Google Pays $10 Billion a Year To Maintain Monopoly, US Says (bloomberg.com) 61
Alphabet's Google pays more than $10 billion a year to maintain its position as the default search engine on web browsers and mobile devices, stifling competition, the US Justice Department said Tuesday at the start of a high-stakes antitrust trial in Washington. From a report: "This case is about the future of the internet and whether Google's search engine will ever face meaningful competition," Kenneth Dintzer, a government lawyer, said in his opening statement. "The evidence will show they demanded default exclusivity to block rivals." Dintzer said Google became a monopoly by at least 2010 and today controls more than 89% of the online search market.
"The company pays billions for defaults because they are uniquely powerful," he said. "For the last 12 years, Google has abused its monopoly in general search." The monopolization trial is the first pitting the federal government against a US technology company in more than two decades. The Justice Department and 52 attorneys general from states and US territories allege Google illegally maintained its monopoly by paying billions to tech rivals, smartphone makers and wireless providers in exchange for being set as the preselected option or default on mobile phones and web browsers.
"The company pays billions for defaults because they are uniquely powerful," he said. "For the last 12 years, Google has abused its monopoly in general search." The monopolization trial is the first pitting the federal government against a US technology company in more than two decades. The Justice Department and 52 attorneys general from states and US territories allege Google illegally maintained its monopoly by paying billions to tech rivals, smartphone makers and wireless providers in exchange for being set as the preselected option or default on mobile phones and web browsers.
Law not Facts (Score:5, Interesting)
Interestingly, I think this case will be far more about points of law than about facts. The agreements to have Google be the default search engine on phones and other browsers and such was never secret. For the most part, this case isn't about determining the facts of how Google has operated. It's about points of law:
* Does Google's business meet the standard for a monopoly?
* When did Google gain monopoly status?
* Have Google's business practices violated the law?
Ultimately, if Google loses the ability to pay to be the default search engine, it may result in higher profits, as most people would still set it as the default without being paid.
Demonstrations (Score:4, Interesting)
If I were Google's lawyers, I would open a brand new Dell laptop, then Macbook, and show how neither comes with any Google software preinstalled, nor has Google as the default browser on the Dell. Then I'd show how it takes about ten seconds to change the default search engine on the Macbook. Then I'd show how it takes about a minute to download an alternative browser on an Android device, and set the default search engine to something else.
I'm old enough to remember when a monopoly was where a steel company would stop selling to customers who tried to buy steel from other companies. Or you would have to source all your parts from a certain provider or they wouldn't sell you the one part only they make.
Nowadays having a monopoly means it takes an extra minute or two to change a setting to not use a vendor's services, apparently.
Keep in mind, the anti-monopoly laws are there to protect *consumers* not competitors or other companies.
Re: Demonstrations (Score:1)
I bought an AMD mini with integrated graphics. It came preinstalled with Windows and Edge. I tried to uninstall Edge and there is no such option. I installed Firefox and it crashes on launch. I guess Google is at it again.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's a massive conspiracy by all 50 states plus some territories. It can't possibly be google breaking the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Scott Adams premise, precisely.
Re: Demonstrations (Score:2)
Antitrust law does not ignore the possibility that everyone may be an idiot. In fact, idiots need even more protection from antitrust.
Response (Score:3)
This would be my response. [statcounter.com]
Both the top options default to Google. Desktop defaulting isn't what they are interested in nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
Though worldwide charts are not quite the most relevant in a United States antitrust prosecution, the United States mobile browser share chart [statcounter.com] tells the same story that both Safari and Google Chrome are on top.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice. Also I checked a little more - the top five on that chart you gave all use Google as their default. They quite literally have a monopoly on mobile search, unless you are savvy enough to change the default search engine, and even know it is possible or relevant.
Re: (Score:1)
"Savvy enough" to click a few settings and change them. Give me a break.
It's irritating, heck, it's even obnoxious that we have to do that if we don't want Google as a default. But it's not criminal.
This is like complaining that channel 2 or 87.9 FM are using monopoly powers because devices default to those numbers.
Re:Response (Score:4, Informative)
Antitrust actions aren't criminal actions. They are a civil matter.
The consent decree or breakup order will be a matter of civil law.
Re: wow such a thorough legal analysis (Score:2)
Lawyers get paid to take cases. The fact that they take a case doesnâ(TM)t mean it is a good one
Re:Demonstrations (Score:4, Insightful)
Nowadays having a monopoly means it takes an extra minute or two to change a setting to not use a vendor's services, apparently.
