The Antitrust Showdown - U.S. Government v. Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, et al.

[Utnapishtim]

Let's not twist this yet again into something political.

I'm perfectly agnostic regarding US politics at the moment, just daydreaming about paths to bring back free market into IT. You gotta agree that they're all real long shots

[gi_jimbo]

Some politicians say they would like to break these companies (Facebook, Amazon, Google, Twitter, etc) up. But these companies have "very deep pockets" which means they will influence politicians to sustain the status quo concerning these companies.

This is exactly why I think there needs to be a Constitutional convention to add a few amendments.

1) Outlaw lobbying.

2) No more ability to add a rider to a bill.

3) Term limits for the Legislative and Judaical branches.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes, PLEASE! #2 in particular. I'd add to that that no bill can be longer than 10 pages (8.5" x 11" no font less than 10pt). If you can easily fit the constitution in that space, you should be able to fit a single bill on much less.

[Tharthan]

#2 in particular.

I admit, out of all of the things that he suggested, that one is the most reasonable.

[John connor]

Last week, the European Commission announced, in response to a complaint filed by Spotify, that it would be opening an investigation into Apple’s App Store practices,

What bone does Spotify have to pick with Apple's Application Store? I could see them having a bone to pick with iTunes, but... what is it about Apple's Application Store that is specifically hurting Spotify?

It's obvious you didn't understand the article from Protonmail. The article specifically mentions that Apple's Playstore operates much like a mafia in a nutshell. Due to that, that is why Spotify filed suit and it is now why Protonmail has come out with their own detest for Apple's Playstore.

and also Spotify’s bravery in bringing this complaint in the first place.

I'm glad that they brought it as well, but I'd be surprised if no one has at least attempted to bring a complaint against Apple on this subject or something similar before.

Again, it says right there in the article that in Protonmail's stance as of now was to just put up with the crap. But now that Spotify came forward, so did Protonmail. Prior to this it was fear of retribution.

[John connor]

Forgot to mention this. Got an email that said I could potentially take part in a class action lawsuit against Google due to G+. Here's the website. https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-set ... ettlement/

I never wanted a G+ account back then, but I was having YouTube issues and thought a G+ account would fix that so bit the bullet and created one with a fake name. Issues still remained. This was with Firefox back then. No, I won't be participating in this due to the fake name and I have no privacy concerns.

[Baloo]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/1 ... kup-428468

[Night Wing]

The key word is "may" so I'll believe it when I see it action wise.

[vannilla]

It's entertaining how the whole affair revolves around advertising services and how Google is practicing anti-competitive measures by introducing certain features into Chrome that supposedly blocks the business of (advertisement) competitors.
Anything else that has a broader impact is merely an addendum.

[Tharthan]

The death of Chrome (if such a day ever comes) will be a glorious day for us all.

Anything else that has a broader impact is merely an addendum.

Let us take what we can get, shall we? Given that the DoJ (if I recall correctly) contacted Moonchild at one point, I think that they may simply be tackling this from the angle that they have the most legal grounds to challenge them from.

[vannilla]

Let us take what we can get, shall we?

Sure; I'm just getting ready for the outcome, if any.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Don't get excited because the damage of the past few years is already done. With Microsoft and Opera on the Chrome train there is little hope that Chrome Dominion will be crushed by any anti-trust at this time. Two years ago might have made a tangible difference but now i suspect it will be too little too late especially with the tech cabal that is established today.

[Tharthan]

With Microsoft and Opera on the Chrome train there is little hope that Chrome Dominion will be crushed by any anti-trust at this time.

Tobin, you forget:

Opera may have given into Chrome, but Opera always told us in the past that it is not over till the fat lady sings. You know that as well as I do.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Yes cause the Chinese are sure gonna look out for our best interests.

[Moonraker]

Opera should be considered chinese spyware and avoided at all costs even though apparently it is still subject to the laws of norway.

[Moonchild]

That doesn't mean much. Norway is its own thing similar to Switzerland.

