> 'Details about the Justice Department’s legal theories for a case against Google couldn’t be learned.'
That's what it seems like to me too.
I understand a popular opinion is that Google is too big, should be broken up, etc. But I really don't think there's a prevailing justification. Or examples of competition that they've supposedly stifled? This stinks of politics.
> The company owns the dominant tool at every link in the complex chain between online publishers and advertisers.
The same could be said about Apple - they have the dominant (actually, the only tool) at every link between iOS developers and iPhone users.
I think the case is weak. Google's a big company, sure. They're the most popular in many areas. But what about that requires anti-trust, compared to hundreds of other companies that check that same "most popular and big" box?
That's what it seems like to me too.
I understand a popular opinion is that Google is too big, should be broken up, etc. But I really don't think there's a prevailing justification. Or examples of competition that they've supposedly stifled? This stinks of politics.
> The company owns the dominant tool at every link in the complex chain between online publishers and advertisers.
The same could be said about Apple - they have the dominant (actually, the only tool) at every link between iOS developers and iPhone users.
I think the case is weak. Google's a big company, sure. They're the most popular in many areas. But what about that requires anti-trust, compared to hundreds of other companies that check that same "most popular and big" box?