RedEye9 wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 11:21:

NKD wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 11:09:
Better late than never I guess, but I can't imagine there will be much in the way of actual fallout from this for Google. I don't know what meaningful remedies exist for a monopoly of this kind.

I’d gladly pay 0.01¢ per search to use google if it was the OLD google that returned the best results but with the caveat that it would be ad-free, tracking free, targeting free AND with reverse image search restored to its previous functionality.

How about the old altavista text searches in windows 3.11 . When netscape came in a DOS version. Those were the days that searches found what you were actually looking for.

Ozmodan wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 08:40:
I disagree with the findings. I have not used Google in years, there are better search engines out there.

This is like a Linux user saying they disagreed with the ruling against Microsoft in the past because they think Linux is better.

roguebanshee wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 12:48:

NKD wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 11:09:
Better late than never I guess, but I can't imagine there will be much in the way of actual fallout from this for Google. I don't know what meaningful remedies exist for a monopoly of this kind.

The usual remedy is forcibly splitting off parts of the corporation, such as the advertisement and search being forced to be held by separate corporations. There's also the possibility of the various Google non-search services (like docs, gmail, drive and so on) being split away from the company that holds on to the search engine. Heck, YouTube might become a non-Google product.

This will have an effect, even if Alphabet still owns and controls the split up corporation, as each new entity has to manage their own finances and they will be forced to be separate entities on the stock market. If something like YouTube isn't actually profitable, but is forced to stay afloat on its own merits, that could cause a massive change in the social media landscape.

This is my guess too as to what might happen. I see both good and bad from this but it's going to take a long time to untangle IF it even gets to that point.

jdreyer wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 15:31:

RedEye9 wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 11:21:

NKD wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 11:09:
Better late than never I guess, but I can't imagine there will be much in the way of actual fallout from this for Google. I don't know what meaningful remedies exist for a monopoly of this kind.

I’d gladly pay 0.01¢ per search to use google if it was the OLD google that returned the best results but with the caveat that it would be ad-free, tracking free, targeting free AND with reverse image search restored to its previous functionality.

So, 100 searches for one cent? That's quite the bargain.

doh
1 cent
I never did well with percentages

This is going to get appealed and tossed. If the NFL can grease the palm of someone and get a JNOV, I think Google can bribe..errr lobby the right people.

RedEye9 wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 11:21:

NKD wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 11:09:
Better late than never I guess, but I can't imagine there will be much in the way of actual fallout from this for Google. I don't know what meaningful remedies exist for a monopoly of this kind.

I’d gladly pay 0.01¢ per search to use google if it was the OLD google that returned the best results but with the caveat that it would be ad-free, tracking free, targeting free AND with reverse image search restored to its previous functionality.

So, 100 searches for one cent? That's quite the bargain.

roguebanshee wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 05:57:

Quboid wrote on Aug 5, 2024, 20:23:
Let's see how this works out after decades of appeals...

This was in a Federal court, so Alphabet/Google only has two chances of appeal: One targeting the legal procedure itself (which is extremely likely to fail) and if that fails, a petition to SCOTUS for an appeal which isn't even guaranteed to be accepted. Moreover, even if SCOTUS does accept the petition for an appeal, the ruling was based on the Sherman Act and supported by ~100 years of case law, so the most likely ruling would be an affirmation.

Also they can't try to add new evidence or legal arguments for the appeal against the legal procedure, they can only target the procedure or the ruling. Such an appeal might take up to a year to process and in this case it is very likely to fail.

If they petition SCOTUS for an appeal and get rejected, that's a final decision which would take a change in laws to overturn. If SCOTUS does accept the appeal, then we might see some years added on top, but five would be very unusual and a decade would be unheard of.

The current SCOTUS has shown an unusual willingness to ignore stare decisis.

NKD wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 11:09:
Better late than never I guess, but I can't imagine there will be much in the way of actual fallout from this for Google. I don't know what meaningful remedies exist for a monopoly of this kind.

The usual remedy is forcibly splitting off parts of the corporation, such as the advertisement and search being forced to be held by separate corporations. There's also the possibility of the various Google non-search services (like docs, gmail, drive and so on) being split away from the company that holds on to the search engine. Heck, YouTube might become a non-Google product.

This will have an effect, even if Alphabet still owns and controls the split up corporation, as each new entity has to manage their own finances and they will be forced to be separate entities on the stock market. If something like YouTube isn't actually profitable, but is forced to stay afloat on its own merits, that could cause a massive change in the social media landscape.

