←back to thread

Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

(www.cnbc.com)
858 points colesantiago | 8 comments | 02 Sep 25 20:26 UTC | HN request time: 1.042s | source | bottom
Show context
stefan_ ◴[02 Sep 25 20:49 UTC] No.45108847[source]▶
When the stock pops 10% on the announcement you got your antitrust enforcement wrong.
replies(5): >>45108915 #>>45108934 #>>45109305 #>>45109323 #>>45109401 #
xyzzy9563 ◴[02 Sep 25 20:56 UTC] No.45108934[source]▶
Do you think it's better if all companies with competitive moats have a collapse in share price? I'm not really understanding what you're implying here.
replies(1): >>45109001 #
stefan_ ◴[02 Sep 25 21:02 UTC] No.45109001[source]▶
I don't understand. The court has ruled this already a year ago:

> Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly

What should be the effect of antitrust enforcement to a monopolists share price? We are looking at something structural after all.

replies(1): >>45109067 #
xyzzy9563 ◴[02 Sep 25 21:07 UTC] No.45109067[source]▶
Why should shareholders have to suffer just because the Google engineers were good at their job?
replies(4): >>45109108 #>>45109127 #>>45109279 #>>45109843 #
1. solardev ◴[02 Sep 25 21:10 UTC] No.45109108[source]▶
Because the overall well-being of a society is supposedly more important than a few shareholders' wealth?
replies(2): >>45109239 #>>45109430 #
2. xyzzy9563 ◴[02 Sep 25 21:23 UTC] No.45109239[source]▶
Do you know of any societies in the world that have a high quality of life but don’t have wealthy shareholders?
replies(2): >>45109387 #>>45109635 #
3. neoromantique ◴[02 Sep 25 21:36 UTC] No.45109387[source]▶
I know plenty with very low quality of life and very wealthy shareholders.
replies(1): >>45109810 #
4. Workaccount2 ◴[02 Sep 25 21:39 UTC] No.45109430[source]▶
Probably about 60% of Americans are Google shareholders.

Not saying we should favor share price over all else, but far more than a few wealthy shareholders will be the benefactors of this.

replies(1): >>45109654 #
5. solardev ◴[02 Sep 25 21:56 UTC] No.45109635[source]▶
They're not mutually exclusive? Especially with antitrust, where the whole point is to enable a healthier marketplace such that all shareholders of Google's competitors can also benefit (not to mention users).

It's not that high-QoL societies cannot have shareholders, it's that the stock market shouldn't take precedence over laws and regulations and anti-trust enforcement.

6. solardev ◴[02 Sep 25 21:58 UTC] No.45109654[source]▶
...owning some tiny percentage of stock, often not knowingly. Those same 60% would also benefit from having a less monopolistic Internet. Well, that's the theory at least.

I think a lot of regular users actually might prefer one company that makes all their choices for them so they don't have to deal with decision fatigue so often... the browser wars of the 90s and 2000s were not pretty, either...

7. Ray20 ◴[02 Sep 25 22:14 UTC] No.45109810{3}[source]▶
This is disgusting.

But I think this problem should be solved at the level of countries, not individuals.

Because individuals are always looking for a way to avoid taxes, they can disappear as a class, and there is not that much money if it is fairly redistributed among everyone.

In fairness, EVERY American should be taxed an additional 80-90% in favor of poorer countries. How can a country with a minimum wage of $10-20 an hour not share with other countries when billions of people make less than a dollar an hour?

replies(1): >>45110205 #
8. neoromantique ◴[02 Sep 25 22:57 UTC] No.45110205{4}[source]▶
There has never been any fairness in the world :shrug: