WEBVTT - Is Google too good?

0:00:01.200 --> 0:00:03.520
<v Speaker 1>My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda

0:00:03.760 --> 0:00:08.520
<v Speaker 1>Bunjelung Calcottin woman from Gadigol Country. The Daily oz acknowledges

0:00:08.600 --> 0:00:10.800
<v Speaker 1>that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the

0:00:10.800 --> 0:00:14.360
<v Speaker 1>Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres

0:00:14.360 --> 0:00:17.279
<v Speaker 1>Strait Island and nations. We pay our respects to the

0:00:17.320 --> 0:00:20.079
<v Speaker 1>first peoples of these countries, both past and present.

0:00:21.079 --> 0:00:27.720
<v Speaker 2>You start recording, we'll start spitting rhymes. Boo boo, boo boo.

0:00:28.240 --> 0:00:32.440
<v Speaker 2>Come on, good morning and welcome to the Daily os

0:00:32.520 --> 0:00:36.040
<v Speaker 2>It's Thursday, the fourteenth of September. I'm Sam, I'm Zara.

0:00:36.640 --> 0:00:40.080
<v Speaker 2>Google is in court this week facing allegations it is

0:00:40.200 --> 0:00:44.120
<v Speaker 2>illegally dominating the Internet. A trial pitting the US government

0:00:44.159 --> 0:00:45.879
<v Speaker 2>against tech giant Google began.

0:00:45.720 --> 0:00:49.440
<v Speaker 1>Today, the government's biggest antitrust case against a tech company

0:00:49.600 --> 0:00:50.880
<v Speaker 1>in more than twenty years.

0:00:50.920 --> 0:00:52.760
<v Speaker 3>This is going to be the tech trial of the century,

0:00:52.760 --> 0:00:53.600
<v Speaker 3>at least so far.

0:00:54.040 --> 0:00:56.000
<v Speaker 2>In today's date dive, we're going to look at what's

0:00:56.040 --> 0:00:59.160
<v Speaker 2>being argued in this case and what it means for you.

0:00:59.440 --> 0:01:01.840
<v Speaker 2>But first, some more news from Quantas.

0:01:02.120 --> 0:01:04.000
<v Speaker 3>That's right, more news this time.

0:01:04.080 --> 0:01:06.399
<v Speaker 4>It's that the High Court has found that the airline

0:01:06.520 --> 0:01:11.000
<v Speaker 4>acted illegally when it sacked roughly seventeen hundred baggage handlers

0:01:11.040 --> 0:01:13.840
<v Speaker 4>back in twenty twenty. The High Court was considering an

0:01:13.840 --> 0:01:17.319
<v Speaker 4>appeal from Quantus, who had already lost twice before Quantus

0:01:17.360 --> 0:01:20.360
<v Speaker 4>accepted the decision and said it deeply regretted the impact

0:01:20.440 --> 0:01:22.120
<v Speaker 4>the sacking had on the workers.

0:01:23.200 --> 0:01:26.680
<v Speaker 2>The federal government's housing Bill has passed the Senate. It

0:01:26.760 --> 0:01:29.759
<v Speaker 2>comes after the government secured support from the Greens by

0:01:29.760 --> 0:01:33.199
<v Speaker 2>including an extra one billion with a bee to fund

0:01:33.319 --> 0:01:36.680
<v Speaker 2>short term social housing projects. It will now be signed

0:01:36.680 --> 0:01:40.559
<v Speaker 2>off in the House of Representatives before it can become law.

0:01:40.959 --> 0:01:43.880
<v Speaker 4>Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong un have met in Russia.

0:01:44.360 --> 0:01:47.080
<v Speaker 4>Images of the pair show the two leaders shaking hands,

0:01:47.120 --> 0:01:50.000
<v Speaker 4>with Pudin leading Kim through a tour of a Russian

0:01:50.040 --> 0:01:53.360
<v Speaker 4>space base. Pudin is expected to ask for North Korean

0:01:53.400 --> 0:01:56.800
<v Speaker 4>weapons to help Russia's efforts in Ukraine during incoming talks.

