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

Why we're saying no to Google

blog.ecosia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 92 posts

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#31

Post by skybrian »

Looks like there are three spots. Oddly, Google is using a first-price auction rather than their more usual second-price auction [1]. I wonder why?

In any case, it seems weird not to submit a bid at all. There must be some price above zero that's worth it to them?

[1] "Google will use a first-price sealed-bid auction to select the other general search providers that appear in the choice screen. Google will conduct auctions on a per-country basis for the period from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. Following the initial round of auctions, any subsequent rounds will occur once per year." https://www.android.com/choicescreen/

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#32

Post by lern_too_spel »

reaperducer wrote: post #19
joelx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ongoing attacks on Google are crazy to me. Google has done wonders for all of us - remember how terrible search engines used to be? Do you remember how terrible email was before Gmail? How awful MapQuest was before Google maps? In my opinion these attacks are a paid PR driven distraction from the truly evil actors in the world - see the losses of freedom for people in Hong Kong or citizens of Russia who been impr…

remember how terrible search engines used to be? Do you remember how terrible email was before Gmail? How awful MapQuest was before Google maps? You seem to be under the impression that Google is the only company that could have achieved this. Fastmail is proof that this is simply not true. Google was the leader, and used slimy tactics to kill competition wherever it could. That's not innovation, that's monopoly. Her…

None of your remember whens support your thesis.

> Remember when sites didn't have to make separate AMP versions of their content?

This one contradicts your "kill competition" narrative. Any search engine can implement its own AMP cache, and all the major ones do. A slimy kill competition tactic would be to demand publishers integrate directly with Google instead, like Apple News or FB Instant Articles.

> Remember when web sites competed to produce the best content in order to attract readers, instead of gaming Google's SEO?

This also contradicts your thesis because it's actually a benefit to competitors instead of an example of Google killing competition. Competitors that use different algorithms from Google are less likely have their rankings gamed by SEO black hats, causing their results to appear comparatively better.

> Remember when you bought into an internet service and it would keep running until it went out of business, instead of just being randomly terminated for no reason?

No, I don't remember when this was ever the case.

Actual examples of killing competition are things like making it difficult to use alternate app stores, push notification services, and location services on Android. Enabling some of these would be difficult (not impossible) to do securely, and Google has no incentive to expend resources to enable them, but a working regulatory body could require it for the public good.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#33

Post by brainless »

I think we are looking at this the wrong way. It is not about other competitors, it is how much daily users will not move away from Google search.

If the startup advice about "build a product your users will love" is true then we certainly are not seeing a compelling competitor. A few good efforts are there, including DDG, but none with mass appeal.

Just non-cooperating with Google does not solve the issue. Even Ecosia, from comments in this thread, seems to have unclear resources and mission. So why should I as a user use them? Are they also not simply using marketing tactics instead of building an awesome product? Which, BTW, is mindbogglingly difficult.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#34

Post by kyrra »

m0rphling wrote: post #21
Causality1 wrote: post #20

>Android users deserve the option to freely choose their search engine, and that choice should not be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Man, Google is getting some SERIOUS mileage out of removing "Don't Be Evil" from their mission statement.

That phrased stopped being their mission statement in the spring of 2018.

It's still very much in there.

From: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/

> And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!

The problem was that it was moved from near the top to being near the bottom (though it's own paragraph). Sadly there were lots of very inaccurate headlines like this:

> Google Removes 'Don't Be Evil' Clause From Its Code of Conduct

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#35

Post by ikeyany »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #12
joelx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ongoing attacks on Google are crazy to me. Google has done wonders for all of us - remember how terrible search engines used to be? Do you remember how terrible email was before Gmail? How awful MapQuest was before Google maps? In my opinion these attacks are a paid PR driven distraction from the truly evil actors in the world - see the losses of freedom for people in Hong Kong or citizens of Russia who been impr…

Those were all achieved pre-IPO. The MBAs run Google now and they want unconstrained growth at all costs. Socially conscious principles are worthless distractions to these people.

I don't know, Project Fi is pretty awesome. There are so many industries they've disrupted for the better. They're certainly not as innocent as they were in the past, but they're getting a lot of disproportionate hate right now.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#36

Post by ryacko »

ikeyany wrote: post #35
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those were all achieved pre-IPO. The MBAs run Google now and they want unconstrained growth at all costs. Socially conscious principles are worthless distractions to these people.

