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

Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 236 posts

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#101

Post by hackernewds »

havnagiggle wrote: post #30
bettercallsalad wrote: post #27

I am not following these testimonies in anti-trust cases where they have a competitor of Google testify against Google. Isn’t testifying all about presenting evidence? If I am accused of theft in a criminal court and my arch rival is brought for testimony against me, it doesn’t sound like a fair process to me. Of course if it’s a substantiated material it would make sense but otherwise it doesn’t just makes sense at…

I am with you on this one. What the hell is this? Why is DOJ peddling for other trillion dollar companies? Microsft CEO is concerned for _Google's shareholders_? Are you serious? I don't believe a word of this guy. I'll just add, Bingbot has the same crawling opportunities as Googlebot. Nobody is stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website. It's also been 20+ years: Windows OS is constantly manipulating defau…

The article goes further into Nadella making a case for Bing being the default in Apple browsers. Ridiculous

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#102

Post by hackernewds »

AraceliHarker wrote: post #95
cmcaleer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't MS be in that group? Google pay far above the mark to be default search in FF, and own the most popular web browser.

Because Microsoft is doing worse things than what they are accusing Google of, such as forcing users to use Edge and Bing in Windows. Also, considering the fact that Bing's market share did not increase even when Microsoft signed a contract with Apple to make Bing the default search engine on iPhones, and the testimony that Apple did not acquire Bing because of its poor quality, Microsoft's argument is completely una…

Not to mention the perpetuation of Teams (blatant copy), Outlook (subpar product), Edge (a Chrome downloader) solely because they come pre-installed

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#103

Post by AraceliHarker »

BirAdam wrote: post #68
zitsarethecure wrote: post #49

> "We believe the marketplace should determine what innovations consumers want." - Microsoft, 1998 https://news.microsoft.com/1998/04/09/microsoft-advertisemen...

Different CEO, probably different board, probably different majority share holders, different attitude toward customers, different products and principles, essentially a completely different company.

Microsoft is still engaging in vendor lock-in, such as making it difficult to use Microsoft 365 on platforms other than Azure and Windows. In the open source community, Microsoft is also practicing the 3E strategy, such as implementing specific features in .NET only for Microsoft products. In essence, Microsoft is the same today as it was in the past.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#104

Post by hackernewds »

havnagiggle wrote: post #76
belltaco wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsft CEO is concerned for _Google's shareholders_ Where does it say that?

Maybe I miss-interpreted the quote at the end of the article. > At the end of Mr. Nadella’s appearance, a Justice Department lawyer asked why he thought Google paid Apple so much money to be the default search engine on Apple’s web browser Safari. > “That’s a great question,” Mr. Nadella said. “I would love an opportunity to sort of not have them pay — maybe on behalf of the Google shareholders.” I read that as: Nade…

Further he argued why Bing should be the default, and even makes a pseudo business proposition of how they're prepared to lose $20B to harvest this data. Can't make this up.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#105

Post by hackernewds »

0xDEF wrote: post #44
passwordoops wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>IMHO breaking up corporations is a bit heavy-handed and not the only remedy available. Respectfully disagree in Google's case. Indexing is not their only advantage - having full, unfettered access and control over email, maps, Android play, cloud, and the other myriad divisions plus knows what else via side deals is too much and fully justifies breaking up the business. Your suggestion works if we were still 2002-is…

It's funny how eager Americans are to break up the Big Tech companies that happen to be the only reason the US economy is not a complete dumpster fire. Look at GDP growth for the US vs. the Eurozone since 2008. The high level of integration, both horizontal and vertical, is what makes the US Big Tech companies so economically productive and valuable. But sure. Kill your software industry. Does the US even know how to…

Hey that's a great point! Meanwhile you have China, Russia, Israel, Korea passing all sorts of anti competitive edge AND funding to singular tech companies to corner the GLOBAL market. One need just look at Tiktok and Temu and Huawei

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#106

Post by hackernewds »

didntknowya wrote: post #22
jiggawatts wrote: post #3

One way Google maintains their monopoly is that many websites block all bots except for the Google indexing bot. This makes it literally impossible for anyone to make a competing search engine because millions of doors are slammed in their face. There is no practical way to negotiate access at this scale either leaving no options for small startups — e.g.: AI-based search! One possible anti-monopoly measure would be…

though chatGPT seem to have had no trouble scraping data from everywhere

and too late companies like Reddit and DeviantArt realized the billions of $ in UGC value that their websites had laying stagnant.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#107

Post by carlosjobim »

majormajor wrote: post #36
gwern wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Already has been - what fraction of 'right to be forgotten' requests are actually in the social good, as opposed to just criminals of various levels covering up their crimes?

Of course, "criminals of various levels" "covering up" their, say, stupid 19-year-old mistake drug conviction is exactly why many people favor right to be forgotten things. The idea that it would be in the social good to have easy access to everything someone did or posted for decades seems ludicrous. Privatized ubiquitous surveillance and record-keeping is not a good thing.

Civil society was founded on, and still depends on, public trials and public laws. Since Hammurabi. That has nothing to do with "ubiquitous surveillance", it is the most important and basic record keeping.

It is up then to each person reading the records to decide if a crime is old enough or unimportant enough to not matter. That should not be the decision of internet censors or courts who want to sweep their traces under the rug. Or criminals wanting to do that.

If most people think that drug use is not something a person should be trialed for, then the laws need to be changed. Censoring doesn't remove the fact. It just removes discourse to the realm of gossip.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#108

Post by hotnfresh »

hackernewds wrote: post #99
patmorgan23 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the United States we have an adversarial system of justice. That means the prosecution gets to present their evidence and arguments, and the defense gets to respond and counter. The defense will have ample opportunity to cross examine and present rebuttal whiteness. And just because a witness is presented doesn't mean the fact finder (judge or jury) will find them credible.

What is the alternate form of justice, if not adversarial?

Another big one is the inquisitorial system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#109

Post by deprecative »

AraceliHarker wrote: post #95
cmcaleer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't MS be in that group? Google pay far above the mark to be default search in FF, and own the most popular web browser.

Because Microsoft is doing worse things than what they are accusing Google of, such as forcing users to use Edge and Bing in Windows. Also, considering the fact that Bing's market share did not increase even when Microsoft signed a contract with Apple to make Bing the default search engine on iPhones, and the testimony that Apple did not acquire Bing because of its poor quality, Microsoft's argument is completely una…

Skipping the nonsense about not investigating and conducting a trial because other people might also be doing a crime.

> Because Microsoft is doing worse things than what they are accusing Google of, such as forcing users to use Edge and Bing in Windows.

Given that Google and other parties will have their chance at giving their evidence and testimony, would it not be better for Microsoft to be involved here where their own testimony will available for exploration?

Given that Bing powers DDG and Brave at least, and I assume Kagi consumes Bing also, I see no reason why the only other competitor to Google (in Search) should not be present.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#110

Post by deprecative »

AraceliHarker wrote: post #92
26fingies wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does microsoft testifying preclude any of those companies from testifying?

If it is true that people are reluctant to change their default search engine, as Nadella says, doesn't that mean all Windows users are using Bing?

Us Windows folks are typically defaulted to Bing in Edge, but in any other browser you'll probably get tacked with Google or DDG(Bing).
Post reply on HN