758
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] astrsk@fedia.io 183 points 1 month ago

Apple and Amazon next please.

[-] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 142 points 1 month ago

And Microsoft for monopoly reasons.

Add AT&T, Time-Warner, and all of the other ISPs that own streaming platforms for anticompetitive reasons.

[-] xkbx@startrek.website 39 points 1 month ago
[-] TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org 27 points 1 month ago

Ma Bell: "Just do a T-1000, pull yourself back together slowly over a decade or two."

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Enkrod@feddit.org 15 points 1 month ago

Uhh, do Disney!

load more comments (2 replies)

Frankly, Sinclair Broadcast Group needs to be shattered most urgently.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Serious question as I guess I am unaware - What does apple have a monopoly on?

edit - thanks to everyone for the detailed responses! Much appreciated

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 50 points 1 month ago

Apple engages in anti competitive practices, I'm not sure they need to be broken up as much as the US needs to follow the EU and mandate third party app stores, standard connectors, and interoperability.

[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The popular argument I've heard is that they have a vertical integration model which has been deemed monopolistic within other industries in the past.

The common example that would have been used is the old Hollywood studio system, when studios not only owned their lots where the movies were made, but they handled all of the distribution, owned most of the theaters where the films would premiere, owned their own film formats, and locked their big-name stars into contracts which had strict non-compete agreements.

It wasn't impossible to be an independent theater owner and have the ability to choose what films you wanted to show, but it was very hard and required accepting a number of conditions:

  • You will pay more for movies than the studio-owned theaters effectively do, which means your tickets need to be more expensive to pay your costs.
  • You are subjected to "block booking", where you can't show only popular movies, you are also forced to buy a studio's less popular films as bundles and give them appropriate screen time or the studios won't sell.
  • You also need to buy a studio's proprietary projection equipment, because it is made intentionally incompatible with the formats of other studios.

The studio system was eventually deemed monopolistic by the US Supreme Court in their ruling US v. Paramount, and that allowed independent theaters to thrive and for artists to switch to contract work without the strict non-compete agreements. But I have to say "the common example that would have been used," because the conservative-stacked Supreme Court revisited their ruling in US v. Paramount that banned the vertical integration model in Hollywood and decided it was no longer needed, so studios are once again free to resume those old practices if they wish.

So in the case of Apple, the monopoly criticism applies to their vertical integration model which draws some parallels to the old Hollywood studio system that was once deemed monopolistic:

  • Apple designs and produces their own devices.
  • Apple produces their own operating systems, which are exclusive to those devices.
  • Apple produces their own suite of core apps, which are given preferential treatment by their operating systems.
  • Apple develops their own technology standards, which are not available to third parties without additional licensing fees (e.g. the Lightning connector, up until the EU forced them to start adopting USB-C).
  • Apple hosts their own app store, which is the only app distribution method allowed on their mobile platforms.
  • Apple requires third-party apps to agree to their store's terms to be published on the platform, which prohibits any pricing model in which Apple does not get a cut.

For third-party app developers, it means that even if you have your own revenue model beyond Apple's involvement, you are not allowed to extend that to your iOS app without giving Apple their cut, which is why you see so many apps now just declaring that they are "for subscribers" without allowing you to subscribe in the app or giving instructions for where to subscribe. And it's not possible to publish an app on iOS without going through Apple's store and agreeing to their business model because Apple does not allow third-party app stores and heavily restricts sideloading.

Because Apple also gives preferential treatment to their own apps, it is hard to be "as good" as their own offerings, and there will always be a risk of Apple deciding to make some new category of app for a use case that third-parties currently satisfy but may get shut out of.

[-] _bcron_@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

Sometimes a writer will use what they feel is a more recognizable but 'technically incorrect' word as a colloquialism for a less-used term that's more accurate, and then go into more detail in the article, but it's good and proper to wrap that colloquialism in apostrophes ('air quotes').

But in this specific case, it was ruled that Google has a monopoly on general website searches and that they have utilized a variety of anti-competitive practices to bolster their presence as such.

Not dissimilar to Microsoft's antitrust case in the late 90s, specifically regarding Internet Explorer. It was a very small chunk of a much larger antitrust suit but they were found to have used Windows in order to stifle competition for web browsers and maintain their standing as the dominant browser (they also leveraged their market share for Windows and IE with OEMs and ISPs respectively but I'm digressing).

Microsoft was ordered to split, or spin off their browser business into a different entity, but they settled with DOJ on appeal (probably what we'll see come of this - Google will probably make a big long list of things they will change or no longer engage in, and the government will feel as though all those changes will be sufficient remedy)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Virkkunen@fedia.io 14 points 1 month ago

Nothing, really. Usually in the USA Apple escapes this type of rulings because they don't have a monopoly on anything and/or because it's argued they build the hardware for which their software run on so there isn't anti competition (which in my opinion is pure bullshit, but what can I do?)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] roofuskit@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Personally I would prefer they break up all the companies that produce, distribute, and sell our food.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 131 points 1 month ago

DoJ is edging y'all too hard here

I will believe it when I see it

[-] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago

They have the concept of a antitrust breakup.

