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

81–90 of 236 posts

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

#81

Post by CPLX »

stefan_ wrote: post #48
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…

Well, actually, Google paying other companies to make Google the default is stopping Bing from getting traffic. That's why we are having this whole case, among other things. In general, making contracts with 3rd parties that negatively impact your competitors is sort of looked down upon.

It's not just looked down upon it's called market splitting and it's patently illegal.

This case exists because it's the opinion of the United States Department of Justice that this law was broken by Google.

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

#82

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#83

Post by joedevon »

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…

"Google as a search engine is far better than Bing and that’s just a fact."

Is it?

I just tried a couple of searches on Bing. "Market Size of Apple Watch" Both Bing and Google didn't answer, providing market share instead.

"novak djokovic age when he won first grand slam" both said 20 in an infobox on top.

In my experience it's evened out, with Bing better at image and video search.

OK just tried 3 more. Almost identical with tiny edge to Google, but seriously, not by much. Try 5 searches yourself.

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

#84

Post by CPLX »

jpadkins wrote: post #79
whiddershins wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No it doesn't. There's truth to your statement in the sense that there's now a generation of confused judges that think this is true. But the plain language of US antitrust statutes is pretty clear on this point, simply engaging in certain kinds of anti-competitive behavior is illegal, you definitely do not need to prove that the illegal behavior had specific effects.

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

#85

Post by jamiek88 »

crazygringo wrote: post #72
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.

It is true if you respect robots.txt.

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

#86

Post by zdragnar »

horsawlarway wrote: post #75
Ferret7446 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a transaction, though, just a stated preference by third parties. It has no bearing whatsoever on the legal issue at stake.

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

#87

Post by carlosjobim »

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…

> One way Google maintains their monopoly is that many websites block all bots except for the Google indexing bot.

How can that be blamed on Google?

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

#88

Post by cherrycherry98 »

stefan_ wrote: post #48
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…

Well, actually, Google paying other companies to make Google the default is stopping Bing from getting traffic. That's why we are having this whole case, among other things. In general, making contracts with 3rd parties that negatively impact your competitors is sort of looked down upon.

I'm no fan of Google, but them bidding to be the default search engine on Apple devices seemed reasonable to me. If paying a third party to be the default is a crime they're both guilty of it. Microsoft and Google both made offers to Apple, Apple went with the one that paid them the most and also arguably offers the superior product. It's not like Bing is outright blocked on Apple devices, it's very easy to change. Satya crying about how Google outbid him seemed pretty disingenuous.

"Do you think Google would continue to pay Apple if there was no search competition? Why would they do that?"

Of course not and the reasons should be obvious. Microsoft being a competent competitor costs Google a lot of money. Lose the search dominance and the place basically shuts down, so they're willing to pay a lot to maintain it.

“I would love an opportunity to sort of not have them pay — maybe on behalf of the Google shareholders.”

Shut down Bing then and save Google shareholders a bunch of money, at the expense of Apple shareholders. He clearly doesn't want to spend what Google does for the same privilege. Google must perceives that the deal is worth it to do for their shareholders.

I imagine his ideal outcome would be something like Microsoft was forced to do with browsers, having a screen during the setup process asking the user what browser (or in this case search engine) they want as the default. I honestly don't think it would move the needle at all unless Bing was demonstrably better than Google.

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

#89

Post by whiddershins »

CPLX wrote: post #84
jpadkins wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No it doesn't. There's truth to your statement in the sense that there's now a generation of confused judges that think this is true. But the plain language of US antitrust statutes is pretty clear on this point, simply engaging in certain kinds of anti-competitive behavior is illegal, you definitely do