Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 663 posts

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#641

Post by crazygringo »

keeda wrote: post #635
crazygringo wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the part where the money Google spends comes back to it in even more ad revenue. Google doesn't pay Apple for access to data . They pay it for traffic that makes them ad money . If Microsoft spent those billions, it would be receiving ad revenue too. It's not money thrown down the drain. And it's not for "data". There's nothing anticompetitive here when it comes to Microsoft choosing whether or not to…

At this point we are just re-litigating all the things that came out in the trial. Yes, traffic comes with ad revenue, but it also comes with user interaction data which helps it improve its results and maintain its monopoly. Without this data, a competitor cannot offer competitive search results and hence will not be able to command the same ad revenues and hence cannot sustain the level of traffic acquisition costs…

I've clearly explained the empirical basis of Microsoft's existing massive data and traffic and money in absolute terms. I don't know what further explanation you want. The court is right that search startups are at a massive data disadvantage. Microsoft unquestionably is not with their massive traffic in absolute terms over a decade and a half. But the judge can't really say Google has to share data with smaller search companies but not Microsoft.

You're confusing startups with one of the largest, richest companies in the world.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#642

Post by yamazakiwi »

dns_snek wrote: post #430
yamazakiwi wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm losing braincells relying on Google Search shoving ad riddled trash in my face and even worse AI results. Gemini frequently just straight up lies to me. Saying the opposite of the truth so frequently I have experienced negative consequences in real life believing it. The only people who are being homogenized or "down-graded" by Chat GPT are people who wouldn't have sought other sophisticated strategies in the fir…

> Gemini frequently just straight up lies to me I'm pretty sure they meant LLMs in general, not just ChatGPT. They all straight up lie to very similar degrees, no contest there. > The only people who are being homogenized or "down-graded" by Chat GPT are people who wouldn't have sought other sophisticated strategies in the first place, and those who understand that Chat GPT is a tool and understand how it works, and…

If you are talking about an adult I don't believe you lol

And if it is true... it is not a common experience and would have external factors contributing to this behavior.

Additionally, using IQ to qualify someone's intelligence is a signal, so I'll just not go into it deeper since we will disagree as I find your anecdote juvenile, straight up exaggeration, or a complete lie to serve your opinion.

Plausibly this could happen if you had the ego of a 16 year old or were socially disabled, and it would be alleviated over time through experience. I'm not trying to be rude but you sound like a Tiktok conspirator and I'm old enough and experienced enough to smell bullshit.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#643

Post by righthand »

safety1st wrote: post #563
righthand wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can’t remember an important detail that hinges your argument on defending someone, stop writing the comment and go do some research. Writing a comment on a machine capable of looking up the answer so you can push your own bias is why you’re getting downvotes.

I genuinely have no idea why you're attacking me. A magic political secret only you know and won't disclose? Are you deranged? I mean all I know about what you're saying here, is that you have some kind of secret fake facts in your brain or something, sorry that must drive you nuts

I’m not attacking you. I was pointing out why you were strongly downvoted.

Mostly because of this sentence fragment:

> can't remember if the Biden DoJ was the first to talk about breakup, they probably were, but Trump DoJ carried on with it

You can’t remember but you also can’t be bothered to confirm details either. How do I interpret the rest of your comment then? Honest or uncertain about details?

To me this kind of a thing is okay in conversation in the physical world where you don’t have access to the information. When one writes a comment online though…

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#644

Post by tomcam »

crabmusket wrote: post #545
tomcam wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you mind naming or even… linking to a few such outlets?

Here's a recent example from 404 Media: https://www.404media.co/this-stunning-image-of-the-sun-could...

Fantastic, thanks.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#645

Post by keeda »

crazygringo wrote: post #641
keeda wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point we are just re-litigating all the things that came out in the trial. Yes, traffic comes with ad revenue, but it also comes with user interaction data which helps it improve its results and maintain its monopoly. Without this data, a competitor cannot offer competitive search results and hence will not be able to command the same ad revenues and hence cannot sustain the level of traffic acquisition costs…

I've clearly explained the empirical basis of Microsoft's existing massive data and traffic and money in absolute terms. I don't know what further explanation you want. The court is right that search startups are at a massive data disadvantage. Microsoft unquestionably is not with their massive traffic in absolute terms over a decade and a half. But the judge can't really say Google has to share data with smaller sea…

Simply pointing to large absolute numbers does not address the fact that all this was brought up during the trial, and it was shown that even Microsoft -- the largest, richest company in the world, with all that data and multiple billions of dollars -- could not compete meaningfully with Google.