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Agreed.

No f'in way this happens, especially not in the same week when Kamala Harris goes on national TV to say she's a capitalist.

With that said, I still hope they try. It should be inconvenient at least to run a monopoly.

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 12 points 1 month ago

It should be inconvenient at least to run a monopoly.

The best our government can do is make mega corpos pay lawyers ... So at least we got some extra jobs out of it 🤡

Since they are creating extra jobs shouldn't government reward them with state aid for it?!

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

breaking up giant corps is how you keep capitalism running.

[-] SeattleRain@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

The trail went really really badly for Google. I know it's trendy to be all nihilist with regards to government competence but they'd make way more other powerful corporations angry if they didn't break up Google.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] uberdroog@lemmy.world 48 points 1 month ago

Do EVERY other industry next.

[-] Peffse@lemmy.world 48 points 1 month ago

Google saw this coming years ago. That's why they restructured, clearly defining their different services, and became Alphabet.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] IcyToes@sh.itjust.works 45 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

As much as I want this to happen, I fear it'll drag on for years and then never happen or end up watered down where they split the company and manage them independently (a bit like BT in the UK but still owned by Alphabet.

[-] The_v@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago

The last major antitrust action on this scale in the U.S. 8 years to process.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

This type of lawsuit is why the billionaire bro's are backing the senile rapist and felon. Making them play somewhat fair ruins their business plan.

[-] firadin@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

A major issue for the US is that when the president changes, the DOJ can simply elect to stop processing the suit. It's hard to get 8 years of uninterrupted movement on an action like this.

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Msft under W for instance.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 month ago

Yeah I will believe it when I see it. I'm not convinced that actual Teddy Roosevelt-style "trust busting" is something that is even possible in the modern US.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago
  1. Aetna CVS Caremark
  2. Cigna Express Scripts
  3. fucking ticketmaster
  4. Google
  5. Kroger (and they want to merge AGAIN?)

Let's start here for now

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is why I'm excited to vote for a democrat. Does anyone think Trump wants to pursue all these cases? Nah. First thing he'll shut down is everything that might save us a dollar.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Resonosity@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

What about a BlackRock break-up

[-] unphazed@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

They get around it I think because they never seem to buy more than 45% shares... just they literally own a percentage of damn near every company

[-] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 month ago

I'll be ecstatic if that happens, but I won't hold my breath. It should have been done a long time ago for so many mega corpos, but here we are.

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

Wake me up when (if) something ever actually happens.

[-] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 21 points 1 month ago

Excellent! Break them up.

[-] Dasnap@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

Any guesses on how this would affect Android and Firefox?

I'm not 100% on how the Android business works so I'm not sure how important Goggle's involvement is.

Firefox relies on Google's 'default search engine' bribe quite a lot, and they might not be able to offer that anymore(?)

[-] secretfoxtail@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 month ago

Android has been largely gutted and depends more and more on google play services, with few exceptions like some AOSP-based roms like lineageos, iodeOS, etc

[-] Virkkunen@fedia.io 13 points 1 month ago

in In my opinion, it's likely that nothing will change. If this ever happens, Google might setup an "Android Alliance" with other OEMs which will reach agreements to keep Android as is but for the USA lawmakers and such it'll seem like everything has changed.

For Firefox, I believe Google will keep injecting money in Mozilla as long as it keeps them from having Chrome being targeted on an antitrust/competitive lawsuit or ruling.

[-] lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago

Maybe that's why they're introducing ads. 🙄

[-] Virkkunen@fedia.io 15 points 1 month ago

Mozilla is definitely trying to diversify their income to not depend on Google, but let us not forget that despite Firefox's user share declining, their AI and ad friendly CEO keeps getting raises

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Haha. OG conspiracy theory time! I was gonna say this breakup will never happen, but I could totally see it being a plutocratic quid pro quo to split Android from Google and set up an entirely new entity to start charging for the OS or closing it off as a pixel exclusive — something Google couldn't do without major backlash and probably lawsuits, unless the government "forced" their hand and compelled them. The controlling shareholders would remain the same, and the government would get to act like it's taking legitimate action, fighting for the working class, against monopolies.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 17 points 1 month ago

Shit or get off the pot.

[-] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Good. But let's not pretend they won't merge back like what the Baby Bells did back in the early aughts.

[-] FrowingFostek@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I hope they break up google. I'll keep my fingers crossed. I'm remaining cautiously optimistic.

[-] MadhuGururajan@programming.dev 5 points 1 month ago

Isn't this not possible considering that the U.S Supreme Court threw out the Chevron Doctrine?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
758 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

59789 readers
3633 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS