basically cripple Google in their Search, Advertising and AI endeavours:
- Open access to Google's datasets and search index.
- Restrict Google's expansion into AI through monopolistic practices.
- Limit Google exclusive agreements and pay-to-play distribution deals.
- Enforce anti-circumvention and anti-retaliation mechanisms.
IMO, from a VC standpoint, it's in YC's interest to give their privately funded startups the best chance possible to thrive. If that includes destroying solid giants of the industry, so be it.
bubblethrow · 3h ago
Call me paranoid but I wonder if YC is acting as a proxy for OpenAI/Sam Altman here. To frame it differently would they behave similarly if OpenAI was a Google Subsidiary / or Google was run by Sam Altman.
ksec · 3h ago
Would YC have said the same if Google was YC funded? As much as I dislike Google I think some of the stuff they are asking are basically asking google to give up on ad or certain business.
DrillShopper · 3h ago
Of course they wouldn't. If it puts green in Paul Graham's pocket then YC is all for it.
ants_everywhere · 3h ago
Are they considering the ramifications of encouraging courts to let businesses loot their rivals for profit?
Seems like the court system may not be the best way to compete
koolba · 3h ago
They’re probably advising a startup that does exactly that as a service. Lawfare-as-a-service would have incredible margins!
amazingamazing · 4h ago
Why not make all companies open up their data sets, and stop pay to play?
pvg · 4h ago
Because all companies haven't been found to be illegal monopolies? Just like we don't fine everyone with a car for speeding.
jeroenhd · 3h ago
They don't have an illegal monopoly on AI data sets, though? This is attacking a random, unrelated Google branch.
The company that brought us AirBnB and Doordash arguing for fair and open markets should say enough about how honest their intentions are.
pvg · 3h ago
I'm not talking about the merits of YC's brief, just the merits of the comment I'm replying to. "Why shouldn't we apply the proposed remedy for illegal behaviour on everyone" seems like a no-brainer to me.
jeroenhd · 3h ago
I don't think it's unreasonable to apply the same remedy to all AI companies. Sure, it would punish Google, but if companies would actually share their data set, the internet may not be so polluted with AI crawler bots I need to block on my servers.
Just as an example: in my country, all public transit information is shared publicly between operators, so anyone can effectively build a public transit navigation app. That includes the for-profit companies that actually run the trains. Had they kept their data silo'd up, like they were not that long ago, companies would need to make expensive deals or write elaborate scrapers to provide basic route navigation services. Thanks to regulation opening up the data for this system, everyone benefits, including the transit companies themselves, as their route planners now seemlessly integrate with routes offered by unrelated third parties.
By only hitting Google with regulations like those, I think we're building a situation where it's only a matter of time before a new Google appears and ruins the market again. Google has been financing Firefox and Safari for years now because they don't want to be the only browser, because being the only browser comes with all kinds of nasty antitrust regulations. If we selectively apply mitigations like these for competitive purposes (which I very much doubt are the real reason they're being suggested anyway), we'll just end up with some equivalent like "OpenAI sponsoring xAI and Claude so OpenAI doesn't control more than 80% of market share".
pvg · 3h ago
I don't think it's unreasonable to apply the same remedy to all AI companies.
A court can't really formulate and enact such a remedy.
all public transit information
Not all entities are public and we have more readily available methods to influence the ones that are.
amazingamazing · 3h ago
Pay to play is inherently anti competitive though. All cars that speed are fined, not just the “big” ones. It’s also a fact that all companies opening up their data would make things more competitive. Moats are inherently anti competitive.
pvg · 3h ago
Pay to play is a really broad term (just skim the wikipedia page) and describing it as 'inherently anticompetitive' isn't saying much. There are also plenty of political, social and business arrangements that are deliberately anticompetitive by wide agreements of various sorts.
codegladiator · 4h ago
more like same toll-tax/road-tax for vehicles of all sizes
pvg · 4h ago
How is it more like that? This is a proposed remedy for breaking the law. Driving on the road (tll or free) is not breaking the law. There is no 'like' about it at all.
codegladiator · 3h ago
I know what you mean but your statement
> Just like we don't fine everyone with a car for speeding
can me mistaken for "not everyone who is speeding is fined", and that's clearly not what you meant or wrote. You are right its not more like tolls because it still doesn't capture the /exponential/ difference of whats being compared (any other company vs google). Its like a car vs a jet fighter
darth_avocado · 4h ago
So they want Google’s datasets and search index to be available for other companies and want to prevent Google from being a dominant player in AI based search.
I wonder why a VC firm who is quite heavily invested in AI based startups file an amicus brief like that…
Edit: before this gets downvoted into oblivion, the comment is not against antitrust enforcement. It’s about VC firms having very specific ideas about what the antitrust enforcement would look like.
jeroenhd · 3h ago
You're right, YC is far from a neutral party here. But then again, I don't think any for-profit organisation spending the money on lawyers to write amicus briefs is.
They're looking for free data for their AI startups to make money off of, and with Google being in the middle of an antitrust catastrophe that may very well collapse web browser variety to two options in the next years, there's a lot of money to be made by stoking the flames.
echelon · 4h ago
Monopolies prevent startups from reaching critical mass.
Google and the rest of big tech are like the Jupiter of the tech world. It clears the orbit of anything else that could form.
Big tech is so big that it can jump into new markets with ease, kill incumbents, snuff out new players, and perpetually tax non-innovation.
We're twenty years behind on antitrust and breakups. It's time we had a forest fire to make way for new growth.
alabastervlog · 4h ago
More than 50 years behind. We shifted policy to barely enforcing anti-trust in the ‘70s, under growing Chicago school (spits) influence among elected officials, “think tanks” (lobbying groups), and courts.
That’s why everything’s so insanely consolidated now. Practically every market has a handful of massive players all of which would currently be under serious threat of break-up under the old approach to enforcement. It’s all monopoly.
darth_avocado · 4h ago
I wholeheartedly support antitrust enforcement. My comment was mostly about VC firms having very specific opinions on what should happen.
scarface_74 · 4h ago
Let’s not pretend that YC and other VCs are noble. They get rich and pawn their money losing investments to the “bigger fool”
> In aggregate, the average return across these YC companies is -49%, with a median return of -46%. To put this into perspective, over the same period, the S&P 500 yielded a positive return of 58%
And for the rest of the companies, they aren’t trying to compete with BigTech, they are trying to get acquired by them. Out of the literally thousands of companies that YC has invested in, only about two dozen have gone public
darth_avocado · 4h ago
VC firms, not specifically YC, also tend to encourage monopolization when it comes to startups they are invested in. Have we not seen unicorns gobble up other smaller startups all the time?
echelon · 3h ago
You can compete with a unicorn. You can't compete with a trillion dollar company with a cash hoard larger than every unicorn.
jeroenhd · 3h ago
Which is how AirBnB ruined tourist industries worldwide, caused rents to soar, people to get displaced from their cities of birth, and why they're touted as a "disruptor" in this very brief.
