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

Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 663 posts

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#291

Post by chillfox »

rprend wrote: post #179
deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google’s biggest threat is their own deteriorating search results. Gen Z/alpha are interesting barometers, because many of them probably can’t remember a time when Google search didn’t suck. I would use Google if there was anything to find. At this point, just figure out if you’re looking for a reddit post, a Wikipedia article or a github repo and go to the source — or let Claude do it for you.

Google sucking isn’t google’s algorithm getting worse; it’s the internet getting more competitive and polluted. If you magically turned on the recommendation algorithm from 2010 but with today’s internet, the results would be far far worse.

It's their algo getting worse. They have pushed search results below the fold and filled the whole top part of the page up with ads. They are optimizing for engagement, you searching repeatedly trying to find the right keywords/phrase is better for them than you actually finding what you are after.

There are many search engines that don't have an issue with the internet being "competitive and polluted". So you want me to believe that the people (Google) with the most experience and knowledge about search just can't handle it. While it seemingly is no issue for most of the upstarts? That's just not believable.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#292

Post by lofaszvanitt »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #10

Firefox can still get money, and maybe Apple too. The ruling says they can pay for preload, but not for exclusivity. Google also must share search data with competitors, but it's not totally clear what this is. The ruling mentions helping other engines with "long tail" queries. All in all this seems like a pretty mild ruling, and an appeal can generally only help Google from a not to bad ruling at this point.

DOJ is neutered by the corpo obelisks.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#293

Post by AlienRobot »

Hard_Space wrote: post #90
supernova87a wrote: post #56

By the way, a pet peeve of mine right now is that reporters covering court cases (and we have so many of public interest lately) never seem to simply paste the link to the online PDF decision/ruling for us all to read, right in the story. (and another user here kindly did that for us below: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223... ) It seems such a simple step (they must have been using the rul…

> By the way, a pet peeve of mine right now is that reporters covering court cases never seem to simply paste the link to the online PDF decision/ruling for us all to read right in the story. I presume that this falls under the same consideration as direct links to science papers in articles that are covering those releases. Far as I can tell, the central tactic for lowering bounce rate and increasing 'engagement' is…

It's depressing how much of the web didn't work the way it was supposed to. Attention is centralized on news websites because news can be posted on social media feeds every day. Those news articles never link to other websites due to arbitrary SEO considerations. Google's pagerank which was once based on backlinks can't function if the only links come from social media feeds in 3 websites and none of them come from actual websites. On top of it all, nobody even knows for sure if those SEO considerations matter or not because it's all on Google's whim and can change without notice.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#294

Post by AlienRobot »

travoc wrote: post #257
bawolff wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one of the lessons of Wikipedia, is the more you link out the more they come back. People come to your site because it is useful. They are perfectly capable of leaving by themselves. They don't need a link to do so. Having links to relavent information that attracts readers back is well worth the cost of people following links out of your site.

Wikipedia eventually failed.

It's still working for me?

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#295

Post by ddtaylor »

AlienRobot wrote: post #293
Hard_Space wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By the way, a pet peeve of mine right now is that reporters covering court cases never seem to simply paste the link to the online PDF decision/ruling for us all to read right in the story. I presume that this falls under the same consideration as direct links to science papers in articles that are covering those releases. Far as I can tell, the central tactic for lowering bounce rate and increasing 'engagement' is…

It's depressing how much of the web didn't work the way it was supposed to. Attention is centralized on news websites because news can be posted on social media feeds every day. Those news articles never link to other websites due to arbitrary SEO considerations. Google's pagerank which was once based on backlinks can't function if the only links come from social media feeds in 3 websites and none of them come from a…

The web works fine it's just PACER and stuff that is garbage because there is no competition in the trash people create for the government and public apathy (or corruption, take your pick) is high.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#296

Post by lofaszvanitt »

neallindsay wrote: post #11

The search deals were already not exclusive. The real impact will be the other businesses (especially GenAI) where Google will be barred from having exclusivity clauses in its contracts. -update- CNBC has fixed their headline.

GenAI is a bubble, an inflated nothingburger that DOJ ate like a chocolate muffin.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#297

Post by bc569a80a344f9c »

halJordan wrote: post #270
bc569a80a344f9c wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it is easy to see a near future where an AI agent just retrieves and summarizes the case for you. And does a much better job too. I am significantly less confident that an LLM is going to be any good at putting a raw source like a court ruling PDF into context and adequately explain to readers why - and what details - of the decision matter, and what impact they will have. They can probably do an OK job summari…

Llms are already incredibly able to be great at contextualizing and explaining things. HNs is so allergic to AI, it's incredible. And leaving you behind

They are. I use LLMs. They need to be given context. Which is easy for things that are already on the Internet for them to pull from. When people stop writing news articles that connect events to one another then LLMs have nothing to pull into their context. They are not capable of connecting two random sources.

Edit: also, the primary point is that if everyone uses LLMs for reporting, the loss of revenue will cause the disappearance of the investigative journalism that funds, which LLMs sure as fuck aren’t going to do.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#298

Post by WD-42 »

tyingq wrote: post #281
kelvinjps10 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? It's one of the most popular sites

I won't call it dead, but it is declining. Their various sources of traffic are now regurgitating Wikipedia Content (and other 3rd party sources) via uncited/unlinked AI "blurbs"...instead of presenting snippets of Wikipedia contents with links to Wikipedia to read more. It's not the only reason their traffic is declining, but it seems like a big one.

Who cares if the traffic is declining? I don’t find Wikipedia useful because it gets lots of visits, I find it useful for the information it contains.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#300

Post by foolswisdom »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #89
stackskipton wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under good Monopoly law, you would remedy the situation that got them to this point, not worry about their future. Chrome + Deals got to them to this point so that's what you unwind. If it causes Google to get weakened and AI finishes them off, that's just creative destruction at work and oh well.

> Under good Monopoly law, you would remedy the situation that got them to this point, not worry about their future. I mean but it appears to be being remedy'd by itself why would the court proscribe something for a problem that no longer exists?

We don't know at all that AI will actually make Google search moot.
Post reply on HN