I don't know, Project Fi is pretty awesome. There are so many industries they've disrupted for the better. They're certainly not as innocent as they were in the past, but they're getting a lot of disproportionate hate right now.

Google would have been better off with a decentralized solution subsidizing WISPs, than trying to build out fiber infrastructure using contractors. Google wants to be a vertical monopoly, which is a massive coordination problem.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#37

Post by wmf »

skybrian wrote: post #31

Looks like there are three spots. Oddly, Google is using a first-price auction rather than their more usual second-price auction [1]. I wonder why? In any case, it seems weird not to submit a bid at all. There must be some price above zero that's worth it to them? [1] "Google will use a first-price sealed-bid auction to select the other general search providers that appear in the choice screen. Google will conduct au…

If they know they will never win the auction then refusing to bid has better optics. They're probably making the case for another EU bailout.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#38

Post by stiray »

joelx wrote: post #6
chupa-chups wrote: post #2

This sounds like 'I want money by being "not google" and thus people have to like me'. The linked website doesn't point to anything else but that they're allegedly planting trees for (an unknown percentage of the money collected by) showing ads to users. Which is nice, but if you want that I support tree planting initiatives explicitly (which I do), why don't you just encourage someone doing just that, maybe by point…

The ongoing attacks on Google are crazy to me. Google has done wonders for all of us - remember how terrible search engines used to be? Do you remember how terrible email was before Gmail? How awful MapQuest was before Google maps? In my opinion these attacks are a paid PR driven distraction from the truly evil actors in the world - see the losses of freedom for people in Hong Kong or citizens of Russia who been impr…

The competition was what made those services better. Now there is situation where is almost no competition. Which is killing the possibility to get even better services.

Google has gone its way to the mega corporation where nothing else matters but money. And they are moving into direction where this money is comming from worse possible sources.

Regarding "true evil", to some people google IS true evil. And based of their conduct in last 5 years it is hard to argue.

If you want some insight, read: https://www.amazon.com/Age-Surveillance-Capitalism-Future-Fr...

> Do you remember how terrible email was before Gmail? How awful MapQuest was before Google maps?

No? There was nothing wrong with email without g. I am still using it and having my own mail server. And now you have OpenStreetMaps, I don't use Google Maps, when I want map, I want MAP, not map&ads&suggestions&search&reviews,..

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#39

Post by mech422 »

joelx wrote: post #6
chupa-chups wrote: post #2

This sounds like 'I want money by being "not google" and thus people have to like me'. The linked website doesn't point to anything else but that they're allegedly planting trees for (an unknown percentage of the money collected by) showing ads to users. Which is nice, but if you want that I support tree planting initiatives explicitly (which I do), why don't you just encourage someone doing just that, maybe by point…

The ongoing attacks on Google are crazy to me. Google has done wonders for all of us - remember how terrible search engines used to be? Do you remember how terrible email was before Gmail? How awful MapQuest was before Google maps? In my opinion these attacks are a paid PR driven distraction from the truly evil actors in the world - see the losses of freedom for people in Hong Kong or citizens of Russia who been impr…

TBH - I much preferred alta vista's search language to google's 'best guess' approach. I also dislike gmail's UI. I mostly stay with it because of inertia these days. DDG is nice - but needs a larger search index.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#40

Post by throwaway2048 »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #16
nugget wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ecosia has its own narrative to push but the real problem is much deeper than that. By setting up an auction system, Google has effectively ensured that ALL of the options on the screen will be Google search syndication partners, because no primary search competitor (Bing/Yahoo, Yandex, Baidu) can afford to compete in EU countries. Google will give up some app market share but all search traffic will flow back to the…

> because no competitor (Bing/Yahoo, Yandex, Baidu) can afford to compete in EU countries You're saying that Google syndicators value a unit of traffic more highly than Bing/Yahoo/Yandex/Baidu do? That does not seem especially likely to me. Perhaps in some small countries, but I would be surprised if Bing, Yandex, and Baidu don't bid in e.g. France, Germany, etc.

The value goes beyond a unit of traffic alone if you can use it to help maintain an effective monopoly, as opposed to trying to compete with one.

Its the very definition of what makes a monopoly dangerous, the ability to outspend any competitor and force them out of the market.

Post reply on HN