0:01:57.440 --> 0:02:00.360
<v Speaker 2>And today's good news good news for every Tease Swift

0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:02.680
<v Speaker 2>fan out there. Taylor Swift has taken out a record

0:02:02.880 --> 0:02:09.840
<v Speaker 2>nine MTV Video Music Awards on Tuesday. Zara, You're a

0:02:09.919 --> 0:02:11.320
<v Speaker 2>very curious soul, aren't you?

0:02:11.440 --> 0:02:12.160
<v Speaker 3>I mean, I think so.

0:02:12.360 --> 0:02:15.000
<v Speaker 4>My partner actually recently told me that he thinks I'm

0:02:15.040 --> 0:02:16.519
<v Speaker 4>not because I don't try.

0:02:16.320 --> 0:02:17.480
<v Speaker 2>New things interesting.

0:02:18.120 --> 0:02:19.480
<v Speaker 3>It's a podcast for another time.

0:02:19.600 --> 0:02:23.000
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, wow, that's that's the TDA up late podcast. In

0:02:23.040 --> 0:02:25.640
<v Speaker 2>the case that you are curious and you have Internet

0:02:25.680 --> 0:02:28.960
<v Speaker 2>browser handy, where do you go to find your answers?

0:02:29.639 --> 0:02:30.359
<v Speaker 3>I'd say Google.

0:02:30.520 --> 0:02:33.760
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, this is a very typical response, and you won't

0:02:33.760 --> 0:02:36.880
<v Speaker 2>be surprised to hear that Google accounts for about ninety

0:02:36.960 --> 0:02:39.680
<v Speaker 2>percent of search engine markets globally.

0:02:40.440 --> 0:02:42.640
<v Speaker 3>Now I'm actually surprised. I actually would have thought it

0:02:42.680 --> 0:02:43.840
<v Speaker 3>was more interesting.

0:02:43.919 --> 0:02:46.320
<v Speaker 2>Wow. Well, I think you have to remember that there

0:02:46.360 --> 0:02:48.840
<v Speaker 2>are other competitors out there. You've got Bing, You've got

0:02:48.919 --> 0:02:51.799
<v Speaker 2>Duck Duck Go. You've also got a Cozier. I didn't

0:02:51.840 --> 0:02:54.240
<v Speaker 2>even know that was a thing until today, But there

0:02:54.280 --> 0:02:58.160
<v Speaker 2>are competitors floating around. And there's this legal case in

0:02:58.200 --> 0:03:02.120
<v Speaker 2>the US that's investigating where the Google's monopolization of the

0:03:02.200 --> 0:03:06.320
<v Speaker 2>market breaks antitrust laws by preventing proper competition.

0:03:07.120 --> 0:03:10.560
<v Speaker 4>Can you just say that in layperson English, because I

0:03:10.560 --> 0:03:13.440
<v Speaker 4>feel like there was a lot of jargon in that sentence.

0:03:13.200 --> 0:03:15.520
<v Speaker 2>Lots of jargons. So let's break it down. So the

0:03:15.520 --> 0:03:19.000
<v Speaker 2>Department of Justice, and we'll call them the DOJ, it's

0:03:19.000 --> 0:03:21.920
<v Speaker 2>suing Google in the US for creating what it says

0:03:22.000 --> 0:03:25.440
<v Speaker 2>is an unfair playing field that other search engines can't

0:03:25.440 --> 0:03:28.440
<v Speaker 2>compete in. And when we say anti trust laws, it's

0:03:28.480 --> 0:03:31.600
<v Speaker 2>basically this body of law in the US that prohibits

0:03:31.720 --> 0:03:35.240
<v Speaker 2>anti competitive behavior. It is kind of like the laws

0:03:35.240 --> 0:03:37.520
<v Speaker 2>that we have here in Australia, and we've spent some

0:03:37.560 --> 0:03:40.160
<v Speaker 2>time on this podcast talking about them in the last