You're missing the point. That default setting will never be changed by the vast majority of users, so it's one factor (of many) that helps reinforce Google's existing dominance. Apple could easily make "select your default search engine" one of the many prompts you get when setting up a new device. I'm pretty sure Bing and DuckDuckGo would welcome such a prompt. Apple gets a fat check from Google not to do this. Should such business relationships be allowed? Now consider all the other things Google does, like directing you to Google Shopping results, or Google Flights, long gone are the days when their priority was to get you off their page as quickly as possible. Now it's all about vertical integration.
There's also the not insignificant matter that Google Search fucking sucks [theatlantic.com] these days. It is a cesspool of commercial SEO garbage that is objectively less valuable than it was when Google upended the business back in their disruptor days. They presumably could fix this, if they cared enough to devote resources to attacking the problem, but like most mature monopolists, they have no incentive to do that.
Why spend money on product development when you have no meaningful competitors? Every penny that goes to development is one less you have for stock buybacks and executive compensation. They purportedly won't give employees their own office supplies [cnbc.com] these days. Need a stapler? Go borrow one from the receptionist. When a CNBC headline about your company resembles The Onion you're doing it wrong.
'member Don't be evil? I 'member.....
What stops Microsoft from paying those billions? (Score:3)
Economically speaking, nothing at all, so I don't get why this is an issue.
Practically speaking, many users would start screaming "where's my Google!" if Apple actually accepted the bid from Microsoft instead.
But that wouldn't be monopoly in action. It would be consumer choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Economically speaking, nothing at all, so I don't get why this is an issue.
it's an issue because an upstart doesn't have the ability to write an eleven digit check to Apple to be the default, even if consumers would accept it, and as you correctly point out, they would not. They would accept a question during device setup.
Re: (Score:2)
then Google can't be a monopoly while having less than 20% desktop browser share.
Did you forget that mobile exists and is the younger generation's primary (occasionally exclusive) perception of the Internet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Apple could easily make "select your default search
> engine" one of the many prompts you get when
> setting up a new device.
But do end-users actually want that?
I, for one, don't like all those dialogs that pop up to steer me into some defaults that don't fit my use case during setup. I especially HATE the modal "are you sure" popups when I want to skip setting up iCloud and TouchID and decline to migrate data. I do my setup *MY* way via scripts, my custom profile from Apple Configurator. Tinkert
Re: (Score:3)
If I were Google's lawyers, I would open a brand new Dell laptop, then Macbook, and show how neither comes with any Google software preinstalled, nor has Google as the default browser on the Dell. Then I'd show how it takes about ten seconds to change the default search engine on the Macbook. Then I'd show how it takes about a minute to download an alternative browser on an Android device, and set the default search engine to something else.
Thinking back on the Microsoft case with browsers, the fact that it was "easy" to install competing browsers didn't mitigate the anti-competitive conduct. No matter how easy the alternatives are, the default is infinitely easier. Even among the slashdot crowd, the vast majority do not tweak search engine settings. Among the non-slashdot crowd, essentially no one changes their search engine.
Keep in mind, the anti-monopoly laws are there to protect *consumers* not competitors or other companies.
Ultimately it's about the consumers. However, do the courts assume that a lack of competition along with anti-compe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I were Google's lawyers, I would open a brand new Dell laptop, then Macbook, and show how neither comes with any Google software preinstalled, nor has Google as the default browser on the Dell. Then I'd show how it takes about ten seconds to change the default search engine on the Macbook. Then I'd show how it takes about a minute to download an alternative browser on an Android device, and set the default search engine to something else.
I'm old enough to remember when a monopoly was where a steel company would stop selling to customers who tried to buy steel from other companies. Or you would have to source all your parts from a certain provider or they wouldn't sell you the one part only they make.
Nowadays having a monopoly means it takes an extra minute or two to change a setting to not use a vendor's services, apparently.
Keep in mind, the anti-monopoly laws are there to protect *consumers* not competitors or other companies.
This.
I'd like to add to that, being a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing a monopoly position is illegal.
There are loads of examples where a monopoly forms naturally, Google is one of those. Google hasn't abused it's monopoly position in the same way Microsoft has.
Vice versa, one does not need to be a monopoly to be guilty of the same kind of abusive practices. We tend not to come down on abusive companies when they can demonstrate they aren't the only game in town which is a shame. Consumer laws shou
Google Search is EXCELLENT! (Score:1)
I remember, before the Internet, researching something would often take hours. Now, with Google Search, I often get a very useful answer in 10 seconds.
No government should interfere with Google Search.
Re: (Score:2)
Many [theatlantic.com], including me, think Google Search is a lot less useful than it used to be. None of the problems in that article are insurmountable but Google has very little incentive to put resources into improving Search so long as it enjoys a de-facto monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem with google is they are no longer a search company, they are an ad company. They get money from serving you and me ads, they don't put much money or effort into search anymore and it shows
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, if Google loses the ability to pay to be the default search engine, it may result in higher profits, as most people would still set it as the default without being paid.
