Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

DoJ Wins Another Victory: Google's Ad Tech Empire Violates Antitrust Laws

I'm not a Google fan when it comes to advertising. But, the bottom line, if you are too big and don't want to share your toys, governments want to break you. I would argue that you should try to lose sometimes so that you win. There is not such thing as a free economy.

Just like Apple, if you look, only after they became the largest tech company did the government want to limit them. Same with MS. I'm not saying that Google is free of wrong doing. I actually don't know enough about it. Just seems like once your on top your a target. The question is, did you get there by cheating?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: HighwaySnowman, drrich2 and jamezr
Aeronauts said:
I don’t think so because Apple’s growth has come from developing new products rather than acquiring competitors but they will continue to face problems with the AppStore.
Click to expand...
Historically, illegal monopolies were defined by attempts to curtail trade in areas adjacent to the main business focus. Like Microsoft using their OS power to force OEM’s into preferential contracts across the entire PC ecosystem or Standard Oil buying up the competition then putting them out of business giving them the edge in distribution. This idea that a company can have an illegal monopoly over the things they created is a new thing and, fortunately, hasn’t been held up in court anywhere. As of now, people that can read dictionary entries are forcing places like the EU to create entirely new definitions like “gatekeeper” as a result.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: HighwaySnowman, goobot, drrich2 and 1 other person
vantelimus said:
Perhaps to the unaided eye these look similar based on market value. But, if you look at the differences in the business itself, Apple does not have a monopoly in any area. Google has, built a monopoly in the online advertising business through acquisition and unfair practices. That is what the judge’s ruling is about. I don’t think there is a single area in which Apple has shown such behavior. And, no, building a closed ecosystem isn’t the same since there are products and ecosystems that compete effectively.
Click to expand...
And, if building a closed ecosystem was illegal, then the closed ecosystem they built wouldn’t have been allowed to do business in all these areas. And OTHER closed ecosystems by Nintendo, Sony, etc. wouldn’t be allowed either. :)
 
tranceme said:
Just like Apple, if you look, only after they became the largest tech company did the government want to limit them. Same with MS. I'm not saying that Google is free of wrong doing. I actually don't know enough about it.
Click to expand...
The government interest in limiting Apple comes from deep pocketed interests that are seeing a future where a wide swath of people are getting their digital content through App Stores. Without those people having the ear of the government, as long as the governments are getting their tax receipts, they’re fine.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: HighwaySnowman
Aeronauts said:
I contacted Google a few years ago about advertising my business. They were incredibly arrogant and very expensive. They just assume that because they have a monopoly they can do whatever they want.
Click to expand...
There is no assumption going on. They can do whatever they want, because the have a monopoly. It's the Vader/Lando dynamics.
y3tFFB4.jpg

This is why it's important to prevent a company from gaining monopoly power. Competition is good for the consumer. In this case the advertisers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppliedMicro, HighwaySnowman, 0049190 and 1 other person
Oh please destroy Google and android, no more Toast, no more medical, financial, housing etc info going to them, no more nothing, “bury those cokaroaches”.

Sopranos line: “never thought I’d say this, to the US government”…

Key line from the article:

“Google's scale and "vast repositories" of data about advertisers, publishers, and users limits competition.

According to the court, Google's actions have resulted in SIGNIFICANT HARM TO advertisers, publishers, and CONSUMERS”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HighwaySnowman and 0049190
zzzzzzzzzz

1990 - Microsoft was told to split into two separate companies - OS and Apps. They appealed and verdict was overturned. Main argument was that Microsoft's monopoly was good for the US from a global perspective.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: HighwaySnowman
HouseLannister said:
US gov thinks Google is too big and wants them to sell off pieces of the company. Won't that just make Apple look too big and forced to do the same in a few years? Especially if they have a browser and Google doesn't because they had to sell off Chrome.
Click to expand...
I’m not a lawyer, but I believe being big and being a monopoly are not the same. And I believe a monopoly is not illegal. It’s when you use that monopoly to keep or expand yours that gets you into trouble. Lawyers feel free to correct.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: AppliedMicro, freedomlinux, HighwaySnowman and 1 other person
HouseLannister said:
But in a few years they very well could be.

In the US, iPhone has a 57.68% market share. It's a duopoly that is very close to a tipping point. Let's say Google has to sell off Chrome and parts of their ad business. (The DoJ also said they might have to sell off Android if Chrome alone didn't do the trick.) And they have already cut jobs this year in Android/Pixel. If Google is making less money and has less people working on Android/Pixel, the quality goes down and the market share continues to swing in Apple's favor. When does the DoJ say Apple has too big a share in mobile? The EU is already getting into Apple's business in a big way and it is only a matter of time until the US does the same.

explodingtopics.com

iPhone vs Android User Stats (2025 Data)

How are iPhone and Android users different? This report compares iPhone and Android’s market share, user demographics, user loyalty, app downloads, and revenue.
explodingtopics.com explodingtopics.com
Click to expand...
There's no reason to worry about what could become a monopoly in the future. You can't try to prosecute on what you think might happen down the road. If it happens, then deal with it.

I personally don't think Apple has a monopoly on anything at this point.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: HighwaySnowman and picpicmac
DocMultimedia said:
There's no reason to worry about what could become a monopoly in the future. You can't try to prosecute on what you think might happen down the road. If it happens, then deal with it.

I personally don't think Apple has a monopoly on anything at this point.
Click to expand...
To put it another way, I don't think it's a "monopoly" that can be fixed via legislation. People buy iPhones because they love iPhones. Apple is not pointing a gun to our heads in any way. How do you legislate people who choose to vote with their wallets?

It's not a crime to make a great product.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: HighwaySnowman and fatTribble
Abazigal said:
To put it another way, I don't think it's a "monopoly" that can be fixed via legislation. People buy iPhones because they love iPhones. Apple is not pointing a gun to our heads in any way. How do you legislate people who choose to vote with their wallets?

It's not a crime to make a great product.
Click to expand...
Apple also doesn’t engage in any behaviour that prevents a competitor from creating and releasing a product that would compete with Apple either. Google, not so much.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: freedomlinux, HighwaySnowman, HazeAndHahmahneez and 1 other person
mrochester said:
Nothing Apple does prevents a competitor from creating a phone, creating an os and creating an ecosystem.
Click to expand...

Yes but smartphones are not the only business Apple are in and these conditions are completely arbitrary that you have just invented.

The founder of Pebble spoke about this recently. Apple allows a ton of functionality for the Apple Watch that no competitor product has access to. Result the Apple Watch will always be better than any third party option on iOS.

Why do they do this? because they don't want the competition. Exactly why Apple are being looked at for anticompetitive practices by pretty much any nation that has a flag.
 
  • Love
Reactions: HighwaySnowman
Mrkevinfinnerty said:
Yes but smartphones are not the only business Apple are in and these conditions are completely arbitrary that you have just invented.

The founder of Pebble spoke about this recently. Apple allows a ton of functionality for the Apple Watch that no competitor product has access to. Result the Apple Watch will always be better than any third party option on iOS.

Why do they do this? because they don't want the competition. Exactly why Apple are being looked at for anticompetitive practices by pretty much any nation that has a flag.
Click to expand...
Huh? Apple doesn’t stop pebble from creating its own phone and OS.

Pebble needs to compete, not build its product on the back of someone else’s ecosystem.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Angry
Reactions: gusmula, HazeAndHahmahneez, Unregistered 4U and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back