0:03:40.200 --> 0:03:43.160
<v Speaker 2>week or so in the context of Qatar Airways and

0:03:43.280 --> 0:03:47.280
<v Speaker 2>competition in relation to Quantus. Now, in this US case,

0:03:47.560 --> 0:03:51.480
<v Speaker 2>the DOJ's arguing that Google is a monopoly gatekeeper for

0:03:51.520 --> 0:03:55.200
<v Speaker 2>the Internet, and they're alleging that the company has used

0:03:55.240 --> 0:03:58.720
<v Speaker 2>anti competitive techniques to build a search engine empire.

0:03:59.160 --> 0:04:02.320
<v Speaker 4>What are some of the techniques that they're suggesting might

0:04:02.400 --> 0:04:03.600
<v Speaker 4>be anti competitive.

0:04:03.680 --> 0:04:05.880
<v Speaker 2>Well, one of the main ways that the DOJ is

0:04:06.000 --> 0:04:09.440
<v Speaker 2>arguing Google's got this unfair advantage is these deals that

0:04:09.480 --> 0:04:13.480
<v Speaker 2>Google is doing with the makers of phones and computers

0:04:14.080 --> 0:04:16.320
<v Speaker 2>in order for those phones and computers to have the

0:04:16.400 --> 0:04:20.560
<v Speaker 2>default search engine on the devices as Google. Now, according

0:04:20.560 --> 0:04:24.520
<v Speaker 2>to the DOJ's case, every year Google forks out billions

0:04:24.560 --> 0:04:27.960
<v Speaker 2>of dollars to companies like Apple and Samsung to make

0:04:28.040 --> 0:04:31.479
<v Speaker 2>Google the default browser on their devices. And what that

0:04:31.560 --> 0:04:33.200
<v Speaker 2>means for you and me is that when we pick

0:04:33.279 --> 0:04:35.560
<v Speaker 2>up a new phone or we open up a new laptop,

0:04:36.120 --> 0:04:39.839
<v Speaker 2>we're greeted with a Google homepage as the pre loaded

0:04:40.040 --> 0:04:43.560
<v Speaker 2>search engine in the browser. So the DOJ alleges that

0:04:43.640 --> 0:04:48.320
<v Speaker 2>this tactic has effectively eliminated or competition and therefore makes

0:04:48.320 --> 0:04:49.040
<v Speaker 2>them a monopoly.

0:04:49.160 --> 0:04:50.400
<v Speaker 3>I think that's really interesting.

0:04:50.520 --> 0:04:53.640
<v Speaker 4>Again, one of those things you don't really think about

0:04:53.680 --> 0:04:56.719
<v Speaker 4>if you open a new product and Google is just there,

0:04:56.760 --> 0:04:59.760
<v Speaker 4>like everywhere, so I would never question how it got there.

0:05:00.480 --> 0:05:02.200
<v Speaker 4>I guess that's why I'm not part of the DOJ.

0:05:02.880 --> 0:05:05.880
<v Speaker 4>On the flip side, though, what is Google saying? We've

0:05:05.920 --> 0:05:08.960
<v Speaker 4>heard the DOJ side. How has Google come back in

0:05:09.000 --> 0:05:09.719
<v Speaker 4>this lawsuit.

0:05:09.760 --> 0:05:12.240
<v Speaker 2>Well, it won't surprise you to hear that Google denies

0:05:12.320 --> 0:05:14.640
<v Speaker 2>the claims made in this case, and it says that

0:05:14.680 --> 0:05:18.000
<v Speaker 2>the lawsuit is deeply flawed. Google says its agreements with

0:05:18.160 --> 0:05:21.520
<v Speaker 2>providers like Samsung and Apple to make its search engines

0:05:21.640 --> 0:05:25.000
<v Speaker 2>the default are totally legal, and that people can easily

0:05:25.080 --> 0:05:27.920
<v Speaker 2>change their settings on their devices to have a new default.

