This is complex but I think the Noodle restaurant anecdote misplaces blame. It sounds like their main problem has nothing to do with Google's dominance, it's the "delivery apps that charge steep fees".
More competition would not fix the problem. If there were 2-3 more large search engines, the restaurant would face the same challenge on all of them.
30
I thought the same thing. Very astute comment.
2
@Bill The person writing the article is totally unfamiliar with search, how it performs on mobile versus computer, operating system, etc. The Noodle shop would face such third-party businesses, which is where its complaints should be directed.
6
It's ironic Yelp complains about Google because Yelp is well-known for using underhanded methods to force people to advertise on its site. Ask any restaurant owner what happens when you stop advertising on Yelp - all of a sudden large number of negative reviews appear under your Yelp listing.
50
Unless you are living it and have a business which is dependent on Google search you really have no idea how Google is decimating small business online. I have very successfully operated online for 16 years, and almost all of that by ranking at the top of Google organic search, not paying for ads. In the last 9 months Google had unleashed wave after wave of algo changes that have destroyed my traffic along with millions of other top ranking and top quality websites.
They use every excuse under the sun, but the simple reality is that Google is a total monopoly which needs to keep quarterly profits up at all cost. The only way to do that is to kill off the top ranking organic search traffic in the hope that they can force us to pay for what we already had. Google crossed the line last year, and it now has ZERO integrity.
Add to that the fact that Google is systematically stealing the content from everyone else's websites and presenting it on the Google site in the form of search results so they can show you more ads...while not referring any traffic back to the originating site. In other words, we slave to make the content and they make the profit.
They are a true monopoly in every sense of the word, much more of a threat than Facebook since Google is the gateway for the entire internet. Now when you run a search you will only find what Google can make a profit on, period.
69
Whether Google is monopolistic or not, your comment is extremely biased. In your first paragraph, you state that Google helped you grow your business for 16 years, and it didn’t cost you anything. Now their algorithms are favoring paid ads, and this impacts your business model.
Then, you state that Google steals content from your page to have it show up in search results, without steering customers your way. Well, showing up in search results is about as much steering as they can do. Do you expect them to just send all potential customers directly to your site and no others?
9
@Andrew One question for you is, what solution do you propose? A government-regulated search alternative to Google? Maybe something "the best business executives" can come up with? "Best" being ones that Trump handpicks, like maybe Rupert Murdoch? I'd be careful what you wish for in this case--without a clear solution, it will be up to the powers that be to design one, and honestly, I trust Google a lot more than our current administration.
4
@Bryan
"Best" in this case is what Google's own algorithm determines are the top ranking site. What I am saying is that the best sites by Google's own definition have been hammered relentlessly. Is it possible that they are ALL suddenly inferior? I've been at the top for 16 years because I had what it took to stay on top...an authoritative site according to Google's own definition, top content and tons of quality links from other authoritative sites. When Google told us all to jump, we said "how high". We made our sites mobile ready, we switched to https, we made our sites lightning fast and optimized the user experience. Suddenly overnight we lose massive traffic and business...just this past week Google announced another update and web admins are losing 75% of their traffic overnight. This traffic is not being moved to other higher ranking sites, it's being kept by Google itself. Google is intentionally making organic search valueless so we all give up and pay them now. That is not what people expect when they search, and Google is going to lose a massive amount of trust when people realize that they are only being fed paid results.
7
Google hurt my small business for years. Their algorithm could not differentiate between two businesses at the same address. I shard a business address with my father but we were two distinct agencies. Google couldn’t figure that out even after I pointed it out to them numerous times. Their answer was that their algorithm can’t associate two businesses at the same location. And they did nothing to fix the problem. So for a decade my father’s business showed up in a Google search but not mine. And even though he’s been retired and out of business for three years now, Google still won’t eradicate his website searches. It’s really frustrating and maddening. Because basically they are the only game in town. I’m very glad that they are finally being taken to task by regulators. It’s long overdue.
68
@Mike L
google could probably have figured it out... but they simply did not care.
14
It's rich of Yelp to claim that Google is acting unfairly, when their own platform is a racket designed around the extortion of small business owners.
119
@Dave Better be wary of sue-happy Yelp, unless you have proof.
@Dave
Yelp is a total waste of human energy. All it does is gather and echo the worst impulses of the humans that use it. Humans love to log in and complain when they feel sleighted in any way.. and rarely log in to actually praise for a job well done. Sure some do.. but they get diluted by all the negative impulse junkies.
By the way.. this is true anywhere on the internet where people gather to give feedback. Just look at any Amazon review.. where Sally gives something a 5 and rave reviews... while Johnny gives it a 1 and condemns it. It has become normal now to have to actually carefully analyzes such review systems now to separate accuracy from agenda. Personally, I look for consistency in the details in various reviews to find out what is really happening.. because it is very likely that Johnny simply did not read and/or follow the instructions sent with a given product and his condemnation is actually an indictment on his ignorance.
Please note: no actual Sally's or Johnny's were harmed with my comments.. they are simply labels for the sake of concise illustration.
11
@Dave
True. My 5 star review of a local bike shop was not published. I thought that was odd as I had dozens of published reviews. I asked the bike shop owner about this and he told me yelp was trying to force his hand to pay yelp. He refused. He was being punished by yelp by not publishing valid customer reviews.
8
Too late.
