Transcript
Brian McCullough (0:04)
Welcome to the Tech Meme Ride home for Friday, April 18th, 2025. I'm Brian McCullough. Today Google is ruled an illegal monopoly again, but for a different reason this time. Switch to pre orders are back on. Americans are flocking to TEMU and Shein alternatives and in the weekend long read suggestions. What if I told you 25% of community college applicants are now AI bots? And not only that, the bots are now, quote attending classes. Here's what you missed today in the world of tec. Well, it's happened again. A US Judge says Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in some online advertising tech. This is the second time in a year a court has found Google acted illegally in a monopolistic context, though this time is different from last time. Quoting the Times, Judge Leoni Brinkaima of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia said in a 115 page ruling that Google had broken the law to build its dominance over the largely invisible system of technology that places advertisements on pages across the Web. The Justice Department and a group of states had sued Google, arguing that its monopoly in ad technology allowed the company to charge higher prices and take a bigger portion of each sale. In addition to depriving rivals of the ability to compete, this exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google's publisher customers, the competitive process, and ultimately consumers of information on the open Web, Judge Brinkema said. The government argued in its case that Google had a monopoly over three parts of the online advertising market, the tools used by online publishers like news sites to host open ad space, the tools advertisers use to buy that ad space, and the software that facilitates those transactions. Judge Brinkema ruled in the government's favor in two of those finding that Google illegally built a monopoly over publisher tools and the software system. She dismissed the third, the tools used by advertisers, saying the government had failed to prove that it constituted a real and defined market. Another federal judge ruled in August that the company had a monopoly in online search. He is now considering a request by the Justice Department to break up the company, with a three week hearing on the matter scheduled to begin on Monday. Judge Brinkema, too, will have an opportunity to force changes to Google's business. On Thursday, she gave both sides seven days to propose a schedule for the next phase of the case. In its lawsuit, the Justice Department preemptively asked the court to force Google to sell some pieces of the ad technology business it had acquired over the years. The government will now assess the ruling to determine what to ask the court to do to remedy the monopoly. We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half, said Leanne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs. Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective, end quote. U.S. attorney General Pam Bondi called the ruling a quote, landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolizing the digital public square, end quote. Those last two quotes are interesting to me because number one, by my math, two thirds is different than one half. But also that quote from Bondi is red meat for tea leaf readers trying to suss out how this administration will think of big tech antitrust cases going forward. Now, again, the DOJ and the 17 US states that brought this antitrust case are apparently seeking to force Google to sell off its network ad business, which is around 12% of Alphabet's total revenue. So what would this mean? Quoting Axios Forcing Google to give up its ad tech arm would be punitive, but wouldn't fundamentally change Google's business. The company still makes makes mountains of money selling ads alongside its own YouTube videos and search results. But a forced divestiture would almost certainly impact Google's top line enough to force it to recalibrate its spending on new areas of investment, such as its AI and cloud businesses. Google largely relies on ad revenue to fuel its new bets. The court drew a distinction between the markets for advertising exchanges and ad servers, where it found Google has an illegal monopoly, and the general market for display ads online, where it found Google does not. The ruling means that the judge will move on to a phase in the trial that considers what sort of penalties or remedies to impose. The search case is now in that phase as well. There the government is seeking to force Google to divest its Chrome search engine. It's also possible Google will be forced to give up its lucrative search partnership deals with device makers like Apple as a result of that case as well, end quote. Now, I don't always agree with him, but I thought Matt Stoller made an interesting point on this ruling in his the Big Newsletter newsletter. Mainly, Google is now facing momentum, sort of like a snowball going downhill, accumulating mass. Actually, this decision is now the third loss for Google. In 2023, Google lost a monopolization case to Epic Games over its control of the