0:05:28.320 --> 0:05:31.440
<v Speaker 2>And according to Google, the reason it dominates the market

0:05:31.680 --> 0:05:34.640
<v Speaker 2>is pretty simple and really doesn't take any legal jargon

0:05:34.680 --> 0:05:38.000
<v Speaker 2>to understand. It says it dominates because it's the best.

0:05:38.360 --> 0:05:42.120
<v Speaker 3>And in here, I'm going to use that as every defense. Ever, Yeah,

0:05:42.279 --> 0:05:42.760
<v Speaker 3>it's best.

0:05:43.040 --> 0:05:45.719
<v Speaker 2>It's very There's only a couple of companies in the

0:05:45.720 --> 0:05:47.479
<v Speaker 2>world who could stand up in court and say we

0:05:47.520 --> 0:05:50.440
<v Speaker 2>are unequivocally the best. And if one was probably going

0:05:50.520 --> 0:05:52.720
<v Speaker 2>to be able to argue that it is Google. And

0:05:52.760 --> 0:05:55.000
<v Speaker 2>in one of the opening statements in court, the Google

0:05:55.080 --> 0:05:58.240
<v Speaker 2>lawyer said users today have more search options and more

0:05:58.279 --> 0:06:02.000
<v Speaker 2>ways to access information online than ever before. So according

0:06:02.040 --> 0:06:04.440
<v Speaker 2>to the tech giant, there's plenty of competition out there,

0:06:04.760 --> 0:06:06.719
<v Speaker 2>they're just not as good as Google.

0:06:07.080 --> 0:06:09.840
<v Speaker 4>So if we're to take Google's logic, then it is

0:06:09.880 --> 0:06:11.479
<v Speaker 4>the best, and I mean you and I use it

0:06:11.600 --> 0:06:14.120
<v Speaker 4>every single day, multiple times a day. Why is it

0:06:14.160 --> 0:06:16.039
<v Speaker 4>an issue if Google is saying, well, it's the best,

0:06:16.080 --> 0:06:17.040
<v Speaker 4>that's why it's everywhere.

0:06:17.120 --> 0:06:20.200
<v Speaker 2>Well, this is really the heart of the dilemma that

0:06:20.360 --> 0:06:24.000
<v Speaker 2>tech has when there's one player that dominates the market,

0:06:24.600 --> 0:06:27.239
<v Speaker 2>because part of the reason why Google is so good

0:06:27.400 --> 0:06:29.640
<v Speaker 2>is because we all use it, and this is this

0:06:29.720 --> 0:06:32.479
<v Speaker 2>idea and technology called the network effect, and what that

0:06:32.520 --> 0:06:35.200
<v Speaker 2>means is because your entire network is brought into a

0:06:35.240 --> 0:06:39.520
<v Speaker 2>particular system or software or program that is the secret source.

0:06:39.640 --> 0:06:41.920
<v Speaker 2>And a really easy way to think about that is

0:06:41.960 --> 0:06:45.919
<v Speaker 2>the power of Instagram. Now, Instagram is only good because

0:06:45.920 --> 0:06:47.920
<v Speaker 2>you know when you log onto Instagram that you're going

0:06:47.960 --> 0:06:51.360
<v Speaker 2>to see the friends, the family, the daily Oazas if

0:06:51.400 --> 0:06:53.480
<v Speaker 2>none of your friends and family and daily oss were

0:06:53.520 --> 0:06:56.159
<v Speaker 2>on Instagram, I doubt that you would be there either.

0:06:56.800 --> 0:06:59.359
<v Speaker 2>And so if we transport that logic over to Google,

0:07:00.080 --> 0:07:03.440
<v Speaker 2>the network effect for Google means that its algorithm is

0:07:03.520 --> 0:07:06.200
<v Speaker 2>so up to speed and it's so accurate because so

0:07:06.279 --> 0:07:08.920
<v Speaker 2>many of us use it, that it actually provides us

0:07:09.000 --> 0:07:11.520
<v Speaker 2>with the best results because it's got the most data

0:07:11.560 --> 0:07:12.240
<v Speaker 2>to digest.