The end game for these unicorns is to become the cash hoard that they intended to compete with.
echelon · 3h ago
> Let’s not pretend that YC and other VCs are noble.
I'm fine with that. Let them make money at the expense of big tech.
Breaking up big tech benefits financial/venture capital, but it also benefits labor capital as well. More opportunity for more startups to succeed, more competition for engineering talent, less market distorting wage collusion.
Big tech already won. It's benefactors already reap the benefits. Break them up and a new generation of engineers can grow wealthy on the field they contribute their labor to.
Right now the proceeds of tech go to hedge funds and pension funds. It's venture capital and entrepreneurs that take risks. They're the ones that should see upside. Unfortunately, big tech monopolies put a ceiling on this.
scarface_74 · 3h ago
They do see upside - by being acquired by BigTech.
So if Google wasn’t a “monopoly” you think a startup could make a better search engine? Be more popular than Android - Microsoft tried both and failed because people prefer Google products. It wasn’t for the lack of money.
And engineers are getting wealthy - by working for BigTech. Even an entry level developer at BigTech makes more than 90% of workers.
echelon · 55m ago
That's a low ceiling.
throwanem · 3h ago
People act in furtherance of their interests, yes. Was there more you had meant to say?
cryptonector · 3h ago
"People act in furtherance of their interests, yes" [by invoking the power of the State].
There, FTFY. It was implied, was it not?
Perhaps that is what should happen here, but let's not quibble about it.
throwanem · 2h ago
"Invoking the power of the state?" Good heavens, they've only filed an amicus brief. "Begging the presently authorized tenant of a precisely defined and circumscribed aliquot of the delegated power of the state" would be a more accurate way to put it. I appreciate that's not as florid, nor as floridly serviceable to anyone else's interest in pursuing this conversation. As I said before, though...
ldjkfkdsjnv · 3h ago
This is just a few rich venture capitalists, and the harvard trained founders they back, trying to line their own pockets. AI will democratize search regardless
jrmg · 3h ago
AI will democratize search regardless
What do you mean by this and how will it happen?
azemetre · 3h ago
It usually means that they will somehow rat fuck the public commons for monetary gain.
Democratic software means three things:
1. Can you understand it
2. Can you influence it both now and after your death
3. Can you destroy it
I don’t see how any of these things apply to AI, I’m sure it will make some people incredibly wealthy at the expense of others.
ldjkfkdsjnv · 3h ago
companies like perplexity, as the models get better, competing on search will be trivial
benoau · 3h ago
Agreed. Because really what happens when we search is we run through a gauntlet of contrived websites stuffed with ads and trackers and referral links, selling someone else's stuff, splitting someone else's content across multiple page views, requiring your personal information if you want to view the content in its entirety, trying their best to be the #1 result for specific phrases that will get traffic even though shovelware sites should never be the authoritative source for someone else's product or company or content, while others pay to have their contrived websites be listed before them. None of this is necessary with AI.
almostgotcaught · 3h ago
> AI will democratize search regardless
Not a single person in this entire ecosystem knows the difference between democratize and liberalize. Hint: AI isn't gonna let us vote on aspects of search.
bionhoward · 3h ago
Google is David and OpenAI is Goliath, excessively nerfing Google will put us all at the mercy of closed AI.
Gemini (the app, not the API or AI studio) is one of the few places where we can use frontier generative AI without a “customer noncompete” (you know, the one where they compete with us and then say we’re not allowed to compete back) … if you use Claude or OpenAI or Grok, you’re prohibited from training on your chat logs, or even using the thing to develop AI. Not so with Gemini app.
Too bad you have to lose your chat history just to deactivate model training (“Gemini apps activity” conflates opt-out of training with opt-out of storing chat history)
I don’t know much about the ads space but I just hope going after Google doesn’t create a vacuum that gets filled by an even worse monopoly (OpenAI)
azemetre · 3h ago
Really odd that the trillionaire dollar corporation that prints billions of dollars in pure profit every quarter due to monopolistic and anti-democratic policies is the David, the weak feeble underdog in this story, compared to OpenAI that is wildly unprofitable and has no real strategy outside of burning money.
There has been no time in human history where destroying monopolies were a bad thing.
bionhoward · 3h ago
Isn’t Microsoft also a trillion dollar corporation? If we add their 39% market share in foundation models (likely due to enterprise use of Azure OpenAI Service) to OpenAI’s 9% market share, the result is around 48% market share, compared to Google’s 15%, which is less than half of the MSFT/OAI pair…not to mention a cursory comparison of Gemini vs ChatGPT apps.
Just because OpenAI isn’t in “extraction mode” yet doesn’t mean it’s not a scary monopoly.
Maybe MSFT is King Saul in your biblical metaphor.
jeffbee · 2h ago
Yes, Microsoft is one of the world's biggest companies, and it underinvests in research and development, preferring to hoard cash. OpenAI is in effect a client state of Microsoft that Microsoft is using to make Google look flat-footed and force them to enter the chatbot market. Nothing that transpires between Microsoft and OpenAI is really at arms' length. Personally, I don't think this is a positive development for the industry or for humanity in generally. We were doing better before we had sycophantic robots confidently misleading us.
keeda · 13m ago
> Yes, Microsoft is one of the world's biggest companies, and it underinvests in research and development, preferring to hoard cash.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but:
1. If you're talking about basic research, Microsoft Research has been a thing since the 90's, is highly prestigious, and has published far more papers than Google, based on their respective research websites. (To be fair, Google started much later.)
2. If you're talking about product development, MSFT is vastly more diversified in terms of revenues than any of the "Magnificent 7" because of their varied product lineup.
3. The basis of their relationship with OpenAI is literally them investing double digit billions to catch up on the AI race once they recognized the opportunity.
> OpenAI is in effect a client state of Microsoft that Microsoft is using to make Google look flat-footed and force them to enter the chatbot market.
I'm not sure about Microsoft's influence in OpenAI's strategy, but it's pretty clear Google was caught flatfooted by their own strategy of locking away transformer technology behind products that didn't threaten their search monopoly. There's a reason the researchers who invented transformers had to leave and start a different company to bring its true potential to the market. Which, even if it was just a chatbot, is what has kicked off the AI boom.
jeremyjh · 3h ago
OpenAI is hardly a Goliath. It has no real moat, and is trying to build a business around a feature. But other businesses already have platforms with billions of users to deploy those features to.
nicce · 2h ago
As others have pointed out, we should see the forest from the trees. Microsoft is a huge OpenAI redistributor, also Apple. Everyone knows ”ChatGPT”. While the company size might not be monopoly, based on a larger userbase, it is.
nickfromseattle · 3h ago
How much blame do we assign Sundar for this outcome? Yes, he was just continuing where Larry / Sergey left off, but it did happen under his watch.
Is there anything he could have done to avoid this outcome? In a way that Google shareholders would have found acceptable?
Or was this outcome inevitable?
adrr · 2h ago
How much things have changed when antitrust used mean unfair practices by real monopolies. Real monopolies. Standard Oil which you had no choice in what gas you used. The Bell System(ATT) controlled all of long distance, you had no choice to use them for making long distance calls. Microsoft owned 95% of the market when they got with antitrust, there was other OSes but your software wouldn't run on those OSes. Consumers had no choice. We got stuck with shitty products that were overpriced.
Now antitrust means punishing companies that are too good. Their product is too superior. Even though Windows, the most used computer OS, literally defaults bing search but consumers change it to google. They are choosing to use google. We're going to punish the company that makes a product so good users don't want to use other products. They clearly have choice. There is no switching cost to what search engine you use. Its sad when companies who can't make a product people that people't don't want to use instead to use regulatory capture to prevent real competition in the search engine market. Just make a better product.
jonhohle · 2h ago
I haven’t looked at the merits, and I don’t like what the EU is doing to US companies with 20% market share, but I remember feeling the same way about Microsoft over 20 years ago. Fortunately, groklaw provided a constant stream of easily readable, high quality content. That, and I could see some of my favorite companies shutting down because their customers were restricted from doing business with them if they wanted to sell Windows.
This isn’t about search, it’s about their ad monopoly. They are not being punished for search or related products. I’m actually not sure how breaking out the search index helps in this situation. I would think splitting out off-Google advertising is the more obvious break and one that would benefit humanity. (Ad networks can die in a fire.)
adrr · 1h ago
This is to separate search index from Google.
Ad is even worse as Google doesn’t even control the majority of digital marketing market. Only case i can think of is the Amex case but Supreme Court rightly found you can’t be an abusive monopoly and have less than a majority of the market.
In particular, if the legal authorities start to unwind Google, I actually think Chrome and Android are more important to wall off or spin out than anything advertising or AI related.
Google has two interlocked monopolies, one is the search index and the other is their advertising service. We often joked that if Google reasonable and non-discriminatory priced access to their index, both to themselves and to others, AND they allowed someone to put what ever ads they wanted on those results. That change the landscape dramatically.
Google would carve out their crawler/indexer/ranker business and sell access to themselves and others which would allow that business an income that did NOT go back to the parent company (had to be disbursed inside as capex or opex for the business).
Then front ends would have a good shot, DDG for example could front the index with the value proposition of privacy. Someone else could front the index with a value proposition of no-ads ever. A third party might front that index attuned to specific use cases like literature search.
It would be a very different world.
It makes sense to break that out so everyone has access to the same dataset at FRAND pricing.
My heart just wants Google to burn to the ground, but my brain says this is the more reasonable approach.
This is similar to the natural monopoly of root DNS servers (managed as a public good). There is no reason more money couldn't go into either Common Crawl, or something like it. The Internet Archive can persist the data for ~$2/GB in perpetuity (although storing it elsewhere is also fine imho) as the storage system of last resort. How you provide access to this data is, I argue, similar to how access to science datasets is provided by custodian institutions (examples would be NOAA, CERN, etc).
Build foundations on public goods, very broadly speaking (think OSI model, but for entire systems). This helps society avoid the grasp of Big Tech and their endless desire to build moats for value capture.
It's already the case that googlebot is the common denominator bot that's allowed everywhere, ccbot not so much.
I agree that each front end should do it, but you can bet it will be a core service.
No they can't but do you have a source?
> We estimate that permanent storage costs us approximately $2.00US per gigabyte.
https://webservices.archive.org/pages/vault/
> Vault offers a low-cost pricing model based on a one-time price per-gigabyte/terabyte for data deposited in the system, with no additional annual storage fees or data egress costs.
https://blog.dshr.org/2017/08/economic-model-of-long-term-st...
How so?
A caching proxy costs you almost nothing and will serve thousands of requests per second on ancient hardware. Actually there's never been a better time in the history of the Internet to have competing search engines since there's never been so much abundance of performance, bandwidth, and software available at historic low prices or for free.
There are so many other bots/scrapers out there that literally return zero that I don’t blame site owners for blocking all bots except googlebot.
Would it be nice if they also allowed altruist-bot or common-crawler-bot? Maybe, but that’s their call and a lot of them have made it on a rational basis.
* - or is perceived to return
I doubt this is happening outside of a few small hobbyist websites where crawler traffic looks significant relative to human traffic. Even among those, it’s so common to move to static hosting with essentially zero cost and/or sign up for free tiers of CDNs that it’s just not worth it outside of edge cases like trying to host public-facing Gitlab instances with large projects.
Even then, the ROI on setting up proper caching and rate limiting far outweighs the ROI on trying to play whack-a-mole with non-Google bots.
Even if someone did go to all the lengths to try to block the majority of bots, I have a really hard time believing they wouldn’t take the extra 10 minutes to look up the other major crawlers and put those on the allow list, too.
This whole argument about sites going to great lengths to block search indexers but then stopping just short of allowing a couple more of the well-known ones feels like mental gymnastics for a situation that doesn’t occur.
This isn't a "natural" monopoly, it's more like Internet Explorer 6.0 and everyone designing their sites to use ActiveX and IE-specific quirks.
If China can apply it for total information awareness on their population, Google can apply it on page reliability
Companies want traffic from any source they can get. They welcome every search engine crawler that comes along because every little exposure translates to incremental chances at revenue or growing audience.
I doubt many people are doing things to allow Googlebot but also ban other search crawlers.
> My heart just wants Google to burn to the ground
I think there’s a lot of that in this thread and it’s opening the door to some mental gymnastics like the above claim about Google being the only crawler allowed to index the internet.
Thus being even slightly in front of others is reinforced and the gap only widens.
The indexer, without direct Google influence, is primarily incentivized to play nice with site administrators. This gives them reasons to improve consideration of both network integrity and privacy concerns (though Google has generally been good about these things, I think the damage is done regarding privacy that the brand name is toxic, regardless of the behaviors).
We routinely are fighting off hundreds of bots at any moment. Thousands and Thousands per day, easily. US, China, Brazil from hundreds of different IPs, dozens of different (and falsified!) user agents all ignoring robots.txt and pushing over services that are needed by human beings trying to get work done.
EDIT: Just checked our anubis stats for the last 24h
CHALLENGE: 829,586
DENY: 621,462
ALLOW: 96,810
This is with a pretty aggressive "DENY" rule for a lot of the AI related bots and on 2 pretty small sites at $JOB. We have hundreds, if not thousands of different sites that aren't protected by Anubis (yet).
Anubis and efforts like it are a xesend for companies that don't want to pay off Cloudflare or some other "security" company peddling a WAF.
One is, suppose there are a thousand search engine bots. Then what you want is some standard facility to say "please give me a list of every resources on this site that has changed since <timestamp>" so they can each get a diff from the last time they crawled your site. Uploading each resource on the site to each of a thousand bots once is going to be irrelevant to a site serving millions of users (because it's a trivial percentage) and to a site with a small amount of content (because it's a small absolute number), which together constitute the vast majority of all sites.
The other is, there are aggressive bots that will try to scrape your entire site five times a day even if nothing has changed. But then you set traps like disallowing something in robots.txt and ban anything that tries to access it, which doesn't affect legitimate search engine crawlers because they respect robots.txt.
