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

US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#411

Post by fc417fc802 »

skybrian wrote: post #404
fc417fc802 wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that chart differentiate between before and after edge internals became chromium though?

Does it matter? It seems like distribution is more important than the internals.

When people say that Google killed the Edge browser they generally mean that MS gave up on maintaining their own browser engine and the world moved that much closer to a web monoculture. To put this in historical perspective, a reskinned IE would not have been a meaningful or useful competitor to IE.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#412

Post by edanm »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #302
danboarder wrote: post #298

This action comes a bit late, at the end of the "Search engine" era, at a time when AI responses from many sources are largely replacing the "Google Search". Similar action happened against Microsoft Windows around 2000, just as the rise of web-based apps (online email, google docs, etc) largely made the underlying operating system less relevant to how people use their computers and apps. So I read this as the domina…

I would be you $1 that in five to ten years there will be zero "AI" players replacing search. But that's a different topic than this one.

I'd take that bet. AI players are already replacing search for a lot of users in a lot of cases.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#413

Post by phatfish »

dantheman wrote: post #392
mondrian wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because everyone worships Thiel's "competition is for losers" and dreams of being a monopoly. Monopolies being the logical outcome of a deregulated environment, for which these companies lobby.

Throughout history there are very few monopolies and they don't normally last that long; that is unless they get are granted special privileges by the government.

> unless they get are granted special privileges by the government

That's what all the lobbyists are for.

None of the people or organisations that advocate for "free markets" or competition actually want free markets and competition. It's a smoke screen so they can keep buying politicians to get their special privileges.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#414

Post by [deleted] »

dantheman wrote: post #392
mondrian wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because everyone worships Thiel's "competition is for losers" and dreams of being a monopoly. Monopolies being the logical outcome of a deregulated environment, for which these companies lobby.

Throughout history there are very few monopolies and they don't normally last that long; that is unless they get are granted special privileges by the government.

[deleted]

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#415

Post by suddenexample »

ardacinar wrote: post #389
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #367

I'm not sure people understand what the consequences of taking away Google's ad revenue is. If a large enough bank goes under, it takes out not just the bank, but huge sectors of the economy, affecting many more businesses and jobs. That's why the government bailed out the banks when they failed. The same will happen when Google loses its ad revenue. Google is an ad company. By opening up all its trade secret data, i…

Are we sure that the things listed here will not go away in a few years if Google continues to exist? https://killedbygoogle.com/

People bringing up this site in this specific way is a pet peeve of mine. What's the largest product that they sunset with no replacement? Stadia? Given the number of products Google has, I wouldn't consider their track record below average.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#416

Post by eastbound »

sfpotter wrote: post #373
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just in: small search engine company thinks it's a great idea for small search engine companies to have the same search index as Google. Also, I love this bit: "[Google's] search results are of the best quality among its advertising-driven peers." I can just feel the breath of the guy who jumped in to say "wait, you can't just admit that Google's results are better than Kagi's! You need to add some sorta qualifi…

Have you used Kagi or Google recently? Kagi works way better.

On every Kagi comment, there is “Have you used Kagi recently? It’s improved a lot!” — to the level that I suspect they have bots to upgrade the brand image, at least to search which comments to respond do.

I’m saying that because yes, I’ve used Kagi recently, and I switch back to Google every single time because Kagi can’t find anything. Kagi is to Google what Siri is to ChatGPT. Siri can’t even answer “What time is it?”

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#417

Post by ori_b »

kaladin-jasnah wrote: post #107
callc wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You certainly have a point. Places like google and bell labs have pushed innovation, apparently enabled by monopolies. I would rather we don’t allow monopolies since they are so bad for society, regardless of some benefits. Government funded research and private investment are still a thing, that doesn’t try to break the whole capitalism thing.

My first thought was Bell Labs here. The lack of time pressure for research results sounds like a big reason why so much innovation happened—people could pursue projects that may not have immediately benefitted the company's bottom line, because Bell had money to throw. I think UNIX was an example of this, because MULTICS was a failure and Bell was wary of similar projects, but I might be wrong.

Most of the Bell Labs fundamental breakthroughs had no path to commercialization at the time of their discovery. The transistor was discovered 12 years into Shockleys research on fundamental properties of semiconductors.

If commercialization had been considered before funding, the project would have never been approved.

Instead, Bell management took the view that they could find everything, and some of it might become a new market, maybe.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#418

Post by sofixa »

edanm wrote: post #412
ChuckMcM wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be you $1 that in five to ten years there will be zero "AI" players replacing search. But that's a different topic than this one.

I'd take that bet. AI players are already replacing search for a lot of users in a lot of cases.

Because we're still in the "get them hooked" stage where AI startups and Google/Meta are losing money on AI.

Once they start properly monetising (aka making users pay for what it actually costs them to train and run), it will be a different story. The vast majority of people won't pay $20-30€/month for an LLM to replace their search engine. (And an analysis I saw of OpenAI's business model and financial indicated they're losing money even on their paid tier, per query).

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#419

Post by sofixa »

fsh wrote: post #410
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #367

I'm not sure people understand what the consequences of taking away Google's ad revenue is. If a large enough bank goes under, it takes out not just the bank, but huge sectors of the economy, affecting many more businesses and jobs. That's why the government bailed out the banks when they failed. The same will happen when Google loses its ad revenue. Google is an ad company. By opening up all its trade secret data, i…

This list is very telling. Instead of a healthy marketplace of companies competing to sell their software and services, we end up with one monopolist who gives away mediocre products and in return taxes everything you buy (in the form of ad spending), and then annoys you with the same ads. How is this a desirable outcome?

Because the vast majority of people don't want to and have zero intention pf paying separately for email, maps, navigation, browser, etc.

In fact, that's how things used to be before Google and their ilk used ads to make an ecosystem, and their ecosystem was better and free at the point of use than what came before

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#420

Post by tshaddox »

eastbound wrote: post #416
sfpotter wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you used Kagi or Google recently? Kagi works way better.

On every Kagi comment, there is “Have you used Kagi recently? It’s improved a lot!” — to the level that I suspect they have bots to upgrade the brand image, at least to search which comments to respond do. I’m saying that because yes, I’ve used Kagi recently, and I switch back to Google every single time because Kagi can’t find anything. Kagi is to Google what Siri is to ChatGPT. Siri can’t even answer “What time is…

> to the level that I suspect they have bots to upgrade the brand image

What “level” is that which couldn’t possibly be accomplished by humans? Are you seeing thousands of messages every day?

Post reply on HN