Google Was Afraid Of Antitrust Investigation If It Acquired Twitch

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Google has never shied away from antitrust investigations before, seems odd they would now. Personally, I like the conspiracy theory that Twitch was behind the Google rumor to get Amazon to pony up more cash. ;)

Google walked away from the deal because it was deeply "concerned that about potential antitrust issues that could have come with the acquisition." Management apparently felt that buying Twitch might trigger an anti-trust investigation because they own YouTube - a competitor to Twitch (thanks to the integration of Google Plus streaming).
Click to expand...
 
Seems legit!!

Super_Mariano_Seems_Legit.jpg
 
Wonder if Google is behind the twitch.tv DDOS attack going on right now?

:D
 
If they didn't already have the live streaming component to youtube, then it would make sense to buy the tech. But since they do, they have more than enough resources to make their own tech competitive with Twitch.tv. Whether it actually becomes competitive is a whole other story dictated by the market.
 
I would hope the government has bigger anti-trust aspirations than worrying about who has the dominant streaming media site ... I like the Amazon purchase better for diversity of the Amazon products, but I wouldn't have considered a Google purchase anything remotely resembling an Anti-trust violation ;)
 
Heh.. funny to read that, since for the last couple months while the google owns twitch rumours were flying anytime someone asked well why dont' they admit it (especially after the youtube-esque music filtering) I kept saying probably anti-trust concerns.. safer to stay hidden


To bad the long run they actually were not buying them :/
 
BladeVenom said:
But to keep them unenforced requires lobbying money.
Click to expand...

Why uniquely lobbying money? 527 or campaign money works too.

In fact, anti-trust was pretty much disposed of in the 90's trying to keep the stock market bubble fueled. Everyone with an IRA/401k thought they were going to retire to their own Caribbean island and politicians could do no wrong. Great for re-election and pulling other crap that would normally get you tossed out of office.

There are countless ways for politicians to serve themselves aside from lobbying money. In fact, getting much directly to the pocket of a politician via lobbying is difficult, tracked and generally called a bribe and illegal.

I guess its easier to believe your politician got corrupted after getting there or the process is corruptible than acknowledging the your politician was corrupt from the beginning.

Sorry for the rant but if you banned lobbying altogether the corruption might be slightly dented but people talk like that's the main path of influence when its down the list actually.
 
Twitch seems like a really stupid name for well...anything. But anyhow, it's okay Google, no one wanted you to buy yet another company anyhow since you mine enough data under the facade of cheap or free services.
 
If the USA enforced anti-trust laws chances are Google would not be as large as it is.
A vast majority of the net goes through Google at some point or another which suggests monopoly.
 
ep0x73 said:
If the USA enforced anti-trust laws chances are Google would not be as large as it is.
A vast majority of the net goes through Google at some point or another which suggests monopoly.
Click to expand...
being a monopoly does NOT mean you are violating anti-trust laws, it makes it more probably.

There is nothing wrong or illegal in operating as a monopoly, how you become one and maintain one could be.
 
kbrickley said:
I would hope the government has bigger anti-trust aspirations than worrying about who has the dominant streaming media site ... I like the Amazon purchase better for diversity of the Amazon products, but I wouldn't have considered a Google purchase anything remotely resembling an Anti-trust violation ;)
Click to expand...
Uhhhhhh... antitrust laws that Google should be facing already have to do with having their fingers in everything.

Its like a railroad that owns the dominant steel mill as well as coal supply... that's the crap that antitrust laws were created for, and considering how Google has their hands in virtually every pie, and with large marketshare to boot, they certainly already qualify for corrective action.

The problem is that big business can buy the government that's supposed to police them. Its like Mexican cops, as long as you put $20 in your hand and smile, you're gold.
 
Even if Google had bought them there is no monopoly nor dose it violating any anti-trust laws after all both services are free and I agree too me it sound like conspiracy theory that Twitch cook and was most likely was behind the Google rumor.
There are other option paid subscription base option like Ustream, Livestream and Wowza.
 
Ducman69 said:
Uhhhhhh... antitrust laws that Google should be facing already have to do with having their fingers in everything.

Its like a railroad that owns the dominant steel mill as well as coal supply... that's the crap that antitrust laws were created for, and considering how Google has their hands in virtually every pie, and with large marketshare to boot, they certainly already qualify for corrective action.

The problem is that big business can buy the government that's supposed to police them. Its like Mexican cops, as long as you put $20 in your hand and smile, you're gold.
Click to expand...

The difference is that anti-trust laws in those days were designed to prevent companies using the linked services as a barrier to entry or to use them for predatory pricing practices ... Google doesn't control market entry as much as the content owners and ISPs ... they also already offer most services for free (so unless we want to ban free services there isn't much that can be done on the pricing front)

Even some of the anti-trust stuff levied on Microsoft seemed petty ... making them unlink the browser and player services didn't seem to make much sense, since both of those could be easily changed ... most of the anti-trust activities these days seem more targeted at making business uncompetitive (not improving market access) ;)
 
Never heard if Twitch.tv. I've always thought YouTube's direct competitor was Vimeo.
 
shspvr said:
Even if Google had bought them there is no monopoly nor dose it violating any anti-trust laws after all both services are free and I agree too me it sound like conspiracy theory that Twitch cook and was most likely was behind the Google rumor.
There are other option paid subscription base option like Ustream, Livestream and Wowza.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't violate antitrust laws because both services are free?

Sigh I'm past my daily dumb limit and its only 9am
 
DPI said:
Wouldn't violate antitrust laws because both services are free?

Sigh I'm past my daily dumb limit and its only 9am
Click to expand...