One web forum I regularly read went through a patch a few months ago where it was unavailable for about 90% of the time due to being hammered by crawlers. It's only up again now because the owner managed to find a way to block them that hasn't yet been circumvented.
So it's easy to see why people would allow googlebot and little else.
I think it's also important to highlight that sites explicitly choose which bots to allow in their robots.txt files, prioritizing Google which reinforces its position as the de-facto monopoly. Even when other bots are technically able to crawl them.
Why not also require Apple to split off only the phone and messaging part of its iPhone, Meta to split off only the user feed data, and for the U.S. federal government to run only out of Washington D.C.?
This isn’t the breakup of AT&T in the early 1980s where you could say all the equipment and wiring just now belongs to separate entities. (It wasn’t that simple, but it wasn’t like trying to extract an organ.)
I think people have to understand that and know that what they’re doing is killing Google, and it was already on its way into mind-numbed enterprise territory.
Ooh, can we? My wife is super jealous of my ability to install custom apps for phone calls and messaging on Android, it'd be great if Apple would open theirs up to competition. Competition in the SMS app space would also likely help break up the usage of iMessage as a tool to pressure people into getting an iPhone so they get the blue bubble.
If the dream of a Star Trek future reputation-based government run by AI which secretly manipulates the vote comes true, yes we can!
Either that or we could organize competitors to lobby the US or EU for more lawsuits in exchange for billions in kickbacks! (Not implying anything by this.)
it won't. My bet is that bing and some other indexes are 95% Ok for average Joe. But relevance ranking is much tougher problem, and "google.com" is household brand with many other functions(maps, news, stocks, weather, knowledge graph, shopping, videos), and that's what is foundation of google monopoly.
I think this shared index thing will actually kill competition even more, since every players will use only index owned by google now.
If you wanted to know how your keywords were performing you had to use Google Analytics.
And it's ridiculous to act like (a) you are forced to go through Google to access the 'market' and (b) that this is somehow unusual or untoward. They are an advertising company and not the only one.
You mean kills potentially successful tech companies of the future by acquiring startups to cement their dominance.
I get why people on this site are in love with the idea of building an unsustainable, money-losing business where the only path to success is being acquired by a tech giant. It's like winning the lottery! But it helps nobody, it hurts your customers/users, and it hurts innovation. It's also stupid, as a successful tech company could potentially grow as big as the giants you're courting (ESPECIALLY now that the FTC has started finally doing its job). Why else do you think they're spending so much money to acquire you? It's easier on the ego to call it an "acquihire", but the truth is that they're just paying a maintenance tax on their monopoly.
Every time people complain about how detrimental big tech is to society, it ultimately comes down to this sad strategy.
Unlike Microsoft's antitrust case of the 90s, Google seems much less anti-competitive by nature. Sure, they have unprecedented scale in search... but even that hegemony is being threatened by others in AI.
If anything, going after Google with a DoJ kludgel will cause a servere freeze on startup M&A across all of FAANG. With IPO windows (mostly) closed, this removes the biggest exit dynamic the startup ecosystem has at its disposal. This is not a good thing from my perspective, and would seem counter to YC's interests.
Someone steelman this for me...?
Startups ideally should compete on merit, not on whether they are eventually allowed access to Google’s platforms or get acquired. Startups can still exit via IPO, PE acquisition, cross-industry buyers or M&A.
From this POV, Google’s control over the adtech stack may be seen as gatekeeping digital advertising, which many YC companies rely on.
It seems much less, but I don't believe it is much less anticompetitive. We're talking about the search market specifically in this case, and the government has presented strong evidence that Google is:
* Using its position in other markets (browser, mobile) to ensure that others can't compete in search.
* Paying the major other vendors in those markets (browser, mobile) enormous sums of money to ensure that ~100% of the market share in both markets is used to prop up their lead in search.
Both of these things are pretty blatantly anticompetitive: they're competing not primarily based on the quality of their product offering but instead based on their pre-existing revenue streams and their leads in other markets.
The use money and Google Play services to hinder competition.
Not really less anti-competitive.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp
Utilities and infrastructure can be considered public goods insofar as they have the characteristics of non-rivalry and non-excludability, meaning that one person's use of them does not diminish another person's ability to use them and it is difficult to prevent others from using them even if they have not contributed to their provision.
However, utilities are typically excludable (service can be cut off for non-payment) and rivalrous to some extent (there are capacity limits and usage can impact others), so they are better classified as private or quasi-public goods.
So why is this idea so prevalent: that public goods should be public utilities?
A key driver behind the transformation of some public goods into regulated public utilities seems to be the theory of "natural monopoly," which posits that certain industries are most efficiently served by a single provider, making competition impractical or wasteful. Then in 1919 the economic theory of public goods, notably developed by Erik Lindahl, further contributed to the myth by arguing that public goods should be funded through taxation based on individual benefit. This reinforced the notion that the government should organize and finance such goods, often through public utility models.
So I wouldn't say public goods have nothing to do with public utilities.
Similar action happened against Microsoft Windows around 2000, just as the rise of web-based apps (online email, google docs, etc) largely made the underlying operating system less relevant to how people use their computers and apps.
So I read this as the dominant player can monopolize a market while it's relevant without an issue, and once the market starts to move on, the antitrust lawsuits come in to "make the market more competitive" at a time when that era is mostly over.
And trying to regulate early (as with the last administration's AI legislation that is now being repealed) we can see that only hindsight is 20/20, and regulating too early can kill a market. My conclusion is to just let the best product win, and even dominate for a while as this is part of the market cycle, and when a better product/platform comes along the market will move to it.
I don’t need to search MQTT and AWS and v3/v5 and max packet sizes all separately anymore.
That remains to be seen. The fear is that Google can leverage its large search index to produce better LLM experiences and win in that market too.
You pay a lawyer a few thousand bucks to write some populist bromides you get to slap your name in the news. Seems like a good ROI.
The Pentagon.
At every company I've been at, half the dependencies came from big tech, and more than half of those were built and maintained by google. bazel, kubernetes, test frameworks, tensorflow, etc. these are just the big ones. There are a lot of smaller libraries from google that we've used too, and more still that aren't owned by google but they invest a lot of engineering time into.
I don't know what the right answer is to the google of today, but the cavalier assumption that google has simply leveraged a monopoly in search to build everything else it has doesn't add up to me.
Heck, they can't even be bothered to fund a single developer to help their hardware run Linux.
Paid competitors cannot compete because people won't pay. People want the death of Google because people hate ads and tracking.
Ultimately it is an everyone loses situation. No one is going to fly in a replace Google without either 1.) Charging a monthly sub or 2.) Invasive (yet most profitable) ad tracking.
This is exactly why youtube stands alone too. What company looks at youtube's userbase and says "Yes, I want to cater to people who despise subscriptions and block ads". Exactly what vid.me did in 2017, which everyone celebrated until the went bankrupt.
This part reads like a suggestion to loosen anti-competitive/antitrust law.