Let's talk about near monopoly market power being able to throttle a small company's growth AND at the same time choke off a citizen's free speech on important national & global issues. I'm an American living overseas. We set up a photographic African safari business in Africa 25 years ago. Our business is premised on educating people about the key role that they as tourists can vote with their vacation dollars. What we have learned is that photographic wildlife safaris play a crucial role in preserving African wildlife, the animals' habitats, supporting indigenous local communities (job creation like guides) and it's a sustainable economic development model for developing economies. It is also a viable counterweight to hunting, poaching, and unbridled urban sprawl. But guess what? Can we tell our prospective visitors this on Facebook, even though they have expressed an interest in conservation? No. Despite going through a tedious process of proving that I am a US citizen & having Facebook confirm this, because I'm overseas and my safari business is in Africa, I can't weigh in on critical global issues like conservation, poaching, trade in ivory & rhino horn. We've had our FB posts with these news stories rejected, including stories from the NYT. And guess what, we have no recourse. There is no court of appeal or review. It's not right that a private company should have this amount of power over citizens' livelihoods and rights. Congress please step up!
1
What's going on here is really quite interesting. Respectfully, Mr. Ding is confused. If you search for his establishment using the term "handpulled noodles NYC" or "handpulled noodles Harlem" you will in fact get a link to HIS ad, but it will NOT be at the top of your search results. The top spots are occupied by the delivery services (e.g., GrubHub), which have paid the search engine (I used both Google and Bing) to put them in the top spots.
I don't see any legal way the federal government can solve this problem. If I were Mr. Bing, I would continue to emphasize that customers can order directly from him at lower price.
I wholeheartedly agree with having these investigations to somehow hold these tech giants accountable for what they are causing to businesses, particularly the small ones who don’t have big law firms to fight them.
What I don’t want to see is a Trump approach which is always about getting big money. He has always shown a bias against any big company that makes more money and has more name recognition than his businesses.
@LT Sorry, you are confused. Mr. Ding's problem is that delivery services (e.g. GrubHub) are paying the search service (e.g., Google or Bing) to put their ads higher on the search results page. Both of these search engines also deliver Mr. Ding's online ad, but it is lower on the search results page. What do you expect from these "tech giants?"
These companies surely are destroying my small business. I'm totally powerless.
Tripadvisor claims to be a review aggregator, a place where people can find out what users think of products, but they actually blatantly tweak the results. You only get to see the products of companies that sell through them. So even though I've been #1 Tour in Brooklyn on their site based on positive reviews, you can't find my business if you look for things to do in Brooklyn. They use a series of obfuscating keywords like in the gist of "look for things to do" and "what's available this month" and so show only the items they sell.
Imagine if your yellow pages removed the entries in the directory section for many of the top service professionals, and showed some amateurs because the amateurs paid. How would that be okay? But there is absolutely no one to complain to when tech companies make transparently greedy moves. No one. I've tried doing the one thing I can: scream into a pillow. It didn't help.
6
@Frieda Vizel What is the name of your business?
"But when the F.T.C. asked for comments last year on whether the modern economy required a new approach to consumer protection and competition, the commission received more than 750 letters, many targeting the tech companies."
Wow! What an overwhelming response - 750 letters from who exactly and out of how many businesses in the US? Is that the best support gov't or press can get to support of Elizabeth Warren's pet project?
1
Not to worry Google, Apple etal, When you start donating money to Congressmen/women they will definitely vote in your favor while maintaining their integrity as an independent representative "of the people".
If anyone believes that I have a bridge for sale to the lowest bidder...
1
@jfr I suspect there's already a lot of money changing hands already.
This is an old story. A hundred years ago it was electrictiy. CATV is probably the most recent example. A business becomes so wildly successful that people can't imagine doing without it, then complaints by competitors and calls for government to put its thumb on the scales of competition by regulation. Soon customers consider the availablity of the business services a necessity of life and start complaining about rates, customer care and whatever other grudges or dislikes they have, and join in the call for government regulation. The business then becomes a victim of its own success as governement(s) discovers "rights" that customers and competitors have in what the business provides.
4
This is a problem which has sadly been allowed to grow to immense proportions while EU has competition authorities have acted bravely, but desperately slowly, and US regulators have for years turned a blind eye to the sins of these US-resident tech giants.
Years have been wasted as regulators have been blinded by science, bogged down in complexity or hiding behind the principle that there's no case to answer unless a consumer can be shown to have encountered higher prices - even where products are ostensibly free.
Unfortunately, the myriad market abuses alluded to in this article are often nuanced and hard to define. We need an initiative of true scale led by individuals with rare wisdom and integrity and backed by unflinching political commitment.
The US also needs to get around to the realisation that unless these big three - Google, Amazon and Facebook - are regulated firmly enough that they lose significant scale and market value, global business could be hugely damaged for decades.
2
Apple does not let you purchase books on the Apple Kindle app. The work around is you open the amazon web site and then buy the books there then click to deliver to your kindle.
That's the behavior of a monopoly.
6
Amazon's business model should be scrutinized next. Trouble is brewing there too with massive impact on smaller businesses and obliteration of competition.
8
@Dan Bezos invented the better mousetrap, and should be punished for doing so? Businesses have always come and gone, granted not with this comet hitting the earth rapidity. Yes, tough times, but evolve or die.
I do wish there were viable alternatives to these behemoths, but there aren't. Wart-Mart has been struggling to play e-commerce for years; someone there needs to lose their job. Horrible search engine, charging for shipping or even in store pickup. In the meantime, I have ordered items on Amazon, and they were shipped from Wal-Mart!
Lately, at least half my orders are now here in one day without charge beyond my Prime membership.
While Amazon has made it tough on many local businesses, they have allowed small mail order driven ones to flourish............and ship fast.
