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

61–70 of 236 posts

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

#61

Post by lolinder »

anon25783 wrote: post #57
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,…

Why would Google's competitors be barred from testifying in a case that hinges on whether Google is using unfair advantages to beat its competitors? The competition is one of the primary victims of the alleged antitrust violations, of course the government is going to ask them to testify and explain how they've been hurt by Google's behavior!

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

#62

Post by throwaway892238 »

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).

> It's an opinion from someone who hates you/benefits from convicting you.

Hence why the opposing side gets the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and why it would be a really bad idea to put forward a witness who clearly has a grudge against the accused. In cross you just show they have a grudge and now their testimony is suspect.

> Now, if they had actual evidence it'd be different

It is actual evidence. I don't think you know what evidence is...

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

#63

Post by sokoloff »

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.

You want to hear from all those other search companies, but not from Bing?

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

#64

Post by anon25783 »

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…

> the only reason the US economy is not a complete dumpster fire.

The US economy is a complete dumpster fire for those of us worth less than seven figures. Big tech monopolization does not strengthen our productive capacity, and breaking up the big tech companies won't weaken it. If anything, it will strengthen the economy by making it more viable to found a tech startup without the explicit goal of being bought out. We aren't "killing" our software industry; we're revitalizing it.

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

#65

Post by havnagiggle »

cmcaleer wrote: post #58
havnagiggle wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because Microsoft is in the game of being a big business, and demonstrably is not in the group that needs a fair market to thrive. MS is/was willing to make the same deals as Google for defaults, it's just Google valued it more. They should be in hot seat #2.

Smaller companies like DDG, Brave, Kagi are the ones trying to build narrow, competitive businesses in the search and browser space. If those are struggling due to anti-competitive practices I want to hear it.

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

#66

Post by sokoloff »

creato wrote: post #15
jiggawatts wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source addresses: the Google bot traffic comes from a small set of Google-owned IP address blocks. Third parties bake this into things like Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules. For example, Azure App Gateway WAF has a policy category for “known bots” which includes Google but excludes your tiny AI startup. It’s a moat built by giant corporations to keep tiny players in their place. Google "helpfully" publishes their…

I agree it’s a moat, but why would azure restrain competition from google? I think it’s just yet another example of an anti-abuse collateral damage, like email anti-spam blocking small unknown servers or Cloudflare blocking unknown IPs.

Because Azure customers want Google to be able to index their sites.

Would you host your e-commerce or social media site on a cloud provider that blocked Googlebot?

It's not Microsoft giving Google a handout out of the goodness of their hearts; it's Azure customers demanding that functionality. (Those Azure customers also don't care about a random little search startup and probably don't want to pay any egress fees to serve traffic to it.)

AWS offers the same: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/waf/latest/developerguide/waf-bo...

Oracle as well: https://docs.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/Content/WAF/Bot/good_bot_...

Akamai as well: https://www.akamai.com/products/bot-manager

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

#67

Post by sokoloff »

nova22033 wrote: post #37
jiggawatts wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source addresses: the Google bot traffic comes from a small set of Google-owned IP address blocks. Third parties bake this into things like Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules. For example, Azure App Gateway WAF has a policy category for “known bots” which includes Google but excludes your tiny AI startup. It’s a moat built by giant corporations to keep tiny players in their place. Google "helpfully" publishes their…

For example, Azure App Gateway WAF has a policy category for “known bots” So why should we take Satya's testimony seriously? Azure is a Microsoft product and if what you're saying is true, Microsoft is part of the problem.

Almost surely that Azure customers want that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37746480

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

#68

Post by BirAdam »

zitsarethecure wrote: post #49

> "We believe the marketplace should determine what innovations consumers want." - Microsoft, 1998 https://news.microsoft.com/1998/04/09/microsoft-advertisemen...

Different CEO, probably different board, probably different majority share holders, different attitude toward customers, different products and principles, essentially a completely different company.

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

#69

Post by anon25783 »

lolinder wrote: post #61
anon25783 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Why would Google's competitors be barred from testifying in a case that hinges on whether Google is using unfair advantages to beat its competitors? The competition is one of the primary victims of the alleged antitrust violations, of course the government is going to ask them to testify and explain how they've been hurt by Google's behavior!

Good point

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

#70

Post by 26fingies »

havnagiggle wrote: post #65
cmcaleer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because Microsoft is in the game of being a big business, and demonstrably is not in the group that needs a fair market to thrive. MS is/was willing to make the same deals as Google for defaults, it's just Google valued it more. They should be in hot seat #2. Smaller companies like DDG, Brave, Kagi are the ones trying to build narrow, competitive businesses in the search and browser space. If those are struggling due…

Does microsoft testifying preclude any of those companies from testifying?
Post reply on HN