I don't trust YC very much, but I do trust they want a share of the pie. And they're not wrong that Google has monopolized and stagnated search. I think you're reading too much into that sentence?
Then AT&T was shut down and Bell Labs went away.
If we take your argument seriously then AT&T shouldn’t have been dismantled. But it was a good thing AT&T was dismantled. It helped lead to the modern internet.
By your logic all Rockefeller had to do in the early 20th century was set up a lab to do basic research and then Standard Oil wouldn’t have been broken up.
Monopolies should be broken up. This is true regardless of any basic research that they fund.
They are disliked now as much as they were disliked then. Except back then they charged you a hell of a lot for long distance.
Citation needed. I hear this repeated, but the consumer experience was it was split into regional monopolies, and consumers now had to deal with both local and long distance, and both were still monopolies. It only got better with competition from mobile providers.
Suprisingly there’s an archived DoJ page that says that the same remedies may have been much cheaper to achieve through other means.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/att-divestiture-was-it-...
YMMV. I don’t agree with the narrowness of this analysis, and would like to see some links to academic studies in economics and the study of innovation tbh.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/att-breakup-spin...
Both things can be true! It's entirely possible (probable even) that breaking up monopolies has both positive and negative impact.
And I would be a lot more sympathetic if we had a lot more public investment in technology. But we don't. What I see is both public and private research investment under major attack. I think that's a recipe for disaster.
No comments yet
... but that's more a story of the failure of the US government to go far enough and nationalize the rail network and its operations. The most efficient era of US rail was during World War II, when the military took it over and prioritized schedules by optimal throughput over profit concerns.
But it's easy to imagine a world where that didn't happen and BSD was just killed dead. So no OS X, no iOS, no Android, no ChromeOS, and the only vendor able to stand on its own is the one we all agree had the worst product.
Ironically the world where the Bell monopoly was left in place seems to me to be one where we're all stuck running Microsoft Windows on everything, no?
I mean, fine, there's nuance to everything but the idea that "well, open research isn't so important" seems frankly batshit to me. Monopolies fall on their own all the time (Microsoft's did too!). You can't get stuff into the public space that wasn't ever there to begin with.
What in the heck are you talking about??? After Microsoft was convicted, even though they never received any actual punishment, the were very internally cautions about any behaviors that could be perceived as monopolistic. This is like a total misinterpretation of what actually occurred on your part.
And yes, monopolies do fall, after very long periods of time. Some monopoly sitting around 25 years may not seem like much, but that's half an average persons working life.
I think there are many good reasons to pursue anti-trust action against companies that are in a dominant market position, but we should be honest about the tradeoffs. Businesses that have to aggressively compete to maintain market share don't have the slack to fund basic research.
Though both companies created novel & useful inventions, the biggest shifts in those industries during those monopoly eras were from outside those organisations by competitive startups. As an example, IBM should have produced Microsoft, but they didn't. They missed out on a multi-trillion dollar value creation opportunity as a result.
It should be at, or partnered with, higher learning institutions and since it's public funded all of the results should be free to use*. I'm willing to entertain the idea of: Free use for people and corporations within the country/countries that funded research, everyone else pays compulsory license fees.
https://par.nsf.gov/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
https://ospo.gwu.edu/overview-us-policy-open-access-and-open...
https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statem...
https://www.coalition-s.org/plan_s_principles/
The intent of the Bayh-Dole Act was to deal with a perceived problem of government-owned patents being investor-unfriendly. At the time the government would only grant non-exclusive licenses, and investors generally want exclusivity. That may have been the actual problem, moreso than who owned the patent. On the other hand, giving the actual inventors an incentive to commercialize their work should increase their productivity and the chance that the inventions actually get used.
Okay. I’ll take the monopolostic government over the monopolistic corporation. Thanks.
I have been close enough to billionaires and how they spend their money to not be fully impressed by such arguments.
And certainly the robber barons of the 2000s spend far less on the public good than when tax rates were higher and they used to fund universities, libraries, hospitals and the like.
Had Google operated like a normal company, the risk/reward of this kind of research would've looked completely differently.
Google's monopoly helped research along in the same way totalitarian countries like China are developing infrastructure at break-neck speed: if you don't need to care about pesky rights and regulations, you can do things that would otherwise be impossible.
I don't think Google's monopoly is worth having the current generation of lie generator bots around, but I don't think generative AI would be where it is right now had Google been forced to comply with antitrust regulations ten years ago.
From where I'm sitting it's pretty clear which approach has been more successful.
And yet, waymo seems to have got the correct risk reward trade-off compared to all of the move-fast-and-get-banned competitors...
I would rather we don’t allow monopolies since they are so bad for society, regardless of some benefits.
Government funded research and private investment are still a thing, that doesn’t try to break the whole capitalism thing.
I've heard this argument before (and recognize that you aren't defending it), but telecommunications, network and technology innovation has hardly suffered since Bell was dismantled in 1982.
Fiber rollout in countries where a government funded phone line rollout has already succeeded is laughably slow, taking decades and many billions with little to show for it. Even in countries where no phone lines were rolled out back in the day, fiber is more and more being skipped as 5G allows for cheaper (though less reliable and less capable) deployment.
I'm not saying monopolies are good or anything, and I think our problems would be even worse had we stuck to the monopolist systems that brought us telecoms as we know it, but I wouldn't consider the industry one where there's enough competition to drive innovation, especially since at least half of the entire sector is competing against Chinese government-controlled companies with seemingly endless coffers.
I’m not an expert on the economic history, but you could probably argue that the last big public / private partnerships in the US were in the railroad days. Defense spending I would not count in this category either. Although it builds whole ecosystems it is too insular and incestuous compared to something like transportation, or deliberately nurturing any other budding industry in a cooperative rather than competitive fashion
I'd argue the fact that Google publishes much more of their research than their competitors do is a strong indicator that they're actually not the anti-competitive ones.
Google's entire business model is currently under threat right now.
Google should not be punished for having gained a near-monopoly by hiring the best people.
But perhaps their near-monopoly is due to other reasons like paying large amounts to ensure that they are the default option on various platforms. In this case, legal restrictions might be more appropriate.
How do we determine which of these proposed reasons for the near-monopoly is correct? We use a legal process where each side presents their evidence and a neutral party decides which is most credible.
I’m guessing this whole court case wouldn’t have been a thing if Google wasn’t bribing Apple, to the tune of $20 billion a year [1], to remain the default search engine on iOS.
1: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/apple-may-add-ai-search-...
[0] https://www.seroundtable.com/google-search-user-interaction-...
It is nothing to do with "hiring the best people". Google's exec-level leadership is extremely poor, Mr Magoo-tier management. This is largely due to their share classes, the people at the very top are not very good at business so Google largely isn't run like a business. They have one business that is probably worth $4-5tn, and the rest is worth -$3-4tn. The number of "best people" out there is usually under 500 in a country the size of the US, a country that has hundreds of thousands of employees is not hiring the best.
