Google Pays $10B a Year to Maintain Monopoly, US Says (opens in new tab)

I'm struck by how much this seems to parallel the Microsoft DOJ case of 2001.[1]

At the time, Microsoft was bundling IE and trying to block use of other browsers. However, the browser wasn't really where the value was, and we all ended up with Chrome, while Microsoft completely missed the internet era and lost search to Google.

I find the timing of this interesting as we are seeing a shift to AI being able to answer the questions that Google once provided, and now the DOJ is saying Google blocking other search engines is anti-competitive, when that game has already been played, and the next game has already started.

Am I thinking of this correctly? Or do you think if Microsoft had been able to maintain IE dominance (which it kinda did until Chrome anyway) the internet would have ended up being shaped significantly differently?

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

Lately I have found Google to be a less reliable search engine when compared to a few years ago. Whether I am trying to find an old meme, a piece of research or even googling errors it seems like the results are never what I am looking for. And it's not just SEO spamming since things like software errors are not something people try and game. It used to be I would paste in an error and I would get a Git Issues result for exactly what I was looking for, but now I just go to GitHub or Stack Overflow directly.

""" This first phase of the trial will assess whether Google has illegally monopolized the online search market. US District Judge Amit Mehta, who is overseeing the trial, is expected to issue a decision next year on whether Google broke the law. If the Justice Department wins, it may seek remedies at the second phase of the trial to break off Alphabet’s search business from other products, like Android and Google Maps, which would mark the biggest forced breakup of a US company since AT&T was dismantled in 1984. """

We'll just have to wait until next year to see what happens.

If the DOJ's case is that Google pays $10B to Apple to exclude competitors then they're suing the wrong company. Their story is actually that Apple is the one with the monopoly that they then sell piecemeal to third parties. Therefore (if that is illegal) it is Apple's behavior they have to change.

Conspiracy theory on this:

Knowing they are heading up to this big anti-trust case, they devise the following plan. They will ensure that at least in the search-engine space they are not monopolizing, by making google worse and worse until the point that no one uses it anymore. All in time for their case. Legal defense by enshitification. By the time it happens google won't be the most-used search engine.

Honestly it's not the worst idea if I was a google bigwig.

</joke> (?)

Honestly even though ChatGPT is dumb/on-drugs at times, it's really helped find information especially when asked to mention sources, and when prompted well (you have to know your requirements and be explicit). That is until the learning cutoff of course.

But yeah - it's really hit or miss too, but between it, yandex, and all the cool niche ones I've mostly picked up from HN, like Kagi, Marginalia, etc, or weirdly enough, Bing, it seems like in the last few years it has changed from google being functionally "the way" to find info, to being a plan 'b', or 'c' .. or 'z'.

Of course I'm not denying the scope of their activities in the world, or why the would be on trial for this, just noting that for me personally it's the first time it seems like there's `less` of a functional monopoly (for me and my use).

[dupe]

More earlier discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37480271