141–150 of 237 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were they? If it hadn't been bundled for free, what would have happened? No-one will ever know.
... because Netscape couldn't compete with Microsoft, because Microsoft could give away a browser for free as in beer. Perhaps we're meaning different things by the word 'compete'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you're not seeing it because you're looking for literal exact words. Instead, look for meaning ... such as the one embedded in this sentence: >I prefer getting integrated results from Google's other search services when I do a Google search. One example of "other search services" is Google Shopping. It's the retail advertisers that sponsor their ecommerce buying links to Google Shopping. Hence, the "advertisers…
Ah, "the words are what I mean them to be". Can't argue anymore then.
That example "connects me, the user, to the advertisers".
Seriously, without playing the game of "words are anything I want them to mean just to win an argument"... what would _you_ call the mechanism of those Google Shopping results?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, Germany too.
That's not my impression - Google rarely shows me non-german shopping links. However their regular results results often tend to be a little too german / national for my taste. One example are reviews (as in "{some product} review") - I often find that my search results are biased towards german reviews while I'd really prefer to see international reviews from the people most qualified to do so.
[1] I've been doing this since forever. The earliest reference I could find for the feature is from 2004. Incredible: http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/769/google_goto_generic_engli...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were they? If it hadn't been bundled for free, what would have happened? No-one will ever know.
... because Netscape couldn't compete with Microsoft, because Microsoft could give away a browser for free as in beer. Perhaps we're meaning different things by the word 'compete'?
So, yeah in the sense that a five year old Rocky vs Ivan Drago in a boxing match is a competition technically. But no one can honestly say it's really a competition, as in there's any spirit of competition.
U.S. v Microsoft makes it pretty clear. MS'es strategy was break the law and do anything to win. Then it was weather the lawsuit and win or lose, they had years to position IE as the dominant product. So losing hardly mattered they still got what they wanted.
What could Netscape actually do to counter all that? They were practically bystanders in this nearly as much as my grandmother was. Such was MS'es power in the 90's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we can expect a similar decision against Apple bundling their own apps in iOS, or Microsoft promoting OneCloud in Windows, or Amazon not selling Google Chrome & heavily promoting their Firestick, or Bing doing exactly the same thing as Google (the only difference I see is the placement)? I think it would be better if Google made it clearer that the shopping search was all adverts, but otherwise this seems idiotic.…
We have seen similar action against Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple in the EU... So, yes. > this seems idiotic. Every large tech company leverages its dominance in one area to compete in a different market. Then they will continue to be fined for anti-competitive behaviour. Which is also illegal in the US, the US just doesn't enforce their existing laws. It is "idiotic" that the US fails to enforce existing US law. It i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You seem to confuse having never read PR releases with still being outraged by their BS. You seem to confuse having valid concerns vs. making assumptions. Calling a PR release BS without any fact is illogical at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Google wants to give the best search results possible, and it obviously has hooks into it's own shopping database that allow it to show targeted results. A logica…
> Google wants to give the best search results possible Citation needed. Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns (e.g. manipulating tests results to boost paid advertisers or its own properties) as it has been known to do?
Because that is what they claim, and to call somebody a liar requires evidence, not unfounded accusations.
> (...) connecting our users with thousands of advertisers, large and small, in ways that are useful for both . We truly live in the age of spinning, of euphemisms, where words lose all their meaning. All-pervasive advertising, the most insidious technique of consumer capitalism, is now an idealistic connecting of people (why, rather than fining us indeed they should be thanking thanking us for that, they seem to say…
I'd encourage you (and everyone) to read the comments in the other thread happening today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712 You'll see people baffled by this decision and generally happy with the service and products google offers. It's just a reminder to remember that what doesn't work for you may be pure bliss for other people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have seen similar action against Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple in the EU... So, yes. > this seems idiotic. Every large tech company leverages its dominance in one area to compete in a different market. Then they will continue to be fined for anti-competitive behaviour. Which is also illegal in the US, the US just doesn't enforce their existing laws. It is "idiotic" that the US fails to enforce existing US law. It i…
But this is relatively meaningless with the current fine structure. Unless the EU's is drastically different, the fine never comes close to matching what the companies are making with these anti-competitive practices, ergo the companies are not sufficiently disincentivized to stop using them.
Why? making fines to large and forcing companies to pay them up to the point that it hurts them will result in a severe economic impact, which will destabilize te economy.
For real gross conduct people should be held responsible in the company, even to the point that they might be personally responsible. People need a vested intrest to not do this kind of behaviour.
It's interesting how on Hacker News, story about Google getting fined was censored and removed yet PR from Google is still on the front page. It's sad that bias and censorship on here is so strong.
Whether it comes through the Google PR machine or not, people are still getting the key message: Google has been fined for playing unfairly. Most people don't read past the headline, and defending against these allegations still just makes the allegations stickier in the minds of public; it strengthens the association between "Google" and "unfair" in the public's psyche.