I would guess under 100 people at Google actually positively impact financial results in any way because the advertising business grows rapidly, uses no capital, and requires no staff. This is true of many of the tech companies do, you aren't getting the best if you pay an exec $50m because the best will always do their own thing and make more. Rather you get someone like Pichai or Cook who sounds good and will get shareholders to believe that setting fire to $200m/year to pay them is a good idea, they are indistinguishable from politicians.
Google is under-earning massively. Staff aren't a monopoly, you just pay someone to leave and they are yours now (you see this in other areas like HFT where staff actually know useful stuff, you don't see this in tech because most staff don't know anything, they are looking for drones).
They start with a page with zero ads, they add one ad to that page one year, ad sales pushes that placements, then a few years they do it again, etc. Meta are the same.
Google do sell at a higher price than offline ads because of targeting/intent but this is inherent to the product: search has inherently better intent and their targeting tech is no better than anyone else such that their prices are higher/grow faster.
That is their growth model: higher ad density, the CEO deciding to add another ad to a page and earning $100m/year. There is no value-added otherwise because you don't need many people, you don't need capital and you are making $300bn/year.
And, again, if you own the shares you understand that you are getting the ads business, and because of the dual class you are also getting this tech bureaucracy that sets fire to tens of billions every year employing people to do nothing. If these people are so productive...where is the revenue? It is all ads or ancillary business, they have GCP now but there is nothing else...because these people aren't doing anything.
It is like owning a business that turns lead into gold, the process is automatic, requires no capital...and then employing a bunch of monks to pray for the lead and saying the business couldn't exist without them. Lol.
The software world was basically created by Xerox and AT&T research.
They came up with Transformers back in 2014 and sat on it for a decade until somebody else (OpenAI) forced their hand?
Without Google the researchers who invented the Transformers model might have launched their own startup instead of sitting on the technology for 5 years while it's mismanaged at a big company. We would have had LLMs in 2018 not 2022.
Ma Bell is arguing that Bell labs has been a fountain of knowledge everyone admires and has contributed tremendously to the advancement of telecommunication systems.
Nevertheless anti-Trust law exists because of the belief that monopolies should not exist and that it is the governments function to dismantle monopolies. The consequence of that is that corporations who can freely spend hundreds of millions on basic research will be dismantled as well, as happened with AT&T, and the funding for the basic research will cease.
>YC is arguing that their incentive for funding that basic research should be taken away in order to spur innovation?
No. That is the stance of the government. YC is arguing that the remedies the government is seeking are appropriate.
one could argue that transformers are nothing without attention layer, which was not invented at google.
FTFY
OpenAI is the reason for the current AI boom. Google wasn't productizing anything and didn't put any of this stuff out in the open. Where was their productization of the transformer?
If anything, it should show that Google malinvests. Maybe none of it would have seen the light of day. Only now that they've been threatened are they building products.
This is about concurrent with OpenAI's release of GPT-2. But GPT-2 was not really a product.
In search (the relevant market here), Microsoft does compete in the marketplace, and Microsoft's evidence that Google's anticompetitive practices have prevented them from gaining any meaningful ground in search were a keystone of the government's case, including the fact that Microsoft has invested nearly $100 billion into Bing [1].
In adtech much the same can be said about Meta.
So, again, I'm curious: in which market does Google not have competitors spending massive amounts of cash which Google still manages to hold back from being able to meaningfully compete?
[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223...
[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43946577
For example, from the second filing I linked to:
> After search began appearing on phones, Google started logging information about user location, swipes, and other user-related movements. PFOF ¶¶ 1003–1004. This data is now vital to every aspect of search, including figuring out where and when to crawl specific websites, how to index the information retrieved from that crawl, what documents to retrieve from the index in response to a user query, and how to rank the retrieved items. Some elements of Google’s search engine are trained on 13 months of data—a volume that would take Bing over 17 years to accumulate.
You're not entitled to a business model if your business model is harmful.
What exactly do you think is stopping you from using a competitor? Can you not find the setting to change your default search engine in Chrome? Is Google blocking you from making that choice somehow? All the arguments I've seen for Google being anti-competitive in this sector are extremely weak.
They compete much like I compete for People’s Most Beautiful Man in the World :)
Also as a verb it’s hard to pronounce.
These are monopolies. You might not see it because the economy is so _over monopolized_ it's hard to have perspective.
YCombinator loves to pretend it invented the idea of startups and entreprenourism but those have been vigorous and healthy throughout _most_ of America's existence. When they weren't we wrote some of the most comprehensive and consumer friendly anti-trust laws in the entire world. A feat which still stands today.
Keep in mind that if paying to be the default search engine in a browser is illegal, then Firefox's primary revenue source is out the window.
And no - some people didn't willingly and consciously switched to their search engine. It was pushed down their throats by browser vendors being paid-off by Google for setting it as the default one. Mozilla has overwritten user-changed search engine setting in Firefox with several updates.
Non tech-savvy users simply accept changes made in software they use.
"Engines like Bing" is an ambiguous term. There are better options than Bing.
If I give you only one reasonable option and you choose that, is that selection? What if this one option distinguished others?
I'm really glad that YC brought this against Google but it should be clear that YC also enabled them. It's a lie that YC is independent from Google as it partners and promotes their engineers and Big Tech allies. They see the writing on the wall and their lawyers see this as a hedge against lawsuits against them. "We didn't cause this mess, see look! We're trying to help!" YC also doesn't serve American startups at all and their entrepreneurs strongly favors California or India.
They have indeed invested tons in r&d, but with excessively little results. Besides web search it's tough to see succeses that Google didn't buy their way into. Gmail, maps, ... maybe?
B. The Remedy Should Prevent Google from Extending Its Monopolies into Query-Based AI Tools.
Good luck with that YC...
It looks like this is a strategic case to prevent Google from getting into AI search space and even gain access to their search index data so that they can train their own models on it.
Wright brothers invited the aircraft but almost all their patents were cancelled when the Great War started. If we believe the AI race is indeed an existential threat then let's cancel all patents that prevent anyone from innovating.
1) Eliminate Google Play Services for android and the oem non-compete deals.
2) Right to privacy. All data collection and storage (even on customer owned hardware if used for targeting decisions) must be opt-in, by purpose and annually renewed. It must be easier to only opt in to data collection for use cases that provide application functionality / business transactions than it is to opt into blanket data collection.
Nor has Netflix had a monopoly on streaming.
People, clean that shit up before publishing. That's an embarrassment. At least it's not "FINAL FINAL2 REWORKED" or something equally grotesque.
As an european, I am happy to see that the US administration may be ready to kill the one of the most powerful and unassailable company in the world and allow any other country to build a replacement.
So pretty much "We don't want google to develop new things, we want them to have buy those from us"
I'm curious what you've seen or heard that led you to that conclusion? It's the opposite of correct.
YC supports what founders want to do, so if they want to sell to $BigCo, so be it—but such outcomes aren't successes for YC itself. YC's success depends on outlier companies which grow much larger than that.
The thing is, Google doesn't develop anything new. Everything new they make fails horribly, so they can't and don't compete with YC in the way that you think.
