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

71–80 of 236 posts

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

#71

Post by belltaco »

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…

> Microsft CEO is concerned for _Google's shareholders_

Where does it say that?

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

#72

Post by crazygringo »

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…

That's not true.

First of all, no website owner in their right mind is going to block Bing.

Second of all, they have to detect that you're a bot in the first place. Most sites don't employ sophisticated anti-bot technology. Simply running a headless browser (which you need to do anyways for JavaScript) with a common user-agent, and slow enough browsing not to be rate-limited, will let you index 99.9+% of sites.

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

#73

Post by lolinder »

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…

Microsoft's size is part of what makes their testimony so valuable to the government here. If even Microsoft's CEO is willing to testify under oath that Google's practices make breaking into search impossible, that's extremely relevant to the case. Leaving that testimony out because there are smaller companies that are also hurt would be foolish. The ideal witness makeup would be composed of a combination of large, medium, and small competitors all saying the same thing.

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

#74

Post by whiddershins »

lolinder wrote: post #55
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…

The victims are the public.

Edit: to clarify, I believe this is the actual legal basis of anti monopoly legislation. Protection of the interests of the public, not competitor companies.

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

#75

Post by horsawlarway »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #50
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.

I would argue the takeaway here is not precisely that this behavior is "maintaining their monopoly", rather that it's incredibly strong evidence that the monopoly exists.

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

#76

Post by havnagiggle »

belltaco wrote: post #71
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…

> Microsft CEO is concerned for _Google's shareholders_ Where does it say that?

Maybe I miss-interpreted the quote at the end of the article.

> At the end of Mr. Nadella’s appearance, a Justice Department lawyer asked why he thought Google paid Apple so much money to be the default search engine on Apple’s web browser Safari.

> “That’s a great question,” Mr. Nadella said. “I would love an opportunity to sort of not have them pay — maybe on behalf of the Google shareholders.”

I read that as: Nadella saying it cost Google's shareholders X in expenses. Reading it a second time, he is probably implying it increased Google's shareholders Y in revenue. But either way, CEO of a trillion dollar company making hypocritical remarks on another trillion dollar company. IMO it's just a poor decision of DOJ to use MS as a witness. I'd prefer they bring to light companies that are actually struggling, and not the company that can sign a $10 billion deal to boot strap new features into their competing product.

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

#78

Post by CPLX »

whiddershins wrote: post #74
lolinder wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The victims are the public. Edit: to clarify, I believe this is the actual legal basis of anti monopoly legislation. Protection of the interests of the public, not competitor companies.

For the most part the most direct victims of unfair competition practices are competitors.

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

#79

Post by jpadkins »

whiddershins wrote: post #74
lolinder wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The victims are the public. Edit: to clarify, I believe this is the actual legal basis of anti monopoly legislation. Protection of the interests of the public, not competitor companies.

roughly: In the US, the state has to prove consumer harm. In the EU, the state has to prove competitor harm.

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

#80

Post by CPLX »

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).

The person testifying in this case is the CEO of the company that runs the second largest search engine in the country.

The trial is about if Google used illegal practices to suppress and harm competitors.

So the person testifying, literally, is the victim of the crime.

Post reply on HN