I don't like monopolies any more than the next guy or woman. But I have zero complaints about Amazon other than where time and unintended consequences may lead.
Over time, Big Tech companies may be molded into railroads and electricity producers -- common carriers that must be regulated to avoid monopolizing or suppressing innovation in downstream markets that depend on their services.
Implementing this vision will require international coordination, however, which today is not a strong suit for the US government. Because of negligible entry barriers on the Internet, competitors in China and other countries are well-positioned to take over as technology leaders if and when the US hobbles Big Tech.
In our desire to improve, let's try to avoid unintended consequences.
5
Some of these companies have grown bigger and powerful simply by buying out potential competition or unashamedly copying their features -- like Facebook buying Instagram and copying Snapchat. The best way to regulate big tech is not allow these companies to get even bigger.
6
Hardcore bullies complaining about even bigger bullies.
5
“They are actually attacking our companies, but we should be doing what they are doing,” Trump said.
I'll be thinking about that one for a while. I know what he said, but what did he mean?
9
@Orthoducks Whew! I'm not the only one.
Does anyone still think FB or G or A are good for our country, at this point?
If so, why?
4
It's interesting to see the issues that exist between companies and google/facebook/amazon. They have no issue with potentially outsourcing work, low balling workers, and deregulation/monopolization within their own industries, but I guess a service that provides information to consumers free of charge "needs controlling" by the supply side of our economy.
The noodle shop seems to have a larger issue with the cut that food delivery apps take. Yelp is also notorious for extorting payment from restaurants. Their complaints that "lower quality" content is what pops up first is laughable in my view.
I don't see what sort of viable solutions exist. When it comes down to it, a search engine will have somebody at the bottom of the results list, or even worse, on page 2.
If we want to fault google for saving us from mapquest and yahoo maps (which were frankly awful) and demand that they cater to businesses what level of control is reasonable? Should Joe Schmo be able to control an address location indefinitely? Do we want google to become a wiki map or have a search engine that is built for and by businesses?
Isn't the point of antitrust suits to help the consumer? Not make it easier for businesses to extract a profit?
8
@Robert When you start by saying "I don't see what sort of viable solutions exist," it's a pretty good bet that you won't find any.
If you think the big data companies are an unalloyed benefit for consumers, you haven't been paying attention. But the way your comment is worded makes me suspect that you've been working pretty hard at not paying attention.
4
@Robert Some really valid points there..
Another thing that struck me in the article was Rosanne Cash co-chairwoman of the Artist Rights Alliance saying musicians must put their songs on YouTube,this had me scratching my head as no one is forcing them to do that,their doing it because there's a market for it and YouTube makes it easier for them to reach it...
1
This issue goes beyond restaurants. I work in a Bay Area public school district that is desperately underfunded due to Prop. 13 and absurdly low property taxes. We beg for handouts from neighboring tech giants. They say, "OK, use our products and we'll give you 10% of what you need with a promise to do more later." So we use things like Google Classroom and don't complain. And we watch our best teachers move to Portland, Seattle, Denver, and Austin. I just bought a van so I can "live" closer to work. Go America!
26
@Teach for America
Those moving to Portland might be in for a rude surprise. Oregon has underfunded public education for years. The legislature recently passed a new business tax to help with the problem. Guess who’s try to get a special exemption written into the law? Intel. The same company who uses lots of H1B visas because it claims there are not enough well educated people here to hire.
11
@Teach for America
Its like a drug dealer offering a free first hit to hook you. There is certainly blame to go around. Best solution is just don't use it and vote for responsible Gov't.
Our Gov't is highly corrupt and its on both sides of the fence. No wonder America is a sinking hole!
10
@Teach for America Prop. 13 is your problem. Need to reverse that law; bad unintended consequences that go beyond school funding. PS Portland and Seattle are just as bad now; too many in CA moved there to avoid the taxes and fees they 'voted in' via the representatives and politics they supported.
Today I got packages with my Prime 2 day shipping, I downloaded a free Prime book, watched a free Prime movie and listened to free Prime music and I don’t want a noodle maker or a billionaire screwing it up.
7
Lunch is free on the hamster wheel.
11
@Rich Murphy I agree. The complainers all seem to be business people that want to charge consumers more money for the same stuff.
3
@Roberta
The complainers are writers who wrote the book that was downloaded.
The complainers are handcrafters and small shopkeepers who put together the item that was bought.
The complainers are artists that make the music that this person listened to.
Good luck enjoying prime with no product, and your book with no content and your music app with no music. Just keep dismissing the people who toil as complainers while you relish their work and keep placing orders. How can this go wrong?
2
Speaking for myself, I carefully look at search engine result sets and avoid clicking the ads for businesses I hope to support. I’ve bought search engine ads so I know firsthand how expensive the clicks are: a couple of bucks each, usually.
And, yes, I’m the guy who avoids using cash back credit cards when I can: the cost of cash back often comes out of the merchants’ hides.
I wish high schools could teach this kind of stuff in their media literacy curriculums. It’s part of life as a householder (consumer) these days.
16
Go back to Excite and Yahoo and see how like your search results.
4
One of the legal theories used in anti-trust litigation against Microsoft 20 years ago was that it was unfairly bundling products together to disadvantage competitors. Remember Netscape and the famous internal email calling to "cut off their air supply" by giving away products for free that Netscape sold.
In the age of connectivity, of services that aren't discrete, the utility of a service is dependent on linking them. Info may not want to be free, but it does want to be linked. The fundamental asset of Facebook is its ownership of the social graph.