Examples of failed Google homegrown technologies include:
- Social media: Google Buzz, Google+
- Messaging: Google Chat, Hangouts, actually there's too many to list
- Video: Google Video
Almost all of Google's successful products are acquisitions:
- Homegrown: Search, Gmail
- Acquisitions: YouTube, Analytics, most of their adtech stack, Android, DeepBrain (the people who did all the AI work at Google)
Furthermore, whenever Google or Facebook buys any startup, that startup gets an immediate moat and capital injection that can be used to crush any other startup that didn't sell out fast enough. So YC only has one option for an exit: sell the company to Google at a price Google decides.
"DeepBrain" isn't a thing. Google acquired DeepMind, which was the second biggest research lab in AI at the time. The first biggest was Google Brain. They existed in parallel until being merged in 2023.
Brain was entirely homegrown, and it was responsible for AIAYN, BERT, PaLM. Which is to say, transformers.
Google is being competitive.
YC is being anti-competitive.
Because they suck at competing against Google and they want to get unfair, unethical advantage themselves.
Imagine spending years and billions building something and then I show up and say “hey man that’s not fair, give me a slice of that thing for free. Oh and also I’m probably going to sell it back to you someday for a lot of money”.
And before someone tells me “that’s the law”, I don’t care. If that’s the law then it should be changed. Laws have been written (and lobbied) for all sorts of reasons and surprisingly not all of them are fair and ethical.
Standard Oil is being competitive.
The U.S. oil refining and distribution industry is being anti-competitive.
Because they suck at competing against Standard Oil and they want to get unfair, unethical advantage themselves.
Imagine spending years and billions building something and then I show up and say “hey man that’s not fair, give me a slice of that thing”.
And before someone tells me “that’s the Sherman Act”, I don’t care. If that’s the law then it should be changed. Laws have been written (and lobbied) for all sorts of reasons and surprisingly not all of them are fair and ethical.
(I hope this illustrates how easy it is to make this exact argument about literally any monopoly.)
No comments yet
By having search monopolies, they've gamified paying for placement above your competitor's trademarks. Rather than spend on engineering or lowering costs, you have to pay to defend your brand.
There are thousands of ways these monopolies are horrible for the consumer, for small business, and for innovation.
These companies force their way into new markets, kill the sustainable incumbents by give away services sustained on unrelated business unit profit, then raise rates once the field has been salted and acquired. Amazon is a grocery store, primary care doctor, home electronics company, and James Bond.
Why should Amazon get free advertising for their films on their web storefront, plastered on the side of their delivery vans, emblazoned on their packaging, when competing studios have to spend millions on marketing? To top it off, they're outsourcing the film crew labor to Eastern Europe where there are no crew safety laws and are putting American film workers out of business.
And the current price pressure on your salary is directly a result of their market power. They don't have to fear you starting a company that can impact their profits anymore.
These companies should all be dismantled. Large companies should be exposed to evolutionary pressures, but because of monopoly they become invasive species and dominate entire ecosystems. Regulation is the path to healthy competition and innovation.
Huawei even sells phones without Google Play in the west! Of course the first thing people try to do on them is get Google Play working, because the cheap hardware is all people care about.
Sure, Apple has proven to be pretty shit about app cost, but Android does and always has offered alternative app stores, and it's the leading example of how much companies like Epic are lying through their teeth.
Consumers pay the 30% app tax on Android because the companies claiming to want to get rid of it don't actually want to invest in alternatives, they just want Apple and Google to host their games for free so they can make more money.
The same goes for a lot of these monopolies. People want options, but they don't want to pay for options. The result is a quick race to the bottom where only a few high-profit, low-margin companies dominate the market.
It is not about price. It is about platforms. A 0% app tax could not compete if there is 0 users on the platform, and google could increase the app tax to 100% if they wanted and people would still use it.
I would love to know how much money Google makes just from this extortion.
… which is enabled by their intentionally-misleading search ads, which also enable scams. I’d further love to know how much money they make promoting scams.
If I need my phone to access my bank and my bank's app only works on official Android or iOS then that's it. I don't have a choice in what phone OS I'm running.
And the bank most likely does that because of government regulations.
UPS and FedEx don't emblazon ads on their delivery trucks. Nobody is buying up those ad spaces.
We have sandboxing, permissions, app scanning heuristics, and databases of bad apps. If the web works from a technical standpoint and security posture, so can native.
> This should be zero if there was unlimited competition or web installation
Is credit card processing, billing, storage, distribution, “free?”
And the 30% figure is inaccurate. Most developers don’t pay that.
How about stripe charging 2.9% +$0.30 per transaction? They are almost double the actual cost of the interchanges.
Google and Apple charge an order of magnitude more for a straightjacket distribution mechanism that is inferior to web search.
> "Our experience has been that entrenched monopoly power often deters new entry and chills investment in disruptive innovation."
> "independent venture-capital firms like YC often hesitate to fund startups in the “kill zone” —the area of deadened innovation around a monopolist like Google."
> "We agree with Plaintiffs' proposal that the remedy package should create pathways for startups and innovators to access Google's monopoly-derived datasets and search index."
> "The remedy order should also prevent Google from entering into exclusive agreements to access AI training data..."
> "An effective remedy package should help to leverage the current moment by ensuring that next-generation search and query-based AI tools can reach users free from exclusion, interference, or cooption."
> "the remedy package should prevent Google from anticompetitive self-preferencing, and this prohibition should apply specifically to Google's use of its monopoly search product to boost its query-based AI tools or discriminate against rivals' tools."
I think they have a good point with AI. After lagging behind initially, Google really went at it hard. Gemini is great now, and they are building a good set of tooling.
It's easy for Google to suffocate the startups in that area. They already have a massive advantage with all the data they are sitting on.
> It's easy for Google to suffocate the startups in that area. They already have a massive advantage with all the data they are sitting on.
What is the solution, though? Should they not be allowed to compete in the LLM + search space? Should they handicap their models till perplexity &co. catch up? Will they be allowed to do something then? I honestly don't see what's asked of google here.
Yes, they are massive. But they're massive because they've invested billions ($, manhours, etc) into their infra and have gathered a huge baggage of data, know-how, tech and expertise in this field. But what exactly are they to do from now on?
Google, for example, bought exclusive access to Reddit's data. No one else can train on Reddit unless you have more money than Google (you don't). So one of the asks is that that sort of exclusive deal be prevented. If everyone is allowed to buy Reddit's data, and Google makes the best model, that wouldn't be a problem.
Thank you, that actually sounds reasonable.
Amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief is being submitted by Y Combinator to pile on the US vs Google anti-trust case.
YC asks court to basically cripple Google in their Search, Advertising and AI endeavours:
- Open access to Google's datasets and search index.
- Restrict Google's expansion into AI through monopolistic practices.
- Limit Google exclusive agreements and pay-to-play distribution deals.
- Enforce anti-circumvention and anti-retaliation mechanisms.
IMO, from a VC standpoint, it's in YC's interest to give their privately funded startups the best chance possible to thrive. If that includes destroying solid giants of the industry, so be it.