The ruling has many data points showing those absolute numbers are meaningless compared to the scale of Google. If you want to talk money, MSFT was willing to offer Apple more than 100% of their ad revenues but still could not get the deal because Google could pay so much more. If you want to talk data, some of the findings:

- Thirteen months of user data acquired by Google is equivalent to over 17 years of data on Bing

- (98.4% of unique phrases seen only by Google, 1% by Bing; 99.8% of tail queries on Google not seen at all by Bing)

- "The disparity is even more pronounced on mobile. There, Google receives nineteen times more queries than all of its other rivals put together"

The idea that Microsoft simply decided not to "try hard enough" is countered by the fact that the court found that they did try and still failed, which was actually key proof that Google ran an anti-competitive monopoly.

You're welcome to disagree with the courts' findings, but ideally you'd do so after considering all the evidence that turned up at the trial ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#646

Post by brookst »

warkdarrior wrote: post #458
brookst wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forbidding Google from requiring exclusivity is not the same thing as mandating that Apple accept payments from others. Google can afford to pay more per user/click because of scale economies; their cost per user/click is lower. So, great, Google will pay Apple $20/user/year on a nonexclusive basis, and Firefox or whoever are free to match or exceed that, so long as they don't mind losing money on every user.

So the problem is that Firefox does not find its users to be as valuable as Google's?

It's just reality. I'm not sure it's "the problem".

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#648

Post by johnnyanmac »

IshKebab wrote: post #116
stackskipton wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels like judge was looking for any excuse not to apply harsh penalty and since Google brought up AI as competitor, the judge accepted it as acceptable excuse for very minor penalty.

AI is a competitor. You know how StackOverflow is dead because AI provided an alternative? That's happening in search too. You might think "but ChatGPT isn't a search engine", and that's true. It can't handle all queries you might use a search engine for, e.g. if you want to find a particular website. But there are many many queries that it can handle. Here's just a few from my recent history: * How do I load a share…

>And no ads for now!

We all know that "for now" will age horribly, and faster than we might even expect. When they put ads in, that's when we all know the boom is truly over.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#649

Post by johnnyanmac »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #425
dns_snek wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get an acceptable answer maybe about 60% of the time, assuming most of your questions are really simple. The other 40% of the time it's complete nonsense dressed up as a reasonable answer.

In my experience I get acceptable answers in more than 95% of questions I ask. In fact, I rarely use search engines now. (btw I jumped off Google almost a decade ago now, have been using duckduckgo as my main search driver)

you might want to fact check those answers. Them "sounding" correct doesn't mean they are correct.

Re: Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

#650

Post by supernova87a »

camillomiller wrote: post #439
supernova87a wrote: post #56

By the way, a pet peeve of mine right now is that reporters covering court cases (and we have so many of public interest lately) never seem to simply paste the link to the online PDF decision/ruling for us all to read, right in the story. (and another user here kindly did that for us below: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223... ) It seems such a simple step (they must have been using the rul…

As a reporter, I can tell you that your comment stems from a common fallacy: y’all think you know better than reporters what our jobs are and what the dynamics of our publishing platform entail. For some reason, everyone feels like they would know how to be a journalist better than the actual professionals. That said, reporters have most probably nothing to do with what you’re decrying. Linking policies are not the r…

I don't really care if you think people don't understand details of the job you do, or the system in which you operate. Your name is on the article and it's my expectation at this point that someone telling a story give me the original source when it's easily available. I don't need to know the complications or reasons why it isn't done, I want the right outcome.

If anything, you should be helping to cut through the BS layers and insisting that the original source link (or, even just the full name of the court case) be included with your reporting.

Post reply on HN