If we want to be free of the hegemony of the surveillance economy, we need to regulate the assembly of these databases. The Construction constructed 2 centuries ago can't preserve our freedom if some way can't be found to define the collection of data ad something other than 1st Amendment free speech.
3
How could/would anybody in their right mind not think that Big Tech is a bully and doing everything it can to crush any competitors and control everything? Common sense, people.
12
Politicians have difficulty trying to determine which bathroom someone should use.
And we are expecting them to resolve slightly more complex issues - about customer experience, patents, privacy infringement, etc? How?
And, tweeting noisily will not solve this issue!
6
It's not just the up and alive businesses who suffer from Google. It's the want-to-be in business businesses who suffer. But the inverse is true of the Noodles in Harlem Business. New Businesses want anonymity to operate without being "rated", placed against some other business incorrectly in a web search, and or have their business data which cannot be masked, exposed in a NoSQL search. They want their IP to be protected. All of my creations, all of my IP has been summarily stolen by users of the internet. Even with a US trademark.
I don't have the resources in any capacity to "go after" those thieves. But Google and all the "search" engines enable people to steal IP.
As a consumer, I use the YP.com to find businesses. Open web-based searches requires me to search over and over and over for simple businesses, such as cat sitters. Why do the aggregators (Rover) get such prominence in Google Search, when in fact, cat sitting is a personal service?
To the businesses out there, savvy researchers go beyond the google search and frankly, they have to go out in the world to find the best dumpling restaurants, not the internet.
4
Big tech the single biggest job creator in the last 10 years. Classic NYT, consistently bashing the biggest threat to its business model. These companies are the lifeblood of the American economy, the main differentiator in American competitiveness. But let's bash "big tech" because it's cool and we think we can bring back the economies of yesteryear.
6
I don’t understand the noodle example. If I search the noodle place, the place is shown right in the top. I also want to have some other options based on similar interest, and if I’m distracted it is my action.
Google has diligent effort to serve best searching experience and it has more responsibility for people who search since it is a search engine. Nobody wants to have a single dimension information when they use it.
3
@ming Their complaint seems to be that google also includes an ad from a third party food delivery service. The delivery service takes a cut of the sale.
Ironically their preferred in house delivery option utilizes google to help users clarify their address.
2
@ming Because this article is causing people to search for a single restaurant, the search algorithm is probably pulling it up first as a way to optimize results and reduce search effort.
It may stay at the top for a week or two now.
And who are the biggest abusers of H-1B visas? Ah, yes! Big tech.
I’ll be writing my Senators and Congressman.
14
@NorthernVirginia Dell's world HQ is a mile from me. When I drive through the campus, it's like visiting India. The HR Director is Indian. Don't tell me that some of those jobs can't be done by Americans, Mr. Dell. Especially HR!
2
Disenfranchisement never goes down easy.
The politicians and regulators will politely listen to the complaints and then decide to issue some fines, perhaps some large ones. The organizations being investigated will then offer useless and disingenuous apologies and continue laughing all the way to their banks and investment advisors offices. And don’t forget their lobbyists doling out steak, lobster, champagne and other treats to ready, willing and greedy politicians and regulators as they all congratulate themselves upon reaching a just remedy for all here. I am sorry for the plight of the aggrieved businesses here but you never had a chance.
7
The problem is not individual companies in one particular line of business creating a monopoly and controlling markets and employees.
It's 'Business Bigness.'
When companies get too big, they start having an outsize effect on their customers and workforce. Why are salaries in private security so low? A few companies dominate, and they're the only employers. When there's only 4-5 businesses in a market area, they start to act as if they were monopolies, eliminating price competition and crushing small competitors.
The FTC, DOJ, and litigation can't effectively oppose monopoly and oligopoly, because getting big grows businesses' power and profits. It's like trying to hold back the tide.
What we need is a MARKET/financial force to oppose the benefits of being big. The solution is changing how we tax businesses. Right now they're taxed on a number they can manipulate, and do-"profit." The biggest and most successful corporations pay no taxes.
We should enact a graduated tax on GROSS income- how much money comes in, regardless of what they do with it.
When a company can cut its tax bill in half by splitting up into 50 smaller (still huge!!) businesses, there's a real incentive to split up instead of gobbling up competitors. And when a merger would increase taxes from 10% to 25%, of gross, anyone could see it doesn't make business sense.
Antitrust just can't keep up. Financial incentives are the invisible hand of regulation.
6
Start today and never stop: Always use another search engine other than Google.
Please someone develop a paid search engine that will allow strict standards for privacy.
Please, I implore you, let's all turn this worm!
13
Yeah but... have you ever actually tried to find anything on DuckDuckGo?
2
@Lana Lee
I give WolframAlpha credit. They actually provide accurate information in their results. The philosophy behind it is that certain facts are simply knowable, so Wolfram has a team dedicated to compiling it and making it (relatively) easily accessible. No meandering opinions and links that may or may not have any bearing on the search. As close to Star Trek’s computer as it gets.
I would think the government could create a similar online resource.
2
@Lana Lee Yes; 50 times a day I'd estimate. DDG works great for me. And no ads scrolling down the left 1/4 and right 1/4 of the screen. And Firefox takes me there. If Finding Something Easily means clicking on those floating ads then no; those ads give me the creeps.
3
The article as a whole is interesting, but makes one glaring mischaracterization in its backstory. It's highly disingenuous to suggest Oracle is the "little guy" or bullied party in the Oracle-vs-Google fight.