Seems like the court system may not be the best way to compete
The company that brought us AirBnB and Doordash arguing for fair and open markets should say enough about how honest their intentions are.
Just as an example: in my country, all public transit information is shared publicly between operators, so anyone can effectively build a public transit navigation app. That includes the for-profit companies that actually run the trains. Had they kept their data silo'd up, like they were not that long ago, companies would need to make expensive deals or write elaborate scrapers to provide basic route navigation services. Thanks to regulation opening up the data for this system, everyone benefits, including the transit companies themselves, as their route planners now seemlessly integrate with routes offered by unrelated third parties.
By only hitting Google with regulations like those, I think we're building a situation where it's only a matter of time before a new Google appears and ruins the market again. Google has been financing Firefox and Safari for years now because they don't want to be the only browser, because being the only browser comes with all kinds of nasty antitrust regulations. If we selectively apply mitigations like these for competitive purposes (which I very much doubt are the real reason they're being suggested anyway), we'll just end up with some equivalent like "OpenAI sponsoring xAI and Claude so OpenAI doesn't control more than 80% of market share".
A court can't really formulate and enact such a remedy.
all public transit information
Not all entities are public and we have more readily available methods to influence the ones that are.
> Just like we don't fine everyone with a car for speeding
can me mistaken for "not everyone who is speeding is fined", and that's clearly not what you meant or wrote. You are right its not more like tolls because it still doesn't capture the /exponential/ difference of whats being compared (any other company vs google). Its like a car vs a jet fighter
I wonder why a VC firm who is quite heavily invested in AI based startups file an amicus brief like that…
Edit: before this gets downvoted into oblivion, the comment is not against antitrust enforcement. It’s about VC firms having very specific ideas about what the antitrust enforcement would look like.
They're looking for free data for their AI startups to make money off of, and with Google being in the middle of an antitrust catastrophe that may very well collapse web browser variety to two options in the next years, there's a lot of money to be made by stoking the flames.
Google and the rest of big tech are like the Jupiter of the tech world. It clears the orbit of anything else that could form.
Big tech is so big that it can jump into new markets with ease, kill incumbents, snuff out new players, and perpetually tax non-innovation.
We're twenty years behind on antitrust and breakups. It's time we had a forest fire to make way for new growth.
That’s why everything’s so insanely consolidated now. Practically every market has a handful of massive players all of which would currently be under serious threat of break-up under the old approach to enforcement. It’s all monopoly.
https://medium.com/@kazeemibrahim18/the-post-ipo-performance...
> In aggregate, the average return across these YC companies is -49%, with a median return of -46%. To put this into perspective, over the same period, the S&P 500 yielded a positive return of 58%
And for the rest of the companies, they aren’t trying to compete with BigTech, they are trying to get acquired by them. Out of the literally thousands of companies that YC has invested in, only about two dozen have gone public
The end game for these unicorns is to become the cash hoard that they intended to compete with.
I'm fine with that. Let them make money at the expense of big tech.
Breaking up big tech benefits financial/venture capital, but it also benefits labor capital as well. More opportunity for more startups to succeed, more competition for engineering talent, less market distorting wage collusion.
Big tech already won. It's benefactors already reap the benefits. Break them up and a new generation of engineers can grow wealthy on the field they contribute their labor to.
Right now the proceeds of tech go to hedge funds and pension funds. It's venture capital and entrepreneurs that take risks. They're the ones that should see upside. Unfortunately, big tech monopolies put a ceiling on this.
So if Google wasn’t a “monopoly” you think a startup could make a better search engine? Be more popular than Android - Microsoft tried both and failed because people prefer Google products. It wasn’t for the lack of money.
And engineers are getting wealthy - by working for BigTech. Even an entry level developer at BigTech makes more than 90% of workers.
There, FTFY. It was implied, was it not?
Perhaps that is what should happen here, but let's not quibble about it.
What do you mean by this and how will it happen?
Democratic software means three things:
1. Can you understand it
2. Can you influence it both now and after your death
3. Can you destroy it
I don’t see how any of these things apply to AI, I’m sure it will make some people incredibly wealthy at the expense of others.
Not a single person in this entire ecosystem knows the difference between democratize and liberalize. Hint: AI isn't gonna let us vote on aspects of search.
Gemini (the app, not the API or AI studio) is one of the few places where we can use frontier generative AI without a “customer noncompete” (you know, the one where they compete with us and then say we’re not allowed to compete back) … if you use Claude or OpenAI or Grok, you’re prohibited from training on your chat logs, or even using the thing to develop AI. Not so with Gemini app.
Too bad you have to lose your chat history just to deactivate model training (“Gemini apps activity” conflates opt-out of training with opt-out of storing chat history)
I don’t know much about the ads space but I just hope going after Google doesn’t create a vacuum that gets filled by an even worse monopoly (OpenAI)
There has been no time in human history where destroying monopolies were a bad thing.
Just because OpenAI isn’t in “extraction mode” yet doesn’t mean it’s not a scary monopoly.
Source, figure 2 in: [1] https://iot-analytics.com/leading-generative-ai-companies/
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but:
1. If you're talking about basic research, Microsoft Research has been a thing since the 90's, is highly prestigious, and has published far more papers than Google, based on their respective research websites. (To be fair, Google started much later.)
2. If you're talking about product development, MSFT is vastly more diversified in terms of revenues than any of the "Magnificent 7" because of their varied product lineup.
3. The basis of their relationship with OpenAI is literally them investing double digit billions to catch up on the AI race once they recognized the opportunity.
> OpenAI is in effect a client state of Microsoft that Microsoft is using to make Google look flat-footed and force them to enter the chatbot market.
I'm not sure about Microsoft's influence in OpenAI's strategy, but it's pretty clear Google was caught flatfooted by their own strategy of locking away transformer technology behind products that didn't threaten their search monopoly. There's a reason the researchers who invented transformers had to leave and start a different company to bring its true potential to the market. Which, even if it was just a chatbot, is what has kicked off the AI boom.
Is there anything he could have done to avoid this outcome? In a way that Google shareholders would have found acceptable?
Or was this outcome inevitable?
Now antitrust means punishing companies that are too good. Their product is too superior. Even though Windows, the most used computer OS, literally defaults bing search but consumers change it to google. They are choosing to use google. We're going to punish the company that makes a product so good users don't want to use other products. They clearly have choice. There is no switching cost to what search engine you use. Its sad when companies who can't make a product people that people't don't want to use instead to use regulatory capture to prevent real competition in the search engine market. Just make a better product.
This isn’t about search, it’s about their ad monopoly. They are not being punished for search or related products. I’m actually not sure how breaking out the search index helps in this situation. I would think splitting out off-Google advertising is the more obvious break and one that would benefit humanity. (Ad networks can die in a fire.)
Ad is even worse as Google doesn’t even control the majority of digital marketing market. Only case i can think of is the Amex case but Supreme Court rightly found you can’t be an abusive monopoly and have less than a majority of the market.