0:07:12.360 --> 0:07:14.640
<v Speaker 4>You just gave me the opposite of an answer to

0:07:14.680 --> 0:07:16.760
<v Speaker 4>my question because I said what the issue was.

0:07:17.080 --> 0:07:20.000
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, So that's why the network effect is good for

0:07:20.080 --> 0:07:23.320
<v Speaker 2>the consumer. But where it's bad for the consumer is

0:07:23.320 --> 0:07:26.280
<v Speaker 2>that we stop having real alternative options if we're no

0:07:26.360 --> 0:07:29.320
<v Speaker 2>longer happy with the status quo. And so in the

0:07:29.360 --> 0:07:31.680
<v Speaker 2>case this week, the DJ has kind of been playing

0:07:31.680 --> 0:07:34.560
<v Speaker 2>this out, and what they've been saying is that by

0:07:34.640 --> 0:07:40.040
<v Speaker 2>limiting competition, Google is putting consumers us searchers in a

0:07:40.040 --> 0:07:43.200
<v Speaker 2>position where we're going to feel compelled to accept whatever

0:07:43.360 --> 0:07:46.320
<v Speaker 2>Google is offering. So when it comes to Google's policies

0:07:46.400 --> 0:07:51.160
<v Speaker 2>on privacy and data collection, for example, by Google limiting competition,

0:07:51.640 --> 0:07:55.360
<v Speaker 2>we have fewer options and might therefore feel compelled to

0:07:55.440 --> 0:07:58.320
<v Speaker 2>use Google even if we don't like what they're doing

0:07:58.360 --> 0:07:59.120
<v Speaker 2>with our information.

0:07:59.320 --> 0:08:02.720
<v Speaker 4>Technology has been around for however long, and I can't

0:08:02.720 --> 0:08:05.280
<v Speaker 4>imagine this is the first time that the law has

0:08:05.320 --> 0:08:07.880
<v Speaker 4>had to deal with something like this. I mean, we've

0:08:07.920 --> 0:08:10.560
<v Speaker 4>had monopolies in the past, and we have many monopolies

0:08:10.680 --> 0:08:11.520
<v Speaker 4>across tech.

0:08:11.720 --> 0:08:15.280
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, And one of the big cases that not only

0:08:15.320 --> 0:08:17.720
<v Speaker 2>the DJ but a lot of commentators are looking at

0:08:17.760 --> 0:08:20.520
<v Speaker 2>in the context of this current Google case is back

0:08:20.520 --> 0:08:22.880
<v Speaker 2>in the late nineties, So you were only a couple

0:08:22.920 --> 0:08:25.720
<v Speaker 2>of years old, Zara, wandering around the playground, probably reading

0:08:25.760 --> 0:08:29.600
<v Speaker 2>the Financial Review. The rest of us were right at

0:08:29.640 --> 0:08:32.439
<v Speaker 2>the beginning of the Internet boom, and the tech world

0:08:32.480 --> 0:08:36.080
<v Speaker 2>was having this kind of awakening with how to fairly

0:08:36.120 --> 0:08:39.560
<v Speaker 2>operate systems and products in this space. But at that

0:08:39.600 --> 0:08:42.000
<v Speaker 2>point in time, it wasn't Google that was the center

0:08:42.040 --> 0:08:44.680
<v Speaker 2>of all of this. It was Microsoft. So to put

0:08:44.760 --> 0:08:48.240
<v Speaker 2>us in the right time. Apple only introduced the iMac

0:08:48.280 --> 0:08:50.760
<v Speaker 2>in nineteen ninety eight, so at this point it was

0:08:50.800 --> 0:08:53.680
<v Speaker 2>really Microsoft's that was it when it came to what

0:08:53.840 --> 0:08:57.480
<v Speaker 2>devices we could buy to access the Internet. So at

