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

41–50 of 236 posts

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

#41

Post by JohnMakin »

havnagiggle wrote: post #30
bettercallsalad wrote: post #27

I am not following these testimonies in anti-trust cases where they have a competitor of Google testify against Google. Isn’t testifying all about presenting evidence? If I am accused of theft in a criminal court and my arch rival is brought for testimony against me, it doesn’t sound like a fair process to me. Of course if it’s a substantiated material it would make sense but otherwise it doesn’t just makes sense at…

I am with you on this one. What the hell is this? Why is DOJ peddling for other trillion dollar companies? Microsft CEO is concerned for _Google's shareholders_? Are you serious? I don't believe a word of this guy. I'll just add, Bingbot has the same crawling opportunities as Googlebot. Nobody is stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website. It's also been 20+ years: Windows OS is constantly manipulating defau…

You’re confused why in an anti-trust case they may want to hear from competitors?

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

#42

Post by Ferret7446 »

majormajor wrote: post #32
bettercallsalad wrote: post #27

I am not following these testimonies in anti-trust cases where they have a competitor of Google testify against Google. Isn’t testifying all about presenting evidence? If I am accused of theft in a criminal court and my arch rival is brought for testimony against me, it doesn’t sound like a fair process to me. Of course if it’s a substantiated material it would make sense but otherwise it doesn’t just makes sense at…

> If I am accused of theft in a criminal court and my arch rival is brought for testimony against me, it doesn’t sound like a fair process to me. So, like, if you were arrested for assaulted your neighbor who you had a long-standing rivalry with, you wouldn't expect the court to hear from the neighbor? It's not like you wouldn't have your own chance to give your own testimony...

No, it's more like, if you and your neighbor have competing businesses, and you were accused of fraud, your neighbor testifies that you're an asshole. It's an opinion from someone who hates you/benefits from convicting you. Now, if they had actual evidence it'd be different (I assume not from the title, article is paywalled).

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

#43

Post by patmorgan23 »

bettercallsalad wrote: post #27

I am not following these testimonies in anti-trust cases where they have a competitor of Google testify against Google. Isn’t testifying all about presenting evidence? If I am accused of theft in a criminal court and my arch rival is brought for testimony against me, it doesn’t sound like a fair process to me. Of course if it’s a substantiated material it would make sense but otherwise it doesn’t just makes sense at…

In the United States we have an adversarial system of justice. That means the prosecution gets to present their evidence and arguments, and the defense gets to respond and counter.

The defense will have ample opportunity to cross examine and present rebuttal whiteness.

And just because a witness is presented doesn't mean the fact finder (judge or jury) will find them credible.

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

#44

Post by 0xDEF »

passwordoops wrote: post #18
jiggawatts wrote: post #3

One way Google maintains their monopoly is that many websites block all bots except for the Google indexing bot. This makes it literally impossible for anyone to make a competing search engine because millions of doors are slammed in their face. There is no practical way to negotiate access at this scale either leaving no options for small startups — e.g.: AI-based search! One possible anti-monopoly measure would be…

>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 do anything else? Does the US even manufacture anything physical anymore? Last I checked tiny little Denmark produces more wind turbines than the US and tiny little Switzerland produces more CNC machines than the US.

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

#45

Post by sanderjd »

pydry wrote: post #11
qudat wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea sounds nice but politicians controlling an index would be an abject disaster.

Competitive markets > Governments > monopolies

I like this! But I do think many markets make sense to be heavily regulated, beyond just anti-trust. (For instance, my work involves wholesale power markets, which are heavily regulated by necessity, but in my view remain better than vertically integrated monopoly power providers.)

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

#46

Post by lemoncookiechip »

passwordoops wrote: post #18
jiggawatts wrote: post #3

One way Google maintains their monopoly is that many websites block all bots except for the Google indexing bot. This makes it literally impossible for anyone to make a competing search engine because millions of doors are slammed in their face. There is no practical way to negotiate access at this scale either leaving no options for small startups — e.g.: AI-based search! One possible anti-monopoly measure would be…

>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…

Microsoft has all the same services that Google has, including the ones you just mentioned and more.

Bing, Outlook, Bing Maps, Microsoft Store, Azure, Windows, Edge, Office, OneDrive, XBOX division, and more.

If they can't compete with Google, then maybe they aren't offering as good a service for most of these, and it's not for lack of trying to manipulate the market into using their services.

I do agree with what you said though, both Alphabet and Microsoft should be broken up, and I don't mean just having multiple separate companies that operate closely together, but proper separation. This also goes for META and Amazon.

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

#47

Post by jowea »

bettercallsalad wrote: post #27

I am not following these testimonies in anti-trust cases where they have a competitor of Google testify against Google. Isn’t testifying all about presenting evidence? If I am accused of theft in a criminal court and my arch rival is brought for testimony against me, it doesn’t sound like a fair process to me. Of course if it’s a substantiated material it would make sense but otherwise it doesn’t just makes sense at…

I have no idea how to prove he is lying, but theoretically there would be criminal consequences for lying in this case.

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

#48

Post by stefan_ »

havnagiggle wrote: post #30
bettercallsalad wrote: post #27

I am not following these testimonies in anti-trust cases where they have a competitor of Google testify against Google. Isn’t testifying all about presenting evidence? If I am accused of theft in a criminal court and my arch rival is brought for testimony against me, it doesn’t sound like a fair process to me. Of course if it’s a substantiated material it would make sense but otherwise it doesn’t just makes sense at…

I am with you on this one. What the hell is this? Why is DOJ peddling for other trillion dollar companies? Microsft CEO is concerned for _Google's shareholders_? Are you serious? I don't believe a word of this guy. I'll just add, Bingbot has the same crawling opportunities as Googlebot. Nobody is stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website. It's also been 20+ years: Windows OS is constantly manipulating defau…

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.

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

#50

Post by Ferret7446 »

jiggawatts wrote: post #3

One way Google maintains their monopoly is that many websites block all bots except for the Google indexing bot. This makes it literally impossible for anyone to make a competing search engine because millions of doors are slammed in their face. There is no practical way to negotiate access at this scale either leaving no options for small startups — e.g.: AI-based search! One possible anti-monopoly measure would be…

Does Google penalize sites for not blocking other bots? If not, then it is not Google "maintaining their monopoly", it is everyone deciding for themselves to only support Google.

The government forcing restrictions on companies that people choose freely is extremely dangerous and will definitely be used for political reasons.

Post reply on HN