221–230 of 549 posts
Well, DuckDuckGo is pretty known and independent of Google. Not long time ago was an article here on HN about how DDG operates and they have their own web crawler, not relying on Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if you break up Google or Alphabet, the search division would probably remain a single company. It won't solve anything. So You get Google Search Inc. Adsense Inc. AdWords Inc, Gmail Inc, I imagine. This would be just restructuring, Googlers are too smart to get hold back by this and they probably already have an emergency plan if it remotely comes as a possibility.
If Google search is not funded by ads any more, they’ll suddenly have a serious problem.
My point is that if your company sells information rather physical products then breaking it up is pointless.
For those who don't know, .dev is operated by Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Easy, stop letting them dump other services for free on the backs of their other businesses. Search can stay ad-supported. Youtube, Gmail, Drive, Cloud, Stadia, Android, News? Should all be broken out into their own businesses and forced to be profitable on their own. As it is, nobody can enter those spaces without being willing to lose hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars.
Prevent a global company from giving away products? So other big company can gain space? All of the virtuals you mentioned have different stories. Cloud is profitable, and is not the top company anyhow. News is not a product it's a grouping of news stories. Youtube makes money through ads and better access and could be considered a loss-leader but shutting it down will not make the field more competitive. Android is…
It’s really sad to see the anti-success rhetoric. I was around during the “search wars”, and what’s usually forgotten is that well, they were by far the best behaved as a corporate entity. This “romantization” of this ideal state, devoid of historical context or acknowledgement of the world we live in is extremwly counter productive. Should google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple do better? Absofuckinglutely!!! Regulate them…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Google must not fall because it is a monopoly. If it was to fall it should be because someone built a better product. One of the reasons for breaking up monopolies is that they make it harder for newcomers to build something better.
Even if you break up Google or Alphabet, the search division would probably remain a single company. It won't solve anything. So You get Google Search Inc. Adsense Inc. AdWords Inc, Gmail Inc, I imagine. This would be just restructuring, Googlers are too smart to get hold back by this and they probably already have an emergency plan if it remotely comes as a possibility.
I looked into the Cliqz browser a few years a ago. Back then they claimed to be a privacy respecting alternative to Chrome. What I found back then is that they sent every keystroke I type in the URL bar to their own servers. They outright lied about that in their terms. For me their mission is pretty clear: Google ate Burda's ad cookies and now they are trying to get their hands into the cookie jar again. Given that…
Well, that's how you implement an autocomplete feature in the 1st place. If they'd sent every keystroke you typed outside their URL bar, now that's something to be aware off. So, did they?
It’s really sad to see the anti-success rhetoric. I was around during the “search wars”, and what’s usually forgotten is that well, they were by far the best behaved as a corporate entity. This “romantization” of this ideal state, devoid of historical context or acknowledgement of the world we live in is extremwly counter productive. Should google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple do better? Absofuckinglutely!!! Regulate them…
I disagree here. Billionaires are often pretty awesome. Once someone gets way more money than the could ever need, they tend to pursue other activities that they enjoy more than making money, which is frequently giving it away (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet) or starting moonshot space companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, or Virgin Galactic. Even Zuckerberg donates to projects like these.
Rich people take on projects that may not be viable yet, but are important nonetheless, essentially filling the role that government used to play in R&D.
These guys call for banishment of "search monopoly" yet are in it for the money and business share. Privacy is just a currently sound competitive angle.
It’s really sad to see the anti-success rhetoric. I was around during the “search wars”, and what’s usually forgotten is that well, they were by far the best behaved as a corporate entity. This “romantization” of this ideal state, devoid of historical context or acknowledgement of the world we live in is extremwly counter productive. Should google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple do better? Absofuckinglutely!!! Regulate them…
Your post and post history is a great illustration of what I've talked about before here on ycombinator. Lots of your posts I can agree with, you're a reasonable individual. so why the huge blind spot when it comes to this topic? When they colluded to force wages down, you defended them. There is absolutely no need for you to. And yet I know you will not stop even after this comment to you. For what purpose have you…
But then you turned this into a personal attack and questioning his motivation, which you already “suspect”.
Regulation is missing, in my opinion, and breaking them up doesn’t address the problem and is a dicey proposition all together. But attacking people is breaking rules and only makes you lose credibility.