0:08:57.520 --> 0:09:01.440
<v Speaker 2>the time, Microsoft's Internet Explored was the go to browser,

0:09:01.800 --> 0:09:04.800
<v Speaker 2>and in a landmark court case, the DOJ argued the

0:09:04.840 --> 0:09:08.400
<v Speaker 2>company was violating anti trust laws by attempting to crush

0:09:08.440 --> 0:09:12.600
<v Speaker 2>a competitor called Netscape, And the concerns here were over

0:09:12.679 --> 0:09:16.320
<v Speaker 2>deals that Microsoft were making with Internet service providers to

0:09:16.480 --> 0:09:20.119
<v Speaker 2>use Internet Explorer as a default browser instead of Netscape,

0:09:20.200 --> 0:09:23.200
<v Speaker 2>which is eerily similar to what's being discussed in the

0:09:23.200 --> 0:09:27.520
<v Speaker 2>Google case today. Interestingly, at that time, during the Microsoft case,

0:09:27.960 --> 0:09:32.640
<v Speaker 2>Google a newly founded company at that stage, they alleged

0:09:32.760 --> 0:09:37.640
<v Speaker 2>Microsoft's behavior was anti competitive. Microsoft was eventually found to

0:09:37.679 --> 0:09:40.840
<v Speaker 2>have violated anti trust laws, and as a result, the

0:09:40.920 --> 0:09:44.120
<v Speaker 2>court in the US ordered the company change its practices.

0:09:44.640 --> 0:09:47.360
<v Speaker 2>And what we're seeing here is that the Microsoft case

0:09:47.480 --> 0:09:50.480
<v Speaker 2>will be heavily leaned on as a precedent in the

0:09:50.520 --> 0:09:51.560
<v Speaker 2>current Google case.

0:09:51.640 --> 0:09:53.520
<v Speaker 3>So there clearly is precedent.

0:09:53.600 --> 0:09:58.079
<v Speaker 4>Then if you were to castonite of the future, what

0:09:58.160 --> 0:09:59.440
<v Speaker 4>do you think will happen here?

0:09:59.520 --> 0:10:02.880
<v Speaker 2>I'm trying to steer away from my somewhat rogue crystal

0:10:02.880 --> 0:10:05.600
<v Speaker 2>ball predictions, so I'm going to reserve judgment on who

0:10:05.640 --> 0:10:07.920
<v Speaker 2>wins in this case. It's going to be super interesting

0:10:07.960 --> 0:10:10.800
<v Speaker 2>to watch how it unfolds, though, and in the same

0:10:10.840 --> 0:10:13.559
<v Speaker 2>way that that Microsoft case was seen as this big

0:10:13.600 --> 0:10:16.760
<v Speaker 2>moment in the nineteen nineties, whatever happens in this case

0:10:16.920 --> 0:10:19.480
<v Speaker 2>is going to be a fascinating precedent for the future.

0:10:20.120 --> 0:10:23.280
<v Speaker 2>It could have consequences for other corners of technology and

0:10:23.320 --> 0:10:26.960
<v Speaker 2>for other major players like Meta, Amazon, and Apple, who

0:10:26.960 --> 0:10:30.760
<v Speaker 2>were all relatively dominant in their spaces, because if Google

0:10:30.880 --> 0:10:33.800
<v Speaker 2>is found to be guilty of anti competitive actions, the

0:10:33.840 --> 0:10:37.000
<v Speaker 2>company could be fined and force change their practices.

0:10:38.559 --> 0:10:41.200
<v Speaker 4>Thanks for listening to this episode. If you have any

0:10:41.280 --> 0:10:44.720
<v Speaker 4>questions or thoughts or feelings about the court case and Google,

0:10:44.960 --> 0:10:47.320
<v Speaker 4>we would love to hear them. Just pop them in

0:10:47.360 --> 0:10:49.840
<v Speaker 4>the question box under the show notes in Spotify and

0:10:49.840 --> 0:10:57.360
<v Speaker 4>we'll be sure to read them how we go day