A deeply flawed lawsuit that would do nothing to help consumers | Hacker News Reader

A deeply flawed lawsuit that would do nothing to help consumers

blog.google

54 pointstwapi21 comments

> People use Google because they choose to, not because they're forced to, or because they can't find alternatives.

The gall of saying this while simultaneously forcing millions of businesses to conform to their idea of what the Web should look like in order to get favorable PageRank ratings. AMP? ReCaptcha? Google Maps? Lighthouse?

SEO?

As if it's optional to avoid those as a business owner. It's like telling a diabetic they can just stop buying insulin if they can't afford it.

"Forcing millions of businesses to conform to their idea of what the Web should look like" You mean forcing them to stop doing shit that avg users don't want them to do? You people on here act like you(site makers) haven't spent the last ~15 years gaming every trick in the book. people like google BECAUSE it weeds out trash.

You are both right. Some things Google did (like kiling Flash, together with Apple) were fine, but some feel like made by an opinionated person. And because Google has such enormous infulence on practically every aspect of the Internet, and especially the Web, no wonder people are upset whenever such unilateral decisions are made.

I think this is the main issue. If google limited itself to good old search it would be all fine but they are trying to tangle themselves into _everything_ and you can no longer avoid them.

Take app store as an example: if you are a digital company you need an app, which probably means you pay 30% of you earnings to either google or apple.

... Who may also be your competitors, since they are trying to get into every possible business.

You can't make an appointment at the california DMV without using google services. it's very common not to be able to rent an apartment without using google services.

I stopped using my health care providers website because every single page has a google/doubleclick link on it - even viewing test results from my doctor.

I think rather than blaming google, you should ask your healthcare providers why they choose to use double click tracking on their website. It is like you don’t go to your doctor because you don’t like which company they use for their blood collection services.

It is more like the blood collection solution your doctor uses also happens to collect a bit of DNA on the side and sells that to third-party buyers ('legit' or otherwise), and the doctor is either unaware or doesn't really care.

In which case your options as a consumer is either to say "my options are sucking up the humiliation and massive invasion of privacy and having the blood test, or not having it done at risk to my health" OR if you have the means to find the resources to attack either the blood company or your doctor where it hurts (i.e. financially), either via a lawsuit or a successful PR campaign etc.

I was pretty much addressing "People use Google because they choose to, not because they're forced to, or because they can't find alternatives."

Sounds like a rant against google, but really - if the state uses google as a gatekeeper function to use their services, it turns their argument on its head.

As to your question about the health care provider - I did ask them. I got nonsense replies at first, and then I got to someone with a clue and he said something like "our website is a convenience feature".

ROFL, amazing, they actually flat out lied about the Android situation.

In this post, they show a screenshot of stock Android with no Google search bar visible.

Except you can't remove the Google search bar in stock Android 11 unless you switch to a custom launcher:

https://support.google.com/pixelphone/thread/73306757?hl=en

Edit: Correction, they show a screenshot specifically of a Samsung phone, which presumably is customized by Samsung. In effect, this is lying by omission, as they present that experience as though it's a universal Google product experience--they even precede those screenshots with the phrase "Look how easy it is to add a different search app or widget on Android."--when in fact it's specifically not supported in Google's own stock version of Android.

Isn't that sort of like complaining that you can't use an Bing unless you "switch to an custom [search engine]"? Does Google do anything to block you from switching to a different launcher? Or block Bing from writing a Bing launcher? The AOSP launcher is open source and anyone can easily built their own launcher on top of that without Google integration.

Disclaimer: I used to work at Google and worked on the Launcher + Search integration. It was trivial for devs to fork the launcher and there are tons of alternate launches. I recommend Nova launcher which was my launcher for many years due to its layout customization.

I'm not complaining.

I'm saying the blog post is lying about the situation on Android, as you yourself have admitted (by pointing out that you'd have to fork AOSP and alter the code in order to achieve the behaviour Google is presenting here).

That is a simple statement of fact irrespective of one's personal values and beliefs about the facts.

"you" in this context refers to the devs who want to build an alternative launcher from scratch without writing one from scratch. User's just download the launcher and select it just like they would download & select a search engine app.

> Isn't that sort of like complaining that you can't use an Bing unless you "switch to an custom [search engine]"?

No.

> Does Google do anything to block you from switching to a different launcher?

Yes.

What you are effectively claiming is that integrating solutions to dominant products which do not otherwise need to be integrated for the product to function, is fine and does not constitute abuse of monopoly, because there are (non-straightforward) ways to work around those.

Which did not work too well for microsoft windows and internet explorer mandatory integration back in the day, and there's no reason it should work well with Google-branded phones and google search today.

Are you seriously under the impression that the average user of Google Search is a software developer or even someone who knows how to install a new launcher on their phone?

It's only on screen for a moment, but if you look for the little dot navigation that indicates which screen you're on, it is slightly off-center to the right. I don't own a Samsung phone, but I think that would indicate that it isn't actually the default home screen (though I can't quite make out whether there is an unhighlighted circle to the left), but a second home screen. And, while the Google widget would be removable there on most Android phones, it wouldn't be there by default in the first place.

Exactly! I returned my last Pixel because the Google search bar was unremovable.

This was the case for Android 10 as well.

"People use Google because they choose to, not because they're forced to, or because they can't find alternatives."

This is highly disingenuous given the context. It's a bit like saying people breathe polluted city air because they choose to.

Yes, fine, theoretically you have the choice to move to the mountains or stop breathing altogether. Sorry for breathing.

If it is flawed, it is that there are so many more anti-competitive things that Google does, especially in the ad space, so it is too narrow.

That seems like legal strategy rather than granting a pass to Google's even-more-egregious anti-competitive actins, though.

> consumers

What about the companies that Google killed with underhanded tactics?

Actually, what about the consumers whose choice in smartphones was reduced because Google contractually forced phone manufacturers to include certain features, and prevented them from developing alternatives [1,2]?

But I'm sure Google would like to focus all our attention on short-term, individual-level effects, so they can continue to pretend a single company dominating ever more markets doesn't, and won't, have any bad consequences.

[1] https://www.theinformation.com/articles/google-s-confidentia...

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/google-will-stop-bundling-it...

In the meantime, I advise the people who wrote this piece to try to remove (not disable, but remove) Google Assistant from their phones.

Flawed, yes, but emotions are involved. One good that could come come about in a breakup is a better understanding of the value that Alphabet has. Markets could value their individual businesses more accurately with the reporting requirements of separate public companies. This could assist in valuing other mega tech companies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com