It isn't as unreasonable as you make it sound ... unless you want to flag Google for predatory pricing (by offering their services for free), much of the anti-trust case law is focused on companies who abuse their monopoly powers by charging excessive fees ... short of forcing Google to charge for their service offerings to allow greater market interest from competitors there isn't much you can do with them since they choose to not charge for their offerings

In this specific case there are no monopoly elements since YouTube style streaming is part of a much larger field (streaming video services) that includes competitors such as Amazon Video, Netflix, Vimeo, VuDu, Twitch, and many others ... a monopoly might actually be good, if it existed, since it would help break up the Cartel of content owners (movie studios and ISPs/Cable providers) ;)
 
DPI said:
Wouldn't violate antitrust laws because both services are free?

Sigh I'm past my daily dumb limit and its only 9am
Click to expand...

No I don't think that the case here.
Then get cup of coffee:D
 
DPI said:
Wouldn't violate antitrust laws because both services are free?
Click to expand...
Google doesn't do anything for free, the collect and sell information. Or they popularize something to corner a market and then start spamming the crap out of it with adverts. That has market value either way.
 
naib said:
being a monopoly does NOT mean you are violating anti-trust laws, it makes it more probably.

There is nothing wrong or illegal in operating as a monopoly, how you become one and maintain one could be.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Bell. You cannot have a monopoly, there has to be competition or the end result is price fixing.
 
ep0x73 said:
Tell that to Bell. You cannot have a monopoly, there has to be competition or the end result is price fixing.
Click to expand...

A monopoly achieved by sheer prowess is not illegal. But if other means other than merit are used to create or sustain a monopoly then it can be judged illegal. As one of the authors of the Sherman Act, Senator George Hoar of Masachussetts, said, a company which won the business because "nobody could do it as well as he could" would not be in violation of the act
 
naib said:
A monopoly achieved by sheer prowess is not illegal. But if other means other than merit are used to create or sustain a monopoly then it can be judged illegal. As one of the authors of the Sherman Act, Senator George Hoar of Masachussetts, said, a company which won the business because "nobody could do it as well as he could" would not be in violation of the act
Click to expand...

That would suggest Google can do it better then somebody else like Yahoo, Comcast, etc.
The fact remains Google set up by acquiring to the point that almost all net traffic goes through them and they charge when it does.

That is not competition.

Look what the FTC did to WD when they tried to acquire HGST. Even though Seagate was their competitor they still had to bend over backward to pacify them and by no means would WD become a monopoly if they were able to purchase HGST in full.

Google has friends in high places in government which turns the other way.
 
ep0x73 said:
That would suggest Google can do it better then somebody else like Yahoo, Comcast, etc.
The fact remains Google set up by acquiring to the point that almost all net traffic goes through them and they charge when it does.

That is not competition.

Look what the FTC did to WD when they tried to acquire HGST. Even though Seagate was their competitor they still had to bend over backward to pacify them and by no means would WD become a monopoly if they were able to purchase HGST in full.

Google has friends in high places in government which turns the other way.
Click to expand...
You are blurring competition/monopoly and antitrust too much.

The lack of competition is a different problem and will drive prices up, innovation down (and how a company then ensures the entrybarrier is kept hard can fall into antitrust) BUT that still isn't antitrust.

Thus is why gov'n have veto's on corporate acquisitions if they believe a merger/purchase weakens the pool. Look at UTC acquisition of Goodrich 2years ago, it was big and significantly reduced competition in parts of the aerospace sector (and why UTC had to sell the power systems sector or Goodrich to safran -UTC would have had over 90% of the aerospace power generation and distribution sector, globally)
But again that is not antitrust
 
Look at ARM, they have a near monopoly on the sector they work in. Almost a complete monopoly on mobile phone CPU arch BUT they don't run fowl of any antitrust laws as nooone wants x86 for mobiles and MIPS hasn't made even a ripple
 
Guess that goes to prove that some of our capitalist laws need some revisions.
Companies that get so large they squeeze out competitors is not good for the consumer.
 
ep0x73 said:
If the USA enforced anti-trust laws chances are Google would not be as large as it is.
A vast majority of the net goes through Google at some point or another which suggests monopoly.
Click to expand...

Right because owning and operating such a large amount of the Internet puts them in the "clear" as is so its the shadiness of Twitch that would have put them over the edge :rolleyes:

Google is far more omnipresent and part of the Internet then most people even realize. The amount of information Google passes each day across the net is staggering.

Google understood buying out Twitch raised enough eyebrows that it simply couldn't be ignored. Plus Google doesn't have a fucking clue what to do about copyright. Content ID is a failure system that is being abused by anyone and everyone. Its being used by people to scorn others because their opinions don't fall inline. Its being used by IP trolls to put claims on videos they have zero right to.

Having the DOJ investigate them and their practices would just put a magnifying glass on what is pretty much a corrupt platform full of underhanded pay offs for publicity and view counts.

Google doesn't need Twitch for any reason except to eliminate the competition. Twitch isn't a threat right now. But with Amazon behind them its absolutely a threat for Google's current profit model of streaming video.
 
there is enough laws in place.

ANY company can launch a concern with regards to a corporate takeover. Going back to the UTC buying out Goodrich: Before the USA,EU and China authorities stepped in with both Boeing and Airbus both stepped in with formal statements on the basis of reduced suppliers

The problem is then what is done... lobbying/Bribery does not help as all one company has todo is buy enough politicians to ensure nothing is done...
Take the case where a bunch of showroom firms "lobbied" senators and bam legislation came in a few states mandating cars to be sold from showrooms only and essentially make Tesla cars sales illegal...
 
Google being afraid of anti-trust is ludicris. Unless they are talking about Asia or Europe. Is Twitch big in either of those?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top