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

51–60 of 236 posts

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

#51

Post by TerrifiedMouse »

jsnell wrote: post #10

> The image of the chief executive of a leading tech rival — Microsoft is one of the world’s biggest public companies, valued at $2.4 trillion — saying it could not easily fight Google was striking. Why is that striking? It's just a repeat of the playbook Microsoft used to great effect in the Activision trial. "Oh, woe is us, we've lost the console wars, we're in distant 3rd place and can't compete". They have absolu…

I don’t get why he saying “MS can’t compete” matters. It doesn’t mean it’s in any way true.

MS has almost every opportunity that Google has when it comes to search. They fail to compete simply because they aren’t good enough.

Google being default on Chrome the leading browser? Edge freaking comes with Windows and defaults to Bing.

Google being default on iOS? MS has every opportunity to take Google's spot on iOS. The fact that Apple, a major competitor with Google in the mobile space, sides with Google says a lot about Bing's quality - can't be money because MS is worth like 2.4 trillion.

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

#52

Post by GuB-42 »

This is a prisoner dilemma situation.

Both Microsoft and Google abuse their position, they could shut up about it, but instead it looks like Microsoft is defecting. I wonder if Google intends to counterattack. What Google does with Android, Microsoft does it with Windows, but worse.

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

#53

Post by havnagiggle »

JohnMakin wrote: post #41
havnagiggle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No I am not confused about getting testimony from competitors. I am very interested in hearing from companies that probably have legitimate grievances: DDG, Kagi, Brave, etc. MS is not among those companies.

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

#54

Post by userbinator »

gwern wrote: post #20
qudat wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Already has been - what fraction of 'right to be forgotten' requests are actually in the social good, as opposed to just criminals of various levels covering up their crimes?

I think of it more as a "right to rewrite history".

"He who controls the past controls the present, and he who controls the present controls the future."

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

#55

Post by lolinder »

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 an antitrust trial your competitors are by definition victims of the monopolistic behavior that is being alleged. Yes, there will be a conflict of interest in their testimony that needs to be accounted for, but it's not unreasonable for the victim in a court case to testify of the manner in which they feel victimized.

Regarding your analogy, it would be more like if you're accused of stealing from your arch rival. Should they be barred from testifying against you on the grounds that there's bad blood between you? Certainly not! It's up to your lawyer to demonstrate their bias and persuade the jury to ignore their testimony.

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

#56

Post by bigyikes »

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…

I can buy this argument for Apple, but Google? To me it seems like there is an intuitive split between Search+Ads, GSuite, YouTube, and Android. Why do you believe breaking these up would adversely affect the US economy?

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

#57

Post by anon25783 »

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…

To give the benefit of the doubt to the court, it might be justifiable on the grounds that the big tech giants form an oligopoly, i.e. that they aren't really competing businesses so much as a half-formal conglomerate of corporations whose separateness is a legal fiction to ward off antitrust.

But I share your confusion. The case for Microsoft and Google being part of an oligopoly together doesn't really hold water, considering that Google appears to be competing with Microsoft in the consumer market for web browsers, operating systems, office productivity software, and machine learning.

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

#58

Post by cmcaleer »

havnagiggle wrote: post #53
JohnMakin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No I am not confused about getting testimony from competitors. I am very interested in hearing from companies that probably have legitimate grievances: DDG, Kagi, Brave, etc. MS is not among those companies.

Why shouldn't MS be in that group? Google pay far above the mark to be default search in FF, and own the most popular web browser.

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

#59

Post by lolinder »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #42
majormajor wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

This is an antitrust case. Google's competitors are victims of the alleged monopolistic behavior. If you're going to make the analogy right, then the alleged crime needs to be that you defrauded your neighbor's business. I can't imagine a court barring your neighbor from testifying that you defrauded him just because he'd benefit financially from a ruling against you.

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

#60

Post by throwaway892238 »

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…

Courts quite frequently convict people based on circumstantial evidence. Conviction is based on the determination of either a jury or a judge, and neither are required to have or use direct evidence.
Post reply on HN