Oracle is suing Google in order to extend the definition of patentability to include the concept of how software is organized. This request has previously been smacked down hard [0], and appropriately so. Allowing Oracle's redefinition of patentability would prevent any organization from clean-room reimplementing any computer product, and eliminate any interoperable alternate implementations from other vendors (like Ximian's Mono reimplementation of .Net).
Oracle is fighting tooth-and-nail to achieve the perfect monopoly, so that it could preempt any competition, and collect licensing fees for every Android phone ever produced. If Oracle wins, they would be able to lock out and control competition at the platform level, likely preempting the majority of complaints the article presented.
0: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120531172522459
8
@Nick
I'll just write it. Google stole the base programming of Android. You probably program, so you know this.
Oracle has every legal right and standing to own and receive compensation for the billions and billions generated by the product Android, now owned exclusively by Google.
The case went on Appeal, Oracle appealing, and the legal issues are not about "exclusivity" of software ownership.
If Oracle wins at all, they will receive a large portion of the profits from Android.
Cases are not mere targets where one party pierces the center over and over and wins all.
The judges in the Appellate Court will make many determinations, including one that maybe they cannot make a determination at all.
1
Recall how Bill Gates and Microsoft operated as they rose to the top. Think Steve Jobs and Apple having it their way.
Two of today's heroes, doing a lot of good in person and in spirit.
Some of today's bullies are the named persons and companies in this article. Time to turn them and the rest toward fostering the common good. Their wealth is assured.
Power versus power. So it seems that the job is up to Congress
2
The story here isn’t about how Washington is about to something (it likely isn’t), it’s about how it has done nothing for the longest time, mostly because legislators have been bribed to do nothing, and their private greed trumps the public good.
10
Some things never change. I worked as a temp at IBM during the anti-trust suit and it was very clear then that the US government could not afford to take on big blue. All the best lawyers were on one side and it wasn’t Uncle Sam’s. Pretty much the same thing happened when the US tried to take on Microsoft. Sure it wasn’t as clean a victory for MS but the end result was less than a slap on the wrist. So why do the yahoos currently in government believe they can get a better result this time ‘round? Better to nationalize the physical infrastructure and ensure totally open and neutral transmission of all content and let true competition begin.
10
@Connie Szeflinski
Connie: This isn't a US v. Big Business, this is Europe v. US Big Business and Europe won. That creates a legal precedent. We, in the US courts, do in fact recognize court decisions, in particular those that involve our nation's companies.
Yelp, and other major corporate compnies ORACLE being one of the largest database companies anywhere, and beyond the database, all technology, and the smaller, legally defenseless, businesses all have specific complaints which go beyond monopoly.
You have to know that internet searches are performed with very sophisticated database tools one which is deadly in my opinion - NoSQL. There can be no nationalization of SQL programming for the internet, and this is coming from a person who does database and other programming.
1
Yet it is totally okay to access these behemoths via one of the few internet providers -- the real villains.
8
Re: Washington is all ears
Washington may be all ear - but doing something about it ?
The NY Times , 4 days ago
"Democratic Candidates Woo Silicon Valley for Donations, Then Bash It"
"some of her party’s leading presidential candidates spent the weekend canvassing Silicon Valley to raise money from one of the nation’s wealthiest and most liberal bastions."
Then look up the top donors of Nancy Pelosi, Campaign Committee, 2018
Facebook Inc
Alphabet Inc (The parent Co of Google)
Salesforce.com
University of California
Intel Corp
That is Big Tech, is an essential campaign donor to Democrats - and the 2020 elections are already underway
Indeed, one can see the sudden interest of Trump's administration in investigating Big Tech as an attempt to cut of the cash flow from S.V. to Democratic Candidates
Money is the mother's milk of politics
6
@Woof Then we should change campaign finance laws.
1
"Google, Apple and the other tech giants have pushed back vigorously against the idea that they act anticompetitively. They say that they compete with a broad array of firms..."
Broad array is hyperbole, but the tech giants do compete. They compete with one another to buy startups and their innovative technologies before they can become serious competitors.
No one seriously believed that existing anti-trust concepts backed by a regime of lax and often politicized enforcement were going to suffice in the radically new environment of the electronic age. But with rapidly evolving technologies it takes awhile for the needs of the new regulatory landscape to take form. And nothing is gained by making premature guesses about where the arrow is going to land.
If in this fractious age players on all sides of the political spectrum have arrived simultaneously at the conclusion that the status quo is intolerable, that's a good sign that the time for public action may be upon us. Let's hope some consensus emerges about how to proceed.
Here, as elsewhere, choices will need to be made between regulatory options that maximize market mechanisms as against those that are purely prescriptive. One tool for making market mechanisms more viable is a federal law that imposes a more sophisticated template on corporate existence based on varying commitments to public interest function. Now we have profit and non-profit corporations at two extremes, with little in between. That may not work.
3
This article should get cross referenced with the FCC stance on net neutrality and also mention SB682 which intends to restore some neutrality by internet service providers. SB682 is up for discussion. tomorrow.
4
@Margo And call your senators.
“The Retail Industry Leaders Association, the lobbying group that represents Walmart, Target, Home Depot and other major retailers, complained that the internet was now at the center of consumers’ decision-making and “controlled by a relatively small number of highly influential firms.”
Now ain’t that ironic, the big box stores that destroyed so many local economies, emptied downtown shopping districts and bankrupted small businesses nationwide are feeling threatened by tech giants like Goggle and Amazon. Walmart a leader in retail employee income stagnation and abuse and now pursuing an aggressive automation program of substituting robots for human workers is especially hard to feel sorry for.
