• tiredofsametab@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, Google, Meta, Amazon, and probably others really need to get broken up and get proper antitrust treatment. I say this even as someone who holds stock (like a total of 5 shares, so not much) in a couple of those. I used to dream of working at Google as well, but that dream died quite some time ago based on their actions and culture.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’ve recently got a description of their general climate from someone who apparently works in Google.

        These companies should be broken into like 24 pieces each.

        And their management of all time investigated thoroughly for anti-competitive activities.

        There should a Nuremberg tribunal for corps. And open one.

    • Defaced@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      That’s never going to happen. I’m not sure on what stipulates a monopoly in this scenario, but the fact that there’s bing, duck duck go, kagi, and a handful of others means it’s not really a monopoly which tells me there is some specific ruling here that they’ve determined is monopolistic behavior.

      Edit: yeah after reading the article, wtf Google…

  • MimicJar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    3 months ago

    To frame this question differently, why is Apple able to sell default access on their devices?

    Quick math shows Apple makes ~100 Billion per year. The article states Google pays ~20 Billion to Apple per year. That’s a significant value to Apple.

    I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the decision, but curious how Google paying Apple is a monopoly, but Apple offering search to the highest bidder isn’t also a problem (or maybe it is).

    As another example, how well did the EU browser choice ruling have on consumers choosing a browser.

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I wonder if Apple does a cost analysis on search every year and frequently go “NOPE” at the current state of search.

      Apple Maps took years to shed it’s reputation. A Apple version of search would being a lot of negative press. And they can’t exactly handshake with Microsoft and Bing, as Bing has its own negative reputation.

      All the smaller search engines, so they fit into the Apple mindset?

      At the end of the day, they’ll take Google’s money. While finding a way to make their own.

      • Pasta Dental@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m more concerned about Firefox dying because of a lack of funding and in turn giving Google even more of a monopoly over web standards

    • barfplanet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’ve read that the main reason Google funds Mozilla is to prevent a monopoly situation. I bet they’ll stay committed.

      Mozilla really does need to diversify their funding though.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        I mean, it’s very convenient, when your only competition depends on your funding.

        Say, if you cut a bit of that funding, it won’t immediately cease to exist. And you can double it in exchange for the right people taking the helm. There’ll be kickbacks almost impossible to prove.

        This should be in the law. If your competition is funded by you, it’s not that.