Eric Schmidt Testifies Before Congress • Hacker News Board

Re: Eric Schmidt Testifies Before Congress

#51

Post by tsunamifury » Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 8:44 PM UTC

yanw wrote: post #37

aamar wrote: post #28

The central question seems to be the following, articulated most precisely by Mike Lee (R-UT): even if the organic search results are entirely unbiased, Google also programmatically (via "Google Universal Search", the system that organizes the overall search page) inserts specific links to other Google pages--such as Places, Maps, Shopping, or News--in very prominent positions. There are competitors for all of those…

Google is free for users and free to anyone wanting to get in their index, so they do not owe any self proclaimed competitor anything and that is the crux of it, the law is on their side, you cannot monopolize "free" and all this politicians' propaganda is waste of time and tax payer dollars..

When you become a monopoloy in a certain industry, under american law, you do owe it to your competitors to allow them to compete on fair ground with you.

This is why theaters were not allowed to be owned by studios, Car Dealerships by actual Car companies, etc.

Re: Eric Schmidt Testifies Before Congress

#52

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 8:45 PM UTC

rmrm wrote: post #32

I think Google would be well served if Schmidt had a little more Steve Jobs in him. Not a lot, as I think Jobs might get so frustrated he'd melt down, but a little. Eric makes everything sound somehow slightly sinister, even when it isn't. When asked about something like maps and places the correct answer is: We realized that is what people wanted in response to their queries. We looked around, and the other map prod…

[deleted]

Re: Eric Schmidt Testifies Before Congress

#53

Post by oldstrangers » Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 8:47 PM UTC

The antitrust regulator just asked about sending in a third party to review google's search algorithm. Haha. Hahahahaa.

Not a chance.

Re: Eric Schmidt Testifies Before Congress

#54

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 8:48 PM UTC

coderdude wrote: post #44

Zakuzaa wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly have very little understanding of how antitrust laws work.

He shares the point of view of the person defending Google (she's a former anti-trust investigator?). If you can freely and instantly switch from Google to Bing then you cannot claim they have a monopoly. If you don't like Google's results there is nothing locking the consumer into Google except their own choice.

[deleted]

Re: Eric Schmidt Testifies Before Congress

#55

Post by Zakuzaa » Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 8:49 PM UTC

coderdude wrote: post #44

Zakuzaa wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly have very little understanding of how antitrust laws work.

He shares the point of view of the person defending Google (she's a former anti-trust investigator?). If you can freely and instantly switch from Google to Bing then you cannot claim they have a monopoly. If you don't like Google's results there is nothing locking the consumer into Google except their own choice.

She, in my opinion, was taking advantage of apparent naivity of senators.

Re: Eric Schmidt Testifies Before Congress

#56

Post by aamar » Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 8:49 PM UTC

rmrm wrote: post #32

I think Google would be well served if Schmidt had a little more Steve Jobs in him. Not a lot, as I think Jobs might get so frustrated he'd melt down, but a little. Eric makes everything sound somehow slightly sinister, even when it isn't. When asked about something like maps and places the correct answer is: We realized that is what people wanted in response to their queries. We looked around, and the other map prod…

> Maps, and Places, and Product Search -- they are all part of search.

That's a very relevant point, but it also sounds at least superficially similar to Microsoft's "the browser is part of the OS" argument, which generally seems to be a failure. That case has been referenced several times in this hearing; it's clearly front of mind.

Re: Eric Schmidt Testifies Before Congress

#57

Post by kposehn » Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 8:49 PM UTC

lukeschlather wrote: post #42

kposehn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She is smart, but she did skate around the question of scraping. They asked whether Google had scraped content, but instead she attempted to change the question to whether or not it is scraping when they show the excerpt about the site in results - not whether they had scraped Yelp reviews.

I think that's the crux of it though. Of course Google does scraping. They'll even give you a full cache of a page if you ask for it.

A cache is a bit different though I think - that is a reference. The Yelp case was them using content in their own competing product and then not representing the source clearly.

I deal with this as an affiliate all the time. I don't mind Google cacheing my web pages to increase our search ranking and help drive traffic to our site. However, if Google made a competing site about the same products and then took our reviews to use in that site without our permission, then I would have a major problem.

I'm not in favor of regulating Google, but I am in favor of some discipline and guidelines being laid down. The government clearly cannot decide how this should work, but I think Google is responsible enough to know that things need to be adjusted and just how much is needed.

Re: Eric Schmidt Testifies Before Congress

#58

Post by DonnyV » Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 8:50 PM UTC

DevX101 wrote: post #46

rmrm wrote: post #32

I think Google would be well served if Schmidt had a little more Steve Jobs in him. Not a lot, as I think Jobs might get so frustrated he'd melt down, but a little. Eric makes everything sound somehow slightly sinister, even when it isn't. When asked about something like maps and places the correct answer is: We realized that is what people wanted in response to their queries. We looked around, and the other map prod…

Perceived arrogance doesn't go over too well in these type of hearings.

Yeah you really don't want to give them an emotional reason to come after you.

Re: Eric Schmidt Testifies Before Congress

#59

Post by clarkevans » Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 8:51 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #49

I'm going to get burned for this comment but ... Microsoft has had a desktop monopoly for 20 years. They have 90% desktop market share and people don't complain about that. They destroyed their competition yet people complain because Google has 65% market share on a product that people can leave overnight. I'm not sure why people get bent out of shape over Google.

People did complain and Microsoft did have anti-trust case brought about them and a set of behavioral limitations imposed.

Re: Eric Schmidt Testifies Before Congress

#60

Post by mrtron » Wed, Sep 21, 2011, 8:52 PM UTC

coderdude wrote: post #44

Zakuzaa wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly have very little understanding of how antitrust laws work.

He shares the point of view of the person defending Google (she's a former anti-trust investigator?). If you can freely and instantly switch from Google to Bing then you cannot claim they have a monopoly. If you don't like Google's results there is nothing locking the consumer into Google except their own choice.

Not only can you switch instantly from Google to Bing, you can do the same with the indirect competitors such as yelp.

Yelp claims Google is hurting consumers because often Yelp's results are better than what Google displays as their own Location results above.

Is it really hurting a user to have to scroll slightly down? Or if Yelp's results were really better would users not go directly there or use their apps as an alternative?

I find it very interesting you can claim Google has a monopoly on the web + mobile, which seems to be the necessary premise to make these claims.