Regardless, modern day monopolistic capitalism is destructive both to market competition and society in ways that go beyond the old model of gauging impact by consumer costs alone. The distortion of the public square by social media has negative implications that we are only now understanding and Goggles YouTube is playing a large part in that. Amazon is doing for business large and small what it did for bookstores nationwide and like Walmart is guilty of employee exploitation in their fulfillment centers and aggressively pursuing automation over humanity.
The tech giants and the tech bros like to promote the idea that their a benevolent force. They’re not, they are the trusts of today and like Teddy Roosevelt once did to the monopolistic trusts of his day, break them up!
12
@John Chastain I had the same thoughts!
It seems the dominant business model in Silicon Valley is selling the property of others (whether intellectual property, their personal data, or the temporary use of their car, home, etc) for private profit. Let's call it their official motto: "Our business is your business."
22
@Will
You nailed it Will.
1
@Will And vice versa!
Trump and his admin are not interested in breaking up a "monopoly" for the public good. They are interested in having Google come to heel and do their bidding, and to decrease the clout of all the revenue their employees give to blue state causes. Before NY Times readers shout for blood they should realize this. The example given, Handpulled Noodle, doesn't jibe with me. I read this and then searched it using Google, Bing, then DuckDuckGo. Same result, except Bing placed the actual business even lower in the end results than the services the owner is complaining about. Be careful what you wish for-- we are throwing Trump into the briar patch, and his prize for tangling with Big Tech is to ensure re-election.
3
This article should be cross-referenced with the article "Elizabeth Warren Has Lots of Plans..." Breaking up big tech is one of her plans.
12
" Spotify recently argued to European competition authorities that Apple used its App Store to punish Spotify’s app and favor Apple’s competing service."
In this case, isn't this the 'pot calling the kettle black'? Spotify has been ripping off content providers - the core of it's service - since it's inception. It's almost Trumpian in it's hypocrisy
5
Ah yes, another new enemy who is not us.
Pogo is way out of style. Now, we have met the enemy and it is not, no, no, never us.
3
Oracle is no victim.
5
A lot of the problem is tech is providing transparency on some level that hurts the little guy. For example, Linked-in allows an employer to look for workers all over the country. They can judge how many people are "available" and who will be willing to relocate. Thus, the inefficiency of the market is removed. In such a society, the exceptional people get paid very well because their are so few of them. But the average professional now has to compete with some many more people instead of a few submitted resumes. Thus, their bargaining power and salary goes down. Meanwhile Linked-in make a huge profit by charging both employers and job seekers to list on their site. Is it fair? There are no clear answers.
3
This is the most intriguing headline I’ve seen in a while. Thanks, NYT!
3
Google: Mostly Evil. In Your Facebook.
1
The issue is how much tech has changed our behaviors and how much our behaviors are coerced by the big 4. You could say cars put horses and buggies makers out of business. But that process could have been hastened by acts (possibly illegal) by the car makers to hurt horse and buggy makers such as manure disposal laws. Decisions should be made on what is good for society and not just profit. Competition is good for consumers. Companies should not be able to use a tech platform to get into other businesses. That is monopoly extension. In an ideal world, hardware should be separate from software. You should be able to run any operating system on any hardware you buy. Thus, Apple should not control an app store. Amazon should just provide a platform and not supply products that compete with its sellers. Google should not be able to distribute content for free.
Unfortunately, once the lawyers get into the game, they whole system is perverted.
2
You seem to be making the argument that piles of horse manure spread all over the streets of 19th century America was a good thing.
Most everything has computers in them. Take autos: Are you arguing that if one buys a Ford car one should be able to install a car OS from GM? Closely mated software to hardware is what makes for ease of use, safety, security, privacy. You may choose to live in a world where all of this is precluded. I and most others do not.
2
Google has done more to advance human knowledge than any other corporation.
5
@Kevin Cahill
The ends do NOT justify the means.
My career was in the big technology sector of our economy.
They deserve to be taken down and taken apart in my view... because they have accumulated too much power and control over public narratives. Too much of any kind of power in the hands of a few (ie: the CEOs and Board) corrupts.
Even the appearance of being taken to task by the public and regulators can and will alter behaviors to bring them more closely in line with ethical boundaries. Whereas left unchecked.. it's like a run away nuclear reactor waiting to melt and harm the public.
8
@Chuck I agree-but the problem is "too much market power" not "tech." The problem is 'Business Bigness.'
We should be looking for ways to prevent ALL companies from always doing better when they get big enough to choke out competition. Antitrust suits don't work. They're too slow and too uncertain.
Since Teddy Roosevelt, we've know that it's bad for the nation when companies get too big. How big is too big? Big enough to choke out competition and become a monopsony employer. At a guess, at least the 500 or 1000 biggest companies in the US are 'too big' by that measure.
We need to tax 'bigness.' That's the only way I can think of to oppose the market forces that favor consolidation
High tech is not anyone's friend.
38
While I sympathize with the small businesses who have been hurt, some of the complainants - Walmart, Oracle, Yelp - collectively comprise a rogue's gallery.
* Walmart did to its smaller rivals what Amazon is now doing to them, apart from paying its employees sub-sustenance wages that has forced them to apply for food stamps.
* Disgust with Oracle, led by blowhard Larry Ellison, led many of its customers to switch to Microsoft SQL Server and the numerous open-source database offerings. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Corporation#Controversies.
* Regarding Yelp, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelp#Controversy_and_litigation.
