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

41–50 of 92 posts

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#41

Post by singron »

pb7 wrote: post #10
mhkool wrote: post #3

This behaviour of Google shows that the fines of the EU are still not high enough.

It shows me to me that the EC shouldn’t have meddled to begin with. Android is free but Google isn’t providing it out of the goodness of its heart. If it can’t recoup its costs from offering the Google suite of apps (including search), then Android will be monetized by other search engines paying to be included in the options. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

One of the issues with the EC fines is that they leave it up to Google to invent a remedy. Similar to how a child who doesn't want to do a chore might do a bad job in hope that they won't be assigned again, Google can try to engineer a worse outcome as a "fix". If the EC is smart, they won't fall for it.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#42

Post by jasonvorhe »

kyrra wrote: post #34
m0rphling wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Thanks for pointing that out. It's shocking how little people who complain about Google actually know about what they're criticizing.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#43

Post by [deleted] »

chrisco255 wrote: post #25

I feel pretty strongly that Google (and Apple) should be forced to offer a choice for default search engine on their mobile devices. Microsoft was pretty handily sued and accused of antitrust for not offering this option on Windows desktop browsers. Google benefitted a great deal from that and it only makes sense that they should have to play by the same rules.

[deleted]

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#44

Post by cameronbrown »

Sorry, but this really is the best way to go about this. What's the alternative?

1. Random list of all search engines - most of which may be far worse/less advanced/more evil (read: poor & desperate) than Google.

2. Hand picked list by Google? If you want neutrality, then you are joking... Right?

3. 'Independent' committee who decide every so often - I'm not against this, but who's going to fund this? I can guess the two main companies in a whim (cough: Google, Microsoft). This is basically a less-transparent auction.

4. Auction-based. You call it 'selling off to the highest bidder', I call it allocation of limited resources - let's call this what it is, an advert.

5. Android switches to a paid model, Google completely closes off the platform and charges carriers directly for their services.

I really do like what Ecosia is doing but consider this:

1. Google is not cutting off your ability to download Ecosia - there are still dozens of search engines in the Play Store.

2. Ecosia benefits from Google Play infrastructure without having to contribute back because it's free for developers. Obviously Google benefits from having mindshare/user base, but there's still a lot of value for developers that Apple charges far more for.

I think Google should have given Android users a choice long ago, but I don't believe it's completely fair to call this auction move 'evil'.

What else could they do?

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#45

Post by bubble_talk »

If you are going to go after Google, you really should do a much better job. And there are very good reasons to reduce Google's dominance, but this whiny approach isn't helping.

1 Don't be a thin wrapper around an inferior search engine. Apparently Bing cannot index "JS only" websites. [1] Improve your search quality first. Unless your search quality is remarkable in at least some small niche, you are probably not even going to get on the radar.

2 "Google is trying to create artificial scarcity" - As others in this thread have pointed out, no search engine is actually blocked on Android devices to the best of my knowledge. Android setup screen is completely Google's prerogative, and if you don't want to participate in the auction, fine. Save the money for better things (see point 4).

3 "Purpose-driven search engines will be crowded out by profit-hungry rivals" If you use Bing, aren't you already supporting non-"purpose driven" search engines? Is Bing's purpose somehow superior to Google's purpose? If all search engines became "purpose driven", you can be pretty damn sure that the quality will take a big hit.

4 Focus on getting word of mouth in more intelligent ways, less expensive ways. Why not go after Google where they are actually vulnerable? So many popular independent websites get hit randomly by all kinds of Google updates. Make no mistake, a lot of them would be very happy to promote alternative search engines. Find these websites, build relationships with the people who run them, and sponsor their work. It is just as important a mission in my view, plus who will say no to a chance to promote a good cause (assuming Ecosia.org are running everything on the up-and-up)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20605484

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#46

Post by ing33k »

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…

Google is moving from the second-price auction.

https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/9298211?hl=en

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#47

Post by apatters »

cameronbrown wrote: post #44

Sorry, but this really is the best way to go about this. What's the alternative? 1. Random list of all search engines - most of which may be far worse/less advanced/more evil (read: poor & desperate) than Google. 2. Hand picked list by Google? If you want neutrality, then you are joking... Right? 3. 'Independent' committee who decide every so often - I'm not against this, but who's going to fund this? I can guess the…

> What else could they do?

Mandate that the "choice screen" must display the top 5 search engines in the EU by market share as identified by an established, independent market research firm. If the regulator or a competitor feel that Google is not executing this mandate in good faith they can take Google to court.

Done. Justice works. Pay for placement, my ass.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#48

Post by cameronbrown »

apatters wrote: post #47
cameronbrown wrote: post #44

Sorry, but this really is the best way to go about this. What's the alternative? 1. Random list of all search engines - most of which may be far worse/less advanced/more evil (read: poor & desperate) than Google. 2. Hand picked list by Google? If you want neutrality, then you are joking... Right? 3. 'Independent' committee who decide every so often - I'm not against this, but who's going to fund this? I can guess the…

> What else could they do? Mandate that the "choice screen" must display the top 5 search engines in the EU by market share as identified by an established, independent market research firm. If the regulator or a competitor feel that Google is not executing this mandate in good faith they can take Google to court. Done. Justice works. Pay for placement, my ass.

This has basically the same effect as an auction model except that you totally lock out the smaller search engines like Ecosia.

Is improving the market for startups like Ecosia your goal, or just to decrease Google's marketshare (by increasing the market share of other big tech search engines like Bing/Yahoo/Amazon Product Search)?

Being somebody's search engine is scarcity. As a society we've been solving scarcity for thousands of years with auction-based models.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#49

Post by [deleted] »

cameronbrown wrote: post #44

Sorry, but this really is the best way to go about this. What's the alternative? 1. Random list of all search engines - most of which may be far worse/less advanced/more evil (read: poor & desperate) than Google. 2. Hand picked list by Google? If you want neutrality, then you are joking... Right? 3. 'Independent' committee who decide every so often - I'm not against this, but who's going to fund this? I can guess the…

[deleted]

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#50

Post by stakhanov »

This thing doesn't address the problem it was actually meant to address which is to stop an anticompetitive practice. The spirit of the law in relation to antitrust is that you can't abuse a monopoly in one market to gain a monopoly in another. That's why it wasn't acceptable that Google's Android would set Google to be the default search engine and offer no other options.

Now Google says to those other search engines: Hey, you CAN be the default. But you're going to have to give us ALL your profits.

How is that any less anti-competitive than what they were doing before?

Footnote: Why am I saying ALL of their profits? Well it's four slots. Google is going to be one of them. Microsoft and Yahoo are going to bid whatever it takes to be on the list. -- Now there's ONE slot left for everyone who isn't part of the existing search oligopoly like Ecosia, Qwant, DuckDuckGo and so forth.

Now imagine if this was open outcry: Ecosia bids X dollars. Qwant outbids them by offering X+1 dollars for that fourth slot. Well: If Ecosia knows they would still be profitable even if they had to pay X+2 dollars, that's what they're going to bid, isn't it? They hit a limit only at the point where they know that the deal would turn unprofitable. The guy that gets the slot would, in open outcry, end up paying the next guy's profit plus one dollar. But that's not the model. They're doing sealed bids and you'll have to actually pay what you bid, so... -- That's why I'm saying ALL their profit.

Post reply on HN