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

Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

731–740 of 761 posts

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#731

Post by LoveMortuus »

cletus wrote: post #31

I expect this to be bad for everyone except Google if the ruling holds. Why? Mozilla and Apple will lose significant revenue from having Google as the default search engine and Google will no longer have to pay those billions. What's more, no one else can pay to be the default either (eg the short-lived Mozilla Bing deal). So what's going to happen? Most users will probably still use Google, nobody is getting paid an…

On my phone, I've been using MS Edge for quite a long time, if not since it was released, which of course uses Bing and honestly, it never gets in my way, so I would say that, as far as I use the web, it's equally good to Google.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#732

Post by bshacklett »

immibis wrote: post #374
idle_zealot wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compromise on your computing freedom, compromise on your attention and privacy, when both providers are out to fuck you it doesn't really feel like you have a meaningful choice to make. Asking for an environment where fucking your customers isn't allowed feels like the only option.

Many Android devices can be de-Googled. Also, let's not pretend Apple isn't spying on your iCloud account to protect the children.

Unfortunately, you lose a significant amount of functionality by degoogling. Any app which relies on Google services, which is a large number, will be broken.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#733

Post by bshacklett »

ajross wrote: post #389
jcfrei wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's main game is not serving better and better results: It's generating more clicks for advertisers on the first couple of results. The antithesis to Google's business model is someone asking an AI a question and receiving a bunch of direct answers for a monthly fee. Google's business model is people trying a bunch of queries (essentially shopping around), clicking on a whole set of links (each time costing the…

(So, disclosure that I work at Google, but nowhere near anything to do with search or ads.) That is wildly distorting the way online advertisement works, mostly by a sideways denial that "advertising works" at all. The business model is that people who sell "X" want a link to their product displayed when potential customers consume content related to "X". There's nothing unclear or weird about this, and it's not fund…

Except that the inscentives are totally different from an end user perspective. Apple is inscentivised to make the phone more attractive to the person using it, because they're the ones paying. With Google search, it's the advertiser that's paying. The only thing Google needs to worry about is keeping advertisers happy. That doesn't align with making search results better.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#734

Post by hot_gril »

alvah wrote: post #724
hot_gril wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't seem like a disagreement. They still have the best search engine at the moment.

It absolutely is a disagreement. I don't agree they have the best search engine at the moment. They did until they crippled it with the last 2 big updates.

Then who has the best search engine?

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#735

Post by xpe »

paulpan wrote: post #688
xpe wrote: post #96

After the DoJ vs. Apple suit was mentioned in March, I did some research before about what the DoJ views unfavorably in this arena. My bullet points were useful to a lot of people here then, so perhaps it can help inform some of the conversation here too. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39782290 After some research, the practices below may capture much (though not necessarily all) of what the Department of Justi…

The premise is actually quite similar to the US vs. Standard Oil antitrust case from a century ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey... Just as Standard Oil used their position to force railroads and other distributors to only carry their oil and not of their competitors', the same case here with Google. Arguably all these antitrust cases, while better late than never, are at least a decad…

> But now these tech titans all have unassailable positions.

It sometimes seems this way, at least over the near term. But even giants can fall. Time will tell.

It is interesting that their advantages don't solely come from economies of scale or bundling ... there are other factors at work, such as:

1. They leave space for lots of others to make money...

2. ...Until a subspace grows into an attractive product opportunity for the giant to scoop up. How convenient that the market was pre-validated!

3. ...But even competitors that grow powerful are tempted to "defect" and join the Borg by being acquired / absorbed.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#737

Post by froggit »

nytesky wrote: post #638
TeMPOraL wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh the irony. You know that: > Like recipes only from actual chefs or publications, news from newspapers and networks are the first-party garbage on the Internet? It's all content marketing written to push ads. Yes, including "recipes only from actual chefs" - chefs have better things to do than to maintain an on-line presence; if you see one, it's most likely a brand where the chef gets paid for the rights to their…

By actual Chefs I mean like Bobby Flay or Matha Stewart. I don’t expect working chefs to give away their crafted recipes on a website. I am looking for like a simple crepe and meatloaf recipe, and end up with some really odd SEO boosted directions.

> I am looking for like a simple crepe and meatloaf recipe, and end up with some really odd SEO boosted directions.

Pretty sure wanting a "crepe and meatloaf" recipe is the problem there.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#738

Post by kortilla »

greenthrow wrote: post #648
kortilla wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is much harder to make a search engine (at least a good one). The dominance of Google in that space for so long should have made that obvious.

or it makes it obvious that Google has had a monopoly for reasons other than the difficulty of making a search engine (this is the truth.)

That’s bullshit, Google came after a bunch of other worse search engines and ate all of the market share because it was so much better.

If you think they got it some other way, you weren’t using the Internet in the early 2000s

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#739

Post by ezomode »

cletus wrote: post #31

I expect this to be bad for everyone except Google if the ruling holds. Why? Mozilla and Apple will lose significant revenue from having Google as the default search engine and Google will no longer have to pay those billions. What's more, no one else can pay to be the default either (eg the short-lived Mozilla Bing deal). So what's going to happen? Most users will probably still use Google, nobody is getting paid an…

Why do you think Google was paying that much to be the default choice on iOS?

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#740

Post by majewsky »

SuperNinKenDo wrote: post #727
marcosdumay wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are they a livestreaming "first" business-man/company/sole trader? Yes. And if you press them economically, it will show. The only difference is that most people do not optimize their lives for profit.

Not at all. In the hypothetical, without getting into the weeds of a business that doesn'tactually exist, if they stop producing the non-livestream content they could quickly find their livestream revenue dry up. They could perhaps pivot, but at that moment, the superchats only exist because of the non-live content they put out.

So what you're saying is they will drive business decisions to ensure the viability of their livestream revenue stream. I feel like we're all in agreement.
Post reply on HN