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

61–70 of 92 posts

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#61

Post by jsnell »

stakhanov wrote: post #50

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 engine…

So, let's imagine that Android was an independent entity from Google. Obviously selling the default search engine placement would be one of their main forms of monetization, just like it's for Firefox and iOS.

How would that monetization be done? We know from Firefox and iOS what happens if you sell the outright default with no selection: Google will buy it basically everywhere. That won't increase competition in search at all. To achieve that, you'd need to sell multiple slots. Which is exactly what this proposal ends up doing.

If the behavior of search engine selection ends up exactly the same in Google-owned Android and in the best-case scenario for an independent Android, where's the problem?

> 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.

That seems like a fair criticism though. In addition to the issues with first-price blind bids, a year seems like a really long interval. If it was e.g. monthly, there would at least be some scope for iterative price discovery.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#62

Post by OrgNet »

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…

They could give the choice to the user... When you boot up your phone for the first time, it would ask you to choose a default from a list of the 5-10 most popular search engines, sorted at random?

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#63

Post by 0wis »

I’m not sure to understand why google has to discriminate itself on its own products...? If you are not happy with Google products, you still have the choice to buy an other smartphone. And you can change your search engine afterwards anyway. Its already a huge shot in the feet to propose other search engines upon installation.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#64

Post by patrickmcnamara »

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…

No surprise that HN goes straight for the ad hominem again.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#65

Post by piaste »

jsnell wrote: post #61
stakhanov wrote: post #50

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 engine…

So, let's imagine that Android was an independent entity from Google. Obviously selling the default search engine placement would be one of their main forms of monetization, just like it's for Firefox and iOS. How would that monetization be done? We know from Firefox and iOS what happens if you sell the outright default with no selection: Google will buy it basically everywhere. That won't increase competition in sea…

> If the behavior of search engine selection ends up exactly the same in Google-owned Android and in the best-case scenario for an independent Android, where's the problem?

Do you really not see a difference between a company making the highest bid at an auction, and that same company owning the auction house and getting an infinite bid for free?

Say Boeing and a bunch of smaller companies are bidding on various defense contracts. But then Boeing gets fully nationalized and they start bidding zero dollars for everything, because it all goes back in the same federal budget. When the competitors complain, Boeing responds "well, we all know we would have won anyway even if we had stayed a private company, so the end result to the Pentagon is the same - they get Boeing aircraft. Where's the problem?". Is that a fair market?

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#66

Post by mhkool »

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.

Google can monetize. They can charge for Android and ask a fee per phone which you pay when you buy the phone. But Google choose to break the law and accept the fact that it will be fined because in the end it has more profit and that will cause a lot of irritation and higher penalties from the EU. And probably someone will cry about faul play as well.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#67

Post by jonathanyc »

0wis wrote: post #63

I’m not sure to understand why google has to discriminate itself on its own products...? If you are not happy with Google products, you still have the choice to buy an other smartphone. And you can change your search engine afterwards anyway. Its already a huge shot in the feet to propose other search engines upon installation.

Society chooses to discourage anticompetitive behavior because competition fosters innovation and leads to prosperity. If you’re fine with Google, great—let’s let others have a choice so that Google can be encouraged to work harder and make an even better product.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#68

Post by cameronbrown »

wartijn_ wrote: post #58
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…

Maybe option 6: Don't have a search app by default? I don't see why such an app is required. If user need to search for something, they can use their browser. And if someone wants to have a browser app/widget they can download it from the Play store. This "solution" by Google is just a way to prevent more fines, while most people will still have a huge Google search bar on their phone and Google can make some extra m…

Then who chooses which browser is Android's default? And which search engine is the browser's default?

You've just shifted the problem down the stack.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#69

Post by stakhanov »

jsnell wrote: post #61
stakhanov wrote: post #50

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 engine…

So, let's imagine that Android was an independent entity from Google. Obviously selling the default search engine placement would be one of their main forms of monetization, just like it's for Firefox and iOS. How would that monetization be done? We know from Firefox and iOS what happens if you sell the outright default with no selection: Google will buy it basically everywhere. That won't increase competition in sea…

Well, let's just observe that all of the players who it is SUPPOSED to be helping, like DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Ecosia, etc have all gone on the record pretty much the second this was announced, saying that they DON'T LIKE IT. So there has to be something there which is a marked deviation from what the industry structure currently is that is to their disadvantage.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#70

Post by jsnell »

piaste wrote: post #65
jsnell wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, let's imagine that Android was an independent entity from Google. Obviously selling the default search engine placement would be one of their main forms of monetization, just like it's for Firefox and iOS. How would that monetization be done? We know from Firefox and iOS what happens if you sell the outright default with no selection: Google will buy it basically everywhere. That won't increase competition in sea…

> If the behavior of search engine selection ends up exactly the same in Google-owned Android and in the best-case scenario for an independent Android, where's the problem? Do you really not see a difference between a company making the highest bid at an auction, and that same company owning the auction house and getting an infinite bid for free? Say Boeing and a bunch of smaller companies are bidding on various defe…

I can't map your analogy to this case at all, it just ends up as total nonsense.

Android seems to be the federal government, so Boeing is Google, and bidding for a defense contract is bidding for search engine provider placement. But the flow of the money is the wrong way around (the government is the entity paying, while Android is the entity receiving payments). And the other mismatch is that the search engine auction has four slots each of exactly the same value, while contracts for military airplanes seem to be single-sourced. If Boeing wins the JSF bid with the X-32, there won't be a F-35 contract for Lockheed.

What you're proposing is that not one, not two, not three, but four other companies figure out a way of monetizing search more effectively than Google. (Judging from iOS, the count is at 0 right now). If that happens, there's no point in worrying about Google having a dominant position anyway, since their core business must be totally screwed.

(Would you be happy with an auction where Google needs to put in a synthetic bid based on the actual observed value of a mobile search user?).

Post reply on HN