NKD wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 11:09:
Better late than never I guess, but I can't imagine there will be much in the way of actual fallout from this for Google. I don't know what meaningful remedies exist for a monopoly of this kind.

I’d gladly pay 0.01¢ per search to use google if it was the OLD google that returned the best results but with the caveat that it would be ad-free, tracking free, targeting free AND with reverse image search restored to its previous functionality.

Better late than never I guess, but I can't imagine there will be much in the way of actual fallout from this for Google. I don't know what meaningful remedies exist for a monopoly of this kind.

Beamer wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 10:00:
I am so confused by the "I use another service, therefore it isn't a monopoly" arguments.

Microsoft got nailed for IE, but there were other options.

An illegal monopoly doesn't need to control 100% of the market. That's an unreasonable expectation.
I'm also surprised at all the defenses of Google. Have people not realized how bad search has gotten? Google has shifted nearly all its efforts to competing with Amazon, so Search has shifted from learning things to buying things, which take you to very different places. Even Image Search has shifted from giving you images to product listings. And reverse image search went from giving you the image elsewhere to giving you places to buy something that looks like something in the image.

It's trash.

Exactly, anyone who was around when the MS/IE thing went down should've seen this coming. Non story for me since I've been telling folks this was going to happen for so long.

Google knew it was coming and didn't care. They (owner/excom) were already on a path to make enough $ short term not to care, ever.. Plus they are out of the equation enjoying stress free profits after getting out and diversifying/lthe ong game.

Now for those that followed and more specifically those who followed and investors etc. They will pick up the mess and take the short term hits. The pyramid is like the triangle offense lol.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 10:16:

Prez wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 10:05:
I'm here and allowed to post for example. Except I don't limit it to only Thanksgiving.

You have the "Grumpy uncle who bitches in a benign way" vibe. It's adorable and harmless.

I've never been told that before. I kind of like it.

Prez wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 10:05:
I'm here and allowed to post for example. Except I don't limit it to only Thanksgiving.

You have the "Grumpy uncle who bitches in a benign way" vibe. It's adorable and harmless.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Aug 6, 2024, 09:51:
You know, I left Facebook behind years ago and part of it was to get away from the "Crazy uncle who rants about weird, nonsensical shit during Thanksgiving" posts.

Yet they persist everywhere.

I'm here and allowed to post for example. Except I don't limit it to only Thanksgiving.

I am so confused by the "I use another service, therefore it isn't a monopoly" arguments.

Microsoft got nailed for IE, but there were other options.

An illegal monopoly doesn't need to control 100% of the market. That's an unreasonable expectation.
I'm also surprised at all the defenses of Google. Have people not realized how bad search has gotten? Google has shifted nearly all its efforts to competing with Amazon, so Search has shifted from learning things to buying things, which take you to very different places. Even Image Search has shifted from giving you images to product listings. And reverse image search went from giving you the image elsewhere to giving you places to buy something that looks like something in the image.

It's trash.

You know, I left Facebook behind years ago and part of it was to get away from the "Crazy uncle who rants about weird, nonsensical shit during Thanksgiving" posts.

Yet they persist everywhere.

I haven't used Google as my default search engine in years. Every browser out offers several search-engine choices aside from Google, by default, and has done so for years. I don't like Google, don't care for the company, frankly, but the DoJ I like even less...;) Bunch of government bots trying to justify their jobs and salaries. I think Google will easily win this on appeal. Is it the best search engine? Absolutely not...;) I know that for a fact, actually, and I find even Duck is just as good. All the DoJ need do is tell Google and the browser companies that Google can no longer purchase the default search-engine spot in browsers and OSes. But of course, the DOJ lawyers are going to want huge fines levied out of which their commissions are paid (most people don't know what a racket "protecting the consumer from himself" has become)! Again, we see the same lame argument from clueless DoJ bumpkins, that consumers are just too stupid to use other than OS/browser default settings. Lord save us all from crusading government employees...;) The tax man cometh!

I disagree with the findings. I have not used Google in years, there are better search engines out there.

Google going to be charging subscriptions soon to use their site. That'll make it less easily available...

I switched to DuckDuckGo years ago, and more recently, I’ve been using Copilot to find information. You simply ask Copilot for what you need, and it usually provides the answer directly along with links to relevant sources. And guess what? No ads.

As Microsoft gradually integrates Copilot into Windows and all its products and services, Google is becoming less and less relevant.

Alphabet/Google went full Evil years ago, and any ding in their pox filled ship hull is a plus.