Android App Store. Last year the company lost a case over its control of search, and today it lost a third case over yet another line of business. These decisions build on each other. Brinkhama cited the decision in the search case to describe why Google had control over so many small advertisers. Referencing across the cases will continue to happen as we into the remedy phase. Additionally, private and state antitrust cases, like a case led by the Texas Attorney General on ad tech currently working its way through the courts, will benefit from this decision as well. End quote Nintendo this morning announced Switch to Pre orders will start in the US on April 24, with the price staying at the initially announced $450 for the console, but price of accessories will go up Quoting The Verge, the Switch 2 Joy Con Pro controller and Switch 2 camera have all gone up in price. Originally, the Joy Con was priced at $89.99 and is now $94.99. The Pro Controller has also gone up $5 from $79.99 to $84.99. Finally, the Switch 2 camera has gone from $49.99 to $54.99. Nintendo closed its announcement with an apology stating, we apologize for the retail pre order delay and hope this reduces some of the unce be experiencing. End quote not too long ago, we did a story where Insiders were suggesting ChatGPT was cutting corners to ship product, and if so, this is the sort of thing they might have caught if they had more time for testing. ChatGPT users are figuring out the location of photos using O3's image analyzing capabilities paired with its web search functionality, thereby raising privacy concerns. Quoting Tech Crunch, users on X quickly discovered that O3 in particular is quite good at deducing cities, landmarks, and even restaurants and bars from subtle visual clues. In many cases, the models don't appear to be drawing on memories of past ChatGPT conversations or EXIF data, which is the metadata attached to photos that reveal details such as where the photo was taken. X is filled with examples of users giving ChatGPT restaurant menus, neighborhood snaps, facades and self portraits, and instructing O3 to imagine it's playing Geodes, an online game that challenges players to guess locations from Google Street View images. It's an obvious potential privacy issue. There's nothing preventing a bad actor from screenshotting, say, a person's Instagram story and using ChatGPT to try to dox them. Of course, this could be done even before the launch of 03 and 04 mini. TechCrunch ran a number of photos through 03 and an older model without image reasoning capabilities, GPT4O, to compare the model's location guessing skills. Surprisingly, GPT4O arrived at the same correct answer as O3 more often than not and took less time. End Quote TechCrunch says that US consumers are flocking to Chinese shopping apps Dhgate and Taobao, which let them buy directly from Chinese manufacturers as Shein and Temu prices rise amidst tariffs and whatnot. Quote the Chinese e commerce marketplace app Dhgate, which is now the number two free iPhone app in the US isn't the only one that's oddly benef from President Trump's tariffs on US imports from China. Another Chinese shopping app, Taobao, has now also entered the top five as of Thursday. US Consumers began flocking to these apps over the past several days in the wake of numerous TikTok videos from Chinese manufacturers explaining how much of the luxury goods market operates out of China. The videos claim that many products from top luxury brands like clothing, handbags, shoes and accessories are actually originally made in China. The items are then shipped over to the brand's home country, like Italy or France, where they're repackaged after the brand's label is applied, according to these videos. Other US and Chinese TikTok creators then pointed to e commerce apps like Dhgate and Taobao as a way to buy directly from the Chinese manufacturers, foregoing the huge markup the luxury brands charge. Already wary of increasing prices on popular apps like shein and Temu, US consumers quickly began downloading these alternatives. In April, Taobao's estimated downloads totaled approximately 150,000, a 514% increase from the 30,000 it saw during the same period last month, according to news data from app intelligence provider App figures. As with dhgate, Taobao's downloads surged over this past weekend, with installs increasing 5.7x between last Friday and Saturday, the firm said. Taobao also grew from the number 49 shopping app on Saturday to become the number two app, topping Walmart, Amazon, Shein and Temu. Chinese app Alibaba.com is also climbing the charts here. Now the number six shopping app on the US App Store. Notably App Figure says that Taobao has never been in the top overall charts on the US App Store before, according to its data, which goes back to January 1, 2017. While switching shopping apps won't actually save US consumers from tariffs on Chinese imports, shoppers likely think buying direct from manufacturers could potentially lower the overall cost of their purchases. For other consumers, it's simply a way to seek out luxury style goods or dupes at a better price.