32
Google controls the digital ad business and if they decide not to let you put ads on your content, you are basically finished. Youtube creators, blogs, newsletters, and newspapers have all experienced this. And there is no appeal process, Google made the rules and there is nothing you can do once they ban you for whatever reason.
3
These days, anything the government doesn't control, Apple, Facebook, Google, or Amazon does. That's it in a nutshell: The United States has become the land of five giant entities that control literally everything.
I'd say it's like something George Orwell imagined, but even he couldn't have imagined this.
Nor is it like some post-apocalyptic wasteland. In fact, it's more like some kind of bizarre futuristic utopia, similar to those depicted in The Matrix, Minority Report, or Demolition Man.
Seriously, where's Rod Serling when you need him?
1
Except if your running real advert blockers in your web browser, a search for “Handpulled Noodles” pulls up the restaurant’s webpage and reviews first.
Lower down the results page there are couple of delivery services. But most seeing these results would contact the restaurant.
Submitted June 10th 4:50 PM eastern
1
@Yaj Did you test it on mobile, Windows, Apple, etc? Search results can vary. Otherwise, your "test" is meaningless, except for what device you were using at the time of the search.
1
@Thomas:
Learn about web browsers and advert blockers; yes, advert blockers exist for mobile browsers too.
You're correct, I didn't use a mobile device, but that's hardly the only search method, and some people turn of gps tracking.
The fact that you reference Apple, Windows (which is barely an mobile OS any longer), etc and not web browsers tells me you don't understand my comment.
Here are some mobile browsers: Safari, Chrome, Opera, Firefox. There are others.
Submitted June 10th 8:32 PM eastern
Americans are one giant product for Big Tech nothing more. It is only about the Benjamins.
23
@Jacquie That's all its about. After assisting the newspaper business into its free-fall that started when inserts replaced ROP advertising (Google it), Google simply cannot be blamed for the ruination of the newspaper industry. I'm a newspaper veteran of more than 30 years. Our bottomlines at small weeklies and dailies took huge hits when third-party inserts were mailed to us for grocery-store, tire-store and other large stores for their advertising. Gone were full-page ads, ROP advertising, double-truck (facing pages) advertising, etc. Google had NOTHING to do with that. The newspaper business has been on a decline since radio, then TV, then inserts, then a public that just does not digest traditional objective journalism, but would rather watch newstainment, which social media has made even more popular ~ a disgusting but very real development. Witness the lackless and talentless Kardashians. Well, I suppose the have a talent for self-exposure. I'll give them that. It's not their fault Americans are so sheepishly stupid.
6
The core problem is that these big "platforms" refuse to allow regular people to be their customers. If you think I'm wrong, try to buy their services without them first selling the ability to advertise to you and to buy your data. Even if you pay for specific services, you're not the customer, you're the product. And no one ever changes the product for the benefit of the product.
7
Amazon and Facebook should be required to spin off all their competiors that they have forced to sell to them. If Google has been as ugly, it should be given the same treatment.
2
@David Lindsay Jr. While I share some of your view, that simply isn't possible in all cases because of integration. That is why Facebook is stumbling over itself to make What's App, Instagram, Messenger and Facebook into an organic whole that works together. While that may be impossible, even Facebook realizes there is growing antipathy in America toward these over-sized monopolies that are stifling innovation.
man....these guys have been keeping me down my whole life..
1
We have collectively - from the government to the people - given all power and control to 3 companies - Google, Facebook, Amazon.
A person can not function economically in our society without using their “platforms”. And even if you do choose homelessness to “opt” out any services you require from healthcare to government are using their platforms and punching you into the system.
It’s insane that we have handed over such immense power with no regulatory controls to these three companies. Insane.
Break them up. Regulate. Stop them from quietly buying up every industry from our health care to car automation.
Knowledge is power. Data is knowledge. No company or government should have the sheer depth of knowledge/data these companies have acquired. Once they do they become dictators. And that is something we should all be fighting.
25
@Christine Simpson
Why do you need Facebook? Or Amazon?
I don't use Facebook at all. I have used Amazon once since it started. I do use Google but I could avoid it and often choose to us Bing, for example, though I doubt it is much better.
Though I have lived in Mexico for several years now, my use of the commercial internet goes back to the beginning. And I was a small business owner who had to communicate extensively over the internet, way before Amazon became a player of note or Facebook existed.
1
@Christine Simpson It's ridiculous to say there is "no regulatory control." One could argue, however, that "there should be more regulatory control," especially in the monopolization arena. These companies are already dictators on their own platforms. That horse was out of the barn years ago.
@J Chaffee Bing has some advantages over Google, but in terms of search, Google rules. Hands down. No competition. A business does not need Facebook; but it needs Google in many cases.
Let's not forget that Yelp extorts restaurants. They are not the good guys in this battle.
https://nypost.com/2014/10/13/restaurant-fights-yelps-alleged-extortion/
54
@Max I wish for Yelp's bankruptcy. My opinion. Protected by the First Amendment, in case sue-happy Yelp wants to sue me.
3
Again ladies and gentlemen of the editorial board, you've either been smoking something interesting or not doing any fact checking.
In your piece, the "retail industry" is represented by three players - all true retailers and none into anything more creative than developing new marketing strategies. Gross revenue in 2018 for these three was $642,434,000,000.
The bad guys numbered four companies - none totally focused on retail and three of which have been making amazing strides toward changing the world into a better place to live. Those three companies had gross revenues in 2018 of $642,017,000,000.
We don't really know where to put Facebook - as a distributor of hate or a promoter of family and friends. So let's leave Facebook out of the equation.
