I’ve been closely watching coverage on Google’s two antitrust trials on Big Tech on Trial.
I am not naïve — as a public-traded company that is only and rightfully accountable to the shareholders, I have always known Google is not simply benevolent when it comes to funding the Web. But not only until hearing about the details revealed by the States in court, I realized how successful Google has been (and illegally, alleged by the States) at capturing both ends of the Web, effectively capturing its values in a way that is as profitable as closed platforms.
Google has been paying billions of dollars to all browser vendors to allow Google to be the default search engine1 — something the court deemed to be illegal just recently — to capture all traffic that goes into the Web.
In the ad marketplace, Google has captured the entire ad revenue stream of the content Web, making it impossible for any content provider to generate ad revenue — the primary business model of content — without Google. This is something the States allege to be anti-competitive, and the court is going to weigh in pretty soon.
As it turned out, the Web being a ubiquitous technical success is a chess piece of Google’s money-making machinery. People who claimed to advocate for Open Web without talking about the nuances are just doing community evangelism for Google without getting paid by them.
Where do we go from here?
The browser engines need new business models and revenue streams. People are surely talking. I agree that engines are implementations of the one and only viable mostly non-proprietary application platform. They deserve to exist as public goods. Regretfully, unlike rails and tunnels, their public benefits are as abstract as any other software infrastructures (obligatory XKCD reference). We are often blind by our passion for technologies to think of them, but it will take some persuasion to be entitled to public money — skipping the persuasion part sometimes sounds arrogant.
The ad revenue dependency of the content web is a much harder problem. The Sherman Act can only ensure the market is fair; it can’t create new markets. Donations/subscriptions have been successful in a few content segments, but they have not yet become mainstream. Lots of YouTubers have been talking about that — I have no more insights to offer than to provide my support occasionally as a consumer2.
Do I still believe in better access to the Web and better application capabilities offered on the Web? Honestly, it is a MAYBE now.
I see great use cases of powerful APIs like Web Bluetooth and agreeable arguments made for them, but I also value the security sandbox promised by the Web. I wanted to see features that prioritize the decentralized root of the Web than re-enforce it, but nothing has truly happened yet other than questionable offerings from cryptobros.
Again, looking at the grip Google has on the Web right now, I would decline to be their useful idiots.
- Which is the primary revenue of my previous employer, and I benefited. I am certainly also benefited indirectly by working in tech and as an index fund investor. ↩︎
- Yes, my account credential was leaked on Patreon. ↩︎