Under good Monopoly law, you would remedy the situation that got them to this point, not worry about their future. Chrome + Deals got to them to this point so that's what you unwind. If it causes Google to get weakened and AI finishes them off, that's just creative destruction at work and oh well.

▲

xnx 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The ease with which a total newcomer was able to steal share from Google is real-world evidence that there wasn't really a monopoly and that Google competitors (Bing, etc.) just sucked and didn't want to spend the money to be better.

▲

stackskipton 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Well, courts disagree with your assessment and so do I. Yes, AI is a threat to Google. How much a threat remains to be seen. From normies I know, most of them are just using Gemini or whatever is on Google front page. They are not starting most of their searches on OpenAI or other ones.

▲

arccy 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

ChatGPT feels like it's in a lot of day to day conversations these days, you even hear people mention it on the street in non tech cities

	▲	attendant3446 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Another thing I've noticed is that many people refer to everything as 'ChatGPT', regardless of which 'AI' they're using.
	▲	darkwater 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		ChatGPT has for sure the "first mover" strength for normies (you can hear it mentioned in TV, radio and in the street, but also lot of people just talk about "AI". So, IMO there is still space to be used as "the AI" rather then specifically ChatGPT. It might also just be always referred to "ChatGPT" when talking about another provider, just like people saying "Kleenex" when referring to tissues.

▲

kevin_thibedeau 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Courts also decided you couldn't bundle a web browser and then turned a blind eye when it's done on a different platform with draconian restrictions against even installing an alternate browser.

	▲	otterley 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		They didn't "turn[] a blind eye" as they weren't asked the question again. There was no legal precedent established by the Microsoft case that required all future operating systems to have a replaceable browser engine. Also, the factual situations were quite different: Microsoft had a de facto monopoly on PC OSes in the late 1990s, while Apple never had a monopoly on mobile devices.

▲

flappyeagle 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You sound old. No one I know under the age of 30 uses Google. It’s all ChatGPT

▲

makeitdouble 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You make it sound like some AI company snapped 5% of global search traffic from Google across all devices. What's the actual number ?

	▲	fourthark 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I asked Grok and Gemini and they both said there have been reports that Google search has dropped below 90% for the first time, so it’s significant but it’s like a 1-2% drop.
	▲	1121redblackgo 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'd hazard a guess much higher than 5%

▲

troyvit 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They stole share from Google because search is becoming obsolete, not because a new search engine came to town. It's like saying 5G stole market share from AOL's dial-up business. Search still has a use, and Google still takes > 90% of all search, so it's still a monopoly, and I'll add that Google is trying to leverage that monopoly to expand Gemini.

▲

8note 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

isnt the monopoly on ads, not search?

▲

brainwad 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Chrome had nothing to do with the case, though; the prosecutors were grasping at straws. The obvious remedy is to ban Google from bidding for placement, which is what happened.

▲

tick_tock_tick 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Under good Monopoly law, you would remedy the situation that got them to this point, not worry about their future.

I mean but it appears to be being remedy'd by itself why would the court proscribe something for a problem that no longer exists?

▲

stackskipton 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Because it happened. If I was stealing cable but then all shows I wanted to watch switched to streaming, should I be let off the hook because situation remedy'd itself? I'd imagine most people would say no, the fact you can no longer do the crime in the future does not change the fact you did the crime in the past.

	▲	jonas21 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		This is a civil case. The point is to remedy the situation, not to punish a crime.

▲

foolswisdom 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

We don't know at all that AI will actually make Google search moot.