Live data from Hacker News

CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

yelpblog.com

161–170 of 191 posts

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#161
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If think the point being made is Amazon didn't suffer the same fate as Yelp wrt to book reviews because Amazon had a better product than whatever Google produced.

You mean Amazon actually has a product. Until yelp started doing deliveries, order now and cashback its product was a content farm. I know a few people in the restaurant industry (owners/managers). They all say the same thing: at best engaging yelp ( and advertising on yelp ) is a non-negative. It does not bring enough new customers to justify its expense.

The best yelp engagement I saw worked with customers directly: a property manager ran a raffle for half off a months rent. To enter, you just had to leave a review on yelp. They didn’t explicitly ask for good reviews, but the majority were pretty positive.

For about the same amount that yelp wanted for sponsorship, they got over 30 real, quality reviews that complimented the recent improvements that had been made.

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#162
post #78
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hey now insert ads into the top of the search flow, commingling results and ad Google has done this as long as I can recall - the top few results are always “sponsored”. Yelp also does this, by placing a star on your map instead of a rating.

Google was created to build an open search engine that doesn't rely on ad revenue. Literally, that's what the original paper says: http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

I don't think that is true. It's the first time I've heard about it, anyways.

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#163
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with IE was not that Microsoft developed IE, the problem with IE was that Microsoft used its ownership of the operating system and MS Office as well as contracts with PC manufacturers to give IE an overwhelming advantage over the competition.

Isn't google doing the same thing. They are using their search dominance to get people to use their other services. If DOJ hadn't forced MSFT to stop making IE the default browser would google be as big. Most people don't ever change the defaults on their browser. If MSFT had been left alone are you sure google would be as big as they are today? I mean they took netscape from 90% market share to like 5% marketshare.

In fact Google is doing exact the same thing - pushing their browser using possibly the worlds most wanted ad spot: the front page of Google.

It's almost a one-to-one to Windows pushing their browser by default in the OS that almost everyone used at that time.

Edit: I like some other things Google do but they definitely should talk about this internally an do something about it before EU as well as relevant US authorities wakes up and punish them for anti competitive behaviour.

Or maybe the relevant authorities should slap them on the wrist first; Microsoft seems to have learned the lesson and is a much nicer company to deal with in many areas now.

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense is Chrome a monopoly?

It has an exceedingly dominant market share (FYI: Being a monopoly does not require "zero alternatives exist". Merely that those alternatives are at the mercy of the main one), which it uses to direct and control Internet protocols in the way it finds most beneficial to Google. All new Internet protocols and 'standards' proposed by Google come with the implied threat that Google will do it anyways, since often Google…

Your working definition of what an illegal anti-competitive use of monopoly power is seems to be the reverse of what I've heard before.

Under your definition, Chrome is supporting the even stronger pre-existing monopoly Google has on search or ads, and therefore is bad.

Usually anti-competitive actions are seen as a player using its monopoly to support emergence into a new market, not to build a moat around an existing market they already are dominant in.

For example, under your framing, Microsoft's usage of Internet Explorer would have been bad not because it came pre-installed with Windows, but because it was Windows-only (or worked best on Windows) thus supporting the existing Windows monopoly.

I don't know if this reasoning can hold legally---merely because I have never seen it used before.

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#165
post #162
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google was created to build an open search engine that doesn't rely on ad revenue. Literally, that's what the original paper says: http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

I don't think that is true. It's the first time I've heard about it, anyways.

That’s why I linked the source above.

> This causes search engine technology to remain largely a black art and to be advertising oriented (see Appendix A). With Google, we have a strong goal to push more development and understanding into the academic realm.

> One of our main goals in designing Google was to set up an environment where other researchers can come in quickly, process large chunks of the web, and produce interesting results that would have been very difficult to produce otherwise. In the short time the system has been up, there have already been several papers using databases generated by Google, and many others are underway. Another goal we have is to set up a Spacelab-like environment where researchers or even students can propose and do interesting experiments on our large-scale web data.

