Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

yelpblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 191 posts

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#181

Post by jacksmith21006 »

obelix_ wrote: post #72
camillomiller wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes no sense. Yelp could be the worst company ever created, but if they had market share and Google worked to seize that market with unfair practices, that counts as abuse of dominant position. There is a dangerous conflation of two very distinct categories in your line of thought.

If think the point being made is Amazon didn't suffer the same fate as Yelp wrt to book reviews because Amazon had a better product than whatever Google produced.

Exactly. Do a product search and Amazon one of the top links even though Amazon banned any company on their market place from being allowed to sell several Google products and even hijacked people looking.

Yelp sucks so not a top link. Seems to be working in a fair manner.

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#182

Post by mehblahwhatevs »

kuschku wrote: post #78
maccard wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hey now insert ads into the top of the search flow, commingling results and ad Google has done this as long as I can recall - the top few results are always “sponsored”. Yelp also does this, by placing a star on your map instead of a rating.

Google was created to build an open search engine that doesn't rely on ad revenue. Literally, that's what the original paper says: http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

> Google was created to build an open search engine that doesn't rely on ad revenue.

> Literally, that's what the original paper says:

So? And then they became a business at some point and had employees to pay and server costs?

So...forget whatever idealism is in the original paper because they may have been living in a bubble of idealism before they stepped out of academia into reality.

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#183

Post by jacksmith21006 »

majewsky wrote: post #86
kodablah wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a prevailing "tech can do no wrong" attitude in the tech community Is there? I see the opposite in communities including the one we're on. The anti-big-web-company torches seem brightest within compared to the more accepting yet non-ignorant outside.

I think it's not quite "tech can do no wrong", but "all problems can be solved with tech" is definitely prevalent. I guess it's because we're all tech guys here and "if you only have a hammer...".

But you need to use valid examples which the Yelp one is not. Yelp is terrible so not high on the search results like it should be.

But then do a product search and Amazon a top result returned even though Amazon banned any company on their market place from selling a bunch of Google products.

It is just Yelp sour grapes. If going to accuse Google think you might use a valid example.

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#185

Post by jacksmith21006 »

randcraw wrote: post #132
andegre wrote: post #124

I didn't see the majority of the piece because the kids were acting up, but I must be missing something. Why is this a big deal when it's the SAME company's browser that the user is using that is showing products/services at the top for the SAME company's products? Why can't google have their own products'/services' links at the top of all search results?

For the same reason the courts broke up the stranglehold robber barons had in railroads and banking back in 1900... it's monopolistic and anticompetitive. This time, much of the anticompetition will be totally invisible, since nobody but Google knows how they bias their search results. Do they collude with Microsoft Bing? Nobody knows but the e-robber barons.

But here there is other choices and Bing is two characters less so less friction. I think it is very bad policy to penalize someone that creates a better product.

I see no inherent advantage for Google over say MS. Google search is just a lot better and why no more Excited or Alta Vista, etc.

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#186

Post by jacksmith21006 »

realusername wrote: post #55
themagician wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What?! How does that work? How does Google “host” searches? 70% of searches go to Google because 70% of people type in “google”. The other 30% open IE/Edge and use Bing to search for google. Are you suggesting that when someone types in “google.com” it redirect them?

The vast majority of browsers are still defaulting to Google, you used almost the only example (IE/Edge) which does not do that.

What in the world are you talking about? MS owns Windows the dominate desktop platform. Huge advantage. Yet Google won because their browser and search is so much better.

We in Earth would we penalize someone for creating a superior product?

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#187

Post by jacksmith21006 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #139
scarface74 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft could easily outbid Google to be the primary search engine on iOS and they could pay carriers to make Bing the primary search engines on the Android phones they sell.

I don't think Google still permits Android phones to select a different default search. They used to, several Verizon phones used to ship with Bing as default, before Google locked it down via the MADA. (And this is true even of Android phones Microsoft sells, if they have the Play Store, which Microsoft's own Android apps depend on, they must follow MADA terms.) They could on iOS, but it's likely outbidding Google w…

It is Google mobile platform and can therefore chose whatever default they want even though they do not force it.

Just like on Windows the default search is Bing and default browser Edge just no body uses them because they suck.

Bing is even two characters less and still not used. Are we honestly going to penalize a company for creating better products?

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#188

Post by jacksmith21006 »

baal232 wrote: post #149
dalbasal wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right, at least in the traditional anti-trust-ish legal sense as I understand it. In a wider more pedestrian sense, there is a some kettle-pot-black involved here, at least in my opinion. Yelp's a little monopolistic middle man. Everyone reads and writes reviews on Yelp because everyone reads and writes reviews on Yelp. Market dominance today is the main ingredient for dominance tomorrow. Everyone uses Google…

You're right. This is a kettle-pot issue. So how come so many arguments here get reduced to "I side with kettle!" Yelp is bad. Google is bad. Or more precisely, both are amoral, and responding rationally to the incentives of the internet. The traditional anti-trust sense you mention doesn't take network effects into account. If you ask me, network effects cause the landscape of the internet to inevitably trend toward…

How is Google amoral?

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#189

Post by bobdole1234 »

camillomiller wrote: post #53
sunstone wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yelp has been horrible since day one. If google has or has not abused its position Yelp is not the standard we would use to determine that.

This makes no sense. Yelp could be the worst company ever created, but if they had market share and Google worked to seize that market with unfair practices, that counts as abuse of dominant position. There is a dangerous conflation of two very distinct categories in your line of thought.

Google spent billions to develop the huge data processing systems and algorithms to eventually leave Yelp behind, like a freight train leaves a horse behind.

Yelp missed the industrialization of their industry by machine.

Knowing what you're doing isn't monopolistic.

Post reply on HN