[Moonchild]

Let me lift out a quote that has apparently gotten through to the House of the Judiciary as it's in their report (page 230):

iii. Unilaterally Setting Standards

By virtue of its dominance in the browser market, Google can effectively set standards for the industry in two ways.
First, changes to Chrome’s functionality create de facto standards. Market participants must adhere to these standards or risk their technology no longer being compatible with most websites. Market participants explain that Google will often build features quickly without using the standard-setting process or giving smaller browsers time to implement new features. Once web developers start building to these specifications, however, smaller browsers are under pressure to quickly implement these changes, often with little notice.¹³⁶⁶ If smaller browsers cannot keep up, users are flooded with “browser not supported” messages on webpages that have already been built to Chrome’s specifications.¹³⁶⁷ Several market participants told the Subcommittee that they felt “bullied” by this process.¹³⁶⁸
Second, Google has an outsized role in the formal stakeholder standards-making processes. As explained earlier in this Report, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is one of the leading standards organizations in the browser market. Its stated mission is to be “open and collectively empowering.”¹³⁶⁹ Other market participants believe that Google is significantly overrepresented in the W3C web platform incubator community group (WICG). They note that Google’s employees comprise 106 members, more than eight times the number of employees from Microsoft, the next largest stakeholder represented. Most companies, meanwhile, have only one representative.¹³⁷⁰ One market participant said: Though standards bodies like the W3C give the impression of being a place where browser vendors collaborate to improve the web platform; in reality Google’s monopoly position and aggressive rate of shipping non-standard features frequently reduce standards bodies to codifying web features and decisions Google has already made.¹³⁷¹

With a few more similar things in that report covering all 4 giants (451 pages worth of observations) I think there's a decent chance something might happen and a few recent developments might be undone, depending on how fast this goes forward. Unfortunately time is against us as Google entrenches itself deeper every week.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Does the report cover the fact that the W3C is basically bypassed by WhatWG which Google dominates and only requires a second vote which is most likely to come from their fully funded by them token competition and if not Microsoft and Opera can still weigh in even though they are wholesale using Google's technology str8 up now?

Or the fact that Google is becoming end-to-end the top arbiter of EVERYTHING?!

[Baloo]

Let me lift out a quote that has apparently gotten through to the House of the Judiciary as it's in their report (page 230):

iii. Unilaterally Setting Standards

By virtue of its dominance in the browser market, Google can effectively set standards for the industry in two ways.
First, changes to Chrome’s functionality create de facto standards. Market participants must adhere to these standards or risk their technology no longer being compatible with most websites. Market participants explain that Google will often build features quickly without using the standard-setting process or giving smaller browsers time to implement new features. Once web developers start building to these specifications, however, smaller browsers are under pressure to quickly implement these changes, often with little notice.¹³⁶⁶ If smaller browsers cannot keep up, users are flooded with “browser not supported” messages on webpages that have already been built to Chrome’s specifications.¹³⁶⁷ Several market participants told the Subcommittee that they felt “bullied” by this process.¹³⁶⁸
Second, Google has an outsized role in the formal stakeholder standards-making processes. As explained earlier in this Report, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is one of the leading standards organizations in the browser market. Its stated mission is to be “open and collectively empowering.”¹³⁶⁹ Other market participants believe that Google is significantly overrepresented in the W3C web platform incubator community group (WICG). They note that Google’s employees comprise 106 members, more than eight times the number of employees from Microsoft, the next largest stakeholder represented. Most companies, meanwhile, have only one representative.¹³⁷⁰ One market participant said: Though standards bodies like the W3C give the impression of being a place where browser vendors collaborate to improve the web platform; in reality Google’s monopoly position and aggressive rate of shipping non-standard features frequently reduce standards bodies to codifying web features and decisions Google has already made.¹³⁷¹

With a few more similar things in that report covering all 4 giants (451 pages worth of observations) I think there's a decent chance something might happen and a few recent developments might be undone, depending on how fast this goes forward. Unfortunately time is against us as Google entrenches itself deeper every week.

Very good that such nuance has been picked up by the House Judiciary Committee. Would you happen to have a link to the full report Moonchild?

[EMH_Mark_I]

It's linked in the politico article.

[prengle]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/tech ... oogle.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... j-lawsuit/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/202 ... 992896002/

i hate to assume anything positive will actually arise from this, considering the recent fearmongering over section 230, but... get hyped???