From Appendix A

> Currently, the predominant business model for commercial search engines is advertising. The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users. For example, in our prototype search engine one of the top results for cellular phone is "The Effect of Cellular Phone Use Upon Driver Attention", a study which explains in great detail the distractions and risk associated with conversing on a cell phone while driving. This search result came up first because of its high importance as judged by the PageRank algorithm, an approximation of citation importance on the web [Page, 98]. It is clear that a search engine which was taking money for showing cellular phone ads would have difficulty justifying the page that our system returned to its paying advertisers. For this type of reason and historical experience with other media [Bagdikian 83], we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.

[…]

> Furthermore, advertising income often provides an incentive to provide poor quality search results. For example, we noticed a major search engine would not return a large airline's homepage when the airline's name was given as a query. It so happened that the airline had placed an expensive ad, linked to the query that was its name. A better search engine would not have required this ad, and possibly resulted in the loss of the revenue from the airline to the search engine. In general, it could be argued from the consumer point of view that the better the search engine is, the fewer advertisements will be needed for the consumer to find what they want. This of course erodes the advertising supported business model of the existing search engines. However, there will always be money from advertisers who want a customer to switch products, or have something that is genuinely new. But we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#166
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m bullish on yelp still, they have the highest quality community sourced reviews, a forward thinking engineering team, and energetic management. I think they will pull through and continue to be competitive with Google, but they need better marketing!

Is there two Yelps?

[deleted]

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has an exceedingly dominant market share (FYI: Being a monopoly does not require "zero alternatives exist". Merely that those alternatives are at the mercy of the main one), which it uses to direct and control Internet protocols in the way it finds most beneficial to Google. All new Internet protocols and 'standards' proposed by Google come with the implied threat that Google will do it anyways, since often Google…

Your working definition of what an illegal anti-competitive use of monopoly power is seems to be the reverse of what I've heard before. Under your definition, Chrome is supporting the even stronger pre-existing monopoly Google has on search or ads, and therefore is bad. Usually anti-competitive actions are seen as a player using its monopoly to support emergence into a new market, not to build a moat around an existi…

The general concept of tying relates to connecting unrelated products, and using control of one to benefit the other. I'm doubtful the claim "the other product is already also a monopoly" is a usable defense for this practice's illegality.

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#168
post #64

When I want to buy something, I type "amazon.com", not "google.com". So, why don't I type "yelp.com", when I want to go somewhere? There is nothing to complain about, when your product sucks.

That is because you are familiar with services Amazon and Yelp provide. There are a large number of people who do not. They may not know all of the different services (or want to shop around) so a "general" search on Google would be their starting point.

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

60 Minutes lost me as a viewer 25 years ago. They did a hit piece on someone who I worked with that was flat out untrue. Many people at work knew the details and agreed. That one experience made me view anything I see on TV with a healthy dose of scepticism.

I agree with you about not trusting anything we see on TV/Newspapers (even if it is from 60 Minutes; NYT; whatever-is-reputed-to-be-reliable). I grew up in Myanmar and after reading a lot of one-sided coverage about the refugee issue there (labeled as 'genocide'), I realized it's impossible for news organizations to be almost always impartial and accurate. They have to obtain information from some source. Almost alwa…

> I grew up in Myanmar and after reading a lot of one-sided coverage about the refugee issue there

Could you elaborate on this? Show some nyt/whatever articles and explain what they got wrong? (What they omitted, etc.)

Re: CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Google’s abuse of dominance

#170
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Craigslist is terrible but people still use it. If Google entered that market and showed their own classified ads as search results above Craigslist's, would you say that "Craigslist couldn't see their audience was going to dry up"? At what point is it too much? Google wants to classify all the world's information—doesn't seem like there are many markets it wouldn't enter. Is every business just living on borrowed ti…

Craigslist is actually pretty good for some users. It works on a computer that is over 10 years old, it has minimum levels of moderation, and does a really good job of letting people interact/trade in their local areas.

The quality of the site is not the point. The point is whether or not Google abuses their market position. Whether Nixon bugging the Democratic office at The Watergate is a crime or not doesn't hinge on whether McGovern is a good candidate.
Post reply on HN