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

201–210 of 236 posts

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

#201

Post by sudoaptinstall »

M4v3R wrote: post #153
theshrike79 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not for a lack of trying, but Google has their tentacles everywhere. You literally can't make a mobile phone today without having support for all Google services. Native support is better than 3rd party. And now all of your user's data is in Google's hands. Yes, there are some extreme ... fanatics(?), who can live with a phone that doesn't have YouTube, Gmail, Google Maps, Google Drive or Play Store in it, but t…

> Yes, there are some extreme ... fanatics(?), who can live with a phone that doesn't have YouTube, Gmail, Google Maps, Google Drive or Play Store in it, but the Joe/Jill Regular will never ever go for that today. I would fit your definition of fanatic and I have a friend who does too. The only google service we still use is YouTube because that’s the hardest one to replace entirely unless you want to cut yourself fr…

If you are running a custom rom on Lineage or some other version of android, check out Newpipe on Fdroid. I've installed it for normy android users and they stopped using the normal youtube front end. It's awesome.

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

#202

Post by jppittma »

passwordoops wrote: post #196
jppittma wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk. This makes me super nervous. Look at what the bell breakup did for innovation in software. The transistor was literally invented there before it was broken up. Likewise, I think it's probable that if Google is broken up, you'll not see anything as innovative as the transformer models, GFS, or Spanner anymore. I think quality of life for employees will likely go down, as it did when bell labs was broken up.

Different time. Bell was one of the last great break ups and occurred just before the modern pro-Big Business, ultra-financialized era kicked off in earnest. If Bell weren't broken up, Bell labs would have been shut down or severely trimmed regardless as the execs diverted the R&D spend to stock buybacks or other inefficient use of funds that benefits the shareholders over all else (e.g. Boeing). I think a better par…

Is Google not on the bleeding edge of research into LLMs? Are they not investing billions into cloud? Google research has quantum computers, and is investing in self driving cars, healthcare, and god knows what else.

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

#204

Post by tgv »

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.

May I also add: a "different" browser, that they're again trying to make unavoidable?

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

#205

Post by WrongAssumption »

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…

Yes, the United States is the #2 manufacturer after China, producing 16.6% of manufacturing output with just 4.2% of the world population.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/manufactu...

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

#206

Post by makomk »

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #166
lotsofpulp wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Well, actually, Google paying other companies to make Google the default is stopping Bing from getting traffic. I cannot see how this is true. Microsoft, with its tens of billions in annual profits, can invest in all the advertising in the world, literally, to let people know how to change the default browser on their iOS or Android device. It is a trivial setting to change. What is not trivial, for Microsoft, is cr…

> It is a trivial setting to change. Most/many people won’t it undeniably gives a massive advantage to google.

Enough people are willing to change it that just paying to be the default wasn't all that effective for Bing or Yahoo. Microsoft's previous strategy was to pay to make Bing the default and remove people's ability to change it. In particular, they took advantage of the mobile phone provider oligopoly in the US and other countries to pay off all the major providers to do this, so that consumers didn't really have a choice to not have their devices send searches to Bing. Google ruined that strategy by outbidding them without even imposing the same kind of lock-in that Microsoft did, and so Microsoft are trying to get the US government to ban them from bidding.

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

#207

Post by rickdeckard »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #118
stefan_ wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, actually, Google paying other companies to make Google the default is stopping Bing from getting traffic. That's why we are having this whole case, among other things. In general, making contracts with 3rd parties that negatively impact your competitors is sort of looked down upon.

>Well, actually, Google paying other companies to make Google the default is stopping Bing from getting traffic. I cannot see how this is true. Microsoft, with its tens of billions in annual profits, can invest in all the advertising in the world, literally, to let people know how to change the default browser on their iOS or Android device. It is a trivial setting to change. What is not trivial, for Microsoft, is cr…

If the search-engine is a tool which creates ad-impressions which company#A can charge to advertisers (creating profit company#A can then spend for making the search-engine the default, perpetually driving even more attention), I don't think breaking this cycle by company#B "just spending more money than company#A earns" is a system of fair competition.

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

#208

Post by CPLX »

nielsbot wrote: post #115
CPLX wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn't. There's truth to your statement in the sense that there's now a generation of confused judges that think this is true. But the plain language of US antitrust statutes is pretty clear on this point, simply engaging in certain kinds of anti-competitive behavior is illegal, you definitely do not need to prove that the illegal behavior had specific effects.

"The consumer welfare standard gradually replaced the rule of reason principle as the dominant legal theory behind antitrust enforcement by the 1980s." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_welfare_standard Maybe the judges are confused, but there was a shift in enforcement around the Reagan era. I also think "consumer welfare" in this context is taken to mainly maen low pricing. That is, if a monopoly causes higher…

What happened is monpolistic businesses bought off both parties and the elite law schools.

They didn’t actually rewrite antitrust law though, so it’s still there.

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

#209

Post by CPLX »

whiddershins wrote: post #120
CPLX wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the most part the most direct victims of unfair competition practices are competitors.

The government doesn’t (or shouldn’t) care if a business beats another business in business. They care if doing so harms the consumer by the route of lack of competition leading to higher prices and/or inferior product.

That’s not true. The government also cares if firms engage in illegal anti competitive behavior.

The way we know they care is they are literally suing dozens of companies right now on that principle.

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

#210

Post by nologic01 »

A duopoly in search that throws some crumbs to the former big-tech monopoly would be a definite improvement over the current monopoly /s.

IANAL and don't particularly care about the minutiae and merits and politics of individual cases in the context of antiquated anti-trust laws. A lucrative monopoly allowed to operate over long periods can and will identify its own weak points and the abilities and competitive threats of the market. It will have more than ample resources to mitigate them. Whether that monopoly dominance is secured in legal, border-line legal or illegal ways is a mute point.

In a healthy economy there should not be any monopolies unless they are very heavily regulated. We should celebrate commercial success up to a point but be deeply suspicious of winner-takes-all degeneration that is justified on the basis of bogus arguments (network effects, superior quality etc).

This rationale is even more important in the context of digital technology where the foundations of the current and future digital economy are being laid. And no, a Google Web [1] is not a good blueprint for the digital economy. Neither is a cozily arranged Google-Microsoft Web for that matter. For this new type of economy to flourish the "web" should be really neutral, not the fiefdom of this or that oligopoly extracting rents and holding everything back.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/10/02/the-in...

Post reply on HN