Could be. However, even if Google is prohibited from paying money to be the default, competitors could strike deals with browsers, computer, and OS makers to be the non-Google default. The competitors are allowed to do those things because they don't wield monopoly power. People might still choose to manually switch back to Google, but certainly some and maybe most will not.
Re: (Score:2)
Or more accurately... (Score:2, Insightful)
Google WASTES $10 Billion a Year
I have never understood why
Re: Or more accurately... (Score:2)
Re:Or more accurately... (Score:5, Informative)
Because it generates more than $10 billion in return? Do you really think they're pissing money away?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's revue. It is Apple selling the rights for $10B via an auction. Could Apple make a search engine choice box when the phone or OS is first activated? Sure they could, so why don't they? ummmm... $10B reasons?
Jump to the end of the story. Force Apple to implement the browser choice box. Google saves $10B. Everyone except Apple is happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Or more accurately... (Score:2)
From apples point of view pretend to be creating a search engine and Google will throw money at them
It's so nice that the Justice Dept found a job (Score:2, Insightful)
It's good that serious problems have been eliminated and the Justice Department can finally start cashing out on major businesses. Perhaps they can reopen their investigation into Microsoft for including their web browser with Windows! I understand they even default to Microsoft Bingle or some crap.
Re: It's so nice that the Justice Dept found a job (Score:2)
Imposible to uninstall now, and this time I am sure they got approval from the puppet master.
Oh no, not search ... (Score:2)
Cripple the revenue source of the only consumer electronic ecosystem competition to Apple, that will surely improve market function.
Maybe they should address defaults (Score:3)
Of course, people like defaults because they're user-friendly. You don't have to think. And getting rid of defaults for everything would require a lot of additional decisions, and people aren't necessarily sufficiently well informed to make those decisions. I could picture a policy against defaults giving rise to a new industry of decision-makers.
I'm rambling.
A monopoly on shit (Score:2)
Just yesterday I googled for alphastation models by search result number 3 it was already completely off topic.
Re: (Score:2)
If you complain, you get Bing
Re: (Score:3)
Damn, every result from the first page of Bing was on topic and relevant. Fuck google.
Re: (Score:1)
Welcome to Slashdot, Satya!
Microsoft: (Score:2)
..."only 10B? Pfffft."
This Resonates (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the 90s and early 2000s Google would have trailed off some time ago as the search engine that "everyone used". The quality of the results has been getting worse and worse, the amount of spam listings has gotten completely out of control, etc. and then, y'know, the whole privacy thing.
I didn't realize how bad the results and SPAM had gotten until recently. This is money well spent if you're Google, I don't think they would maintain their prominence in search without this.
Grocery store monopolies (Score:3)
I think the only question at this point is when cable TV dies out in the near future and people can just pay an extra $5 or $10 a month to not have advertisements what's going to happen to the ad industry. I'm not saying we should cry over their loss but I don't think they're going to go quietly into that good night and they're going to cost some problems for us before they go out
Either way the government's antitrust enforcement division has bigger fish to fry that would have a better impact on inflation reduction.
huh? (Score:2)
So google pays for something. Unless no one else is allowed to do the same, that is not monopolistic. Every exclusive licensing agreement is like this. Coke pays you to only carry Coke, not Pepsi, in your restaurant? Monopoly!
they hate success (Score:1, Troll)
They hate Google because it is so successful. Google gives us tons of great stuff for free, that apparently DoJ would rather we paid for. It's not just search. It's also maps of the whole world, driving navigation, a free video platform for everyone to post, a free operating system for smartphones and tablets, free email, free storage, free backups, and various other less known free things, like google sheets.
Yes, it's not really free, but you are not paying for it with money for the most part, but rathe
G. search is unfortunately not so great. (Score:2)
Unfortunately, recently the Google search engine gets worse and worse - the results are always the most obvious ones no matter how the query is tweaked, I attribute it to their AI, which just finds the most generic responses and even though it is often what people are looking for, having my specific keywords or phrases totally ignored is not a welcoming experience. One might thing - it's just my phrasing, but the other engines do much better.
Going back to the topic - I totally disagree, If Google has to pay
$10 beelion dollars? To give you an idea (Score:2)
Enough to fund the next space mission to Mars. Google that! No I am not starting a meme
Blame the browser (Score:2)
Who do you think benefits from the fact that browser defaults exist at all? Who receives the billions that Google pays out?
In the old days, defaults on browsers were set to some local information page. This was literally called the browser âoehome pageâ and had to manually be changed to another site.
This part of the antitrust hearing reeks of the nonsense of the browser wars.