The truth is that Amazon is keeping the retailers honest by providing a price point from where we can start our bargain search. The retailers hate that! Can you imagine the audacity of a customer having more information than the retailer about the products they sell?
You guys and the politicians in Washington are playing the "ready, fire, aim" philosophy of politics and big retail - stop something we don't understand. Did anyone fight back when Hudsons became Target and sold the very same merchandise for a third of the price?
You are the New York Times, get the facts before you publish an opinion. We really need you guys to get it right every time and this piece doesn't do that.
34
@William Gross revenues mean nothing to me. Show the net revenue. Then we're talking. Until then, all gibberish. I've covered companies that have had their best gross sales years yet not make a profit and end up declaring bankruptcy. Econ. 101.
9
Amazon sells many products at a loss in order to attract users of their site and services. The price one sees on their site often isn’t a fair representation of what something costs to produce. It also isn’t a price that traditional retailers or even the manufacturers can match and also remain in business. Amazon’s prices are often artificially low (as opposed to a retailer’s being artificially high) with the losses being subsidized by investors in Amazon’s stock. For consumers this is great!...until we look around in ten years and find that all the malls and Main Streets are shuttered and independent retailers have vanished. When that day comes (and it is) we may all realize we’ve been penny wise and pound foolish...and that Amazon is now able to charge us whatever it likes.
9
@Henry
You have to rely on Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" it has worked before the industrial revolution and continues to work today.
For example, I called a guy to see how much it would cost to replace the glass in my cell phone. He gave me an answer and I liked his price so I asked his work hours he told me that he works out of a van and came to my house. My groceries are being delivered to my house at a lower cost than I could find if I were to go shopping in a traditional store.
The "Invisible Hand" and "Creative Deconstructionism" are one in the same thing and they are working.
The real losers in this entire economic shift are the REITs and those guys deserve a little comeuppance.
if all these tech companies are in the business of providing a public service then they should be regulated as such - by the public. time for the algorithms used to be made public so we can see what exactly they do and why and to whom. and we should all have the ability to have a government/public representative at the table who is there to make sure the public is being represented, not just "customers" or "subscribers" or "payers" whoever they are supposed to be.
12
@The House Dog Publicizing algorithms would be the end of Google algorithms. It's like giving away your family's secret recipe for something. Ain't ever gonna happen. Proprietary rights will always win out. After all, this is a free country. The Constitution also doesn't give the public the right to know proprietary information. Lots of case law in that regard.
Why are these companies “public service”? They are for profit. Amazon is no more a public service than Walmart and should not be regulated any more so. The NYT is anti-business. Especially those that compete with it, like Google.
@KJ
Utilities are also for profit and they are indeed regulated. Why? Because they are very big and very powerful. Large tech companies fit right in there.
If only companies that are not for profit can be regulated, that leaves American consumers at the mercy of every company that wants to spray poisons around, sell contaminated food, or kill off potential competitors.
5
I’m old enough to remember the breakup of AT&T in the 1980s. It is not a stretch to trace the success of the likes of Amazon and Google and Facebook from small start ups to monopolists, back to the opening of telecommunications opportunities made possible by that breakup. I think we are about due for another such move.
17
@Evan We got worse service, bills for in-home equipment repairs that used to be free, higher bills, etc. Yeah, I'd say AT&T was great to breakup, until you felt the nefarious effects. One good thing: it opened up computer tech. So, I guess one could say it was a win.
1
@Evan Not that I disagree with the theme you are presenting... but in today's world.. the AT&T breakup would not happen, so it's a bad comparison.
Aggregation, NOT disaggregation, is the name of the game now days... and the only checks on it are if the FTC steps in and blocks an acquisition or merger.
2
@Thomas
And 40 years later.. AT&T is bigger than ever and has more market influence then ever.
1
Peggy Noonan had it right with her recent "Fed-up with Facebook and Zuckerberg" piece . She only addressed Facebook, but it's time to start regulating all of the data behemoths.
Yes, they won the creative destruction game. But their now monopolistic ability to control data, advertising, marketing, what political thought the public sees,... is as dangerous and as much a Monopoly as Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust in the early 1900s.
With all of America's political division, most Americans are very concerned with their loss of privacy and lack of cybersecurity. Ms. Noonan indicated that these giant companies have increased their lobbying budget to $55 million and Facebook has hired Nancy Pelosi's former chief-of-staff as a lobbyist.
Whether this can be overcome, I don't know. But candidates that vote to break-up these companies and reduce their continuously growing power over our lives, that many of us hate having to give them, will get a lot of votes.
15
@Mr. Independent They are already regulated. What regulations do you propose adding to or originating? To say they are not regulated is just ridiculous. People, research before you write, please. I'm not a fan of Facebook, but my goodness, FB is regulated already in most parts of the world.
@Mr. Independent
In my view.. companies like Facebook, and their bad behaviors with customer data self-convict them for the need to be regulated.
Keep in mind, Facebook is not there to serve those with Facebook accounts.... that is just the bait to attract accounts. Facebook makes it's money harvesting your personal data and selling it through a variety of different channels to literally anyone one or entity that will pay for access. As such.. they are bad trustees of account holders data and THAT ---> need for regulation.
3
@Thomas
Facebook has wide latitude in many countries to collect, resell, and misuse the data they gather.
They for years have been very vocal about wanting to avoid any oversight and regulation. In recent years this has begun to change some... but the level of regulations on Facebook are still inadequate.. and in the US (where Facebook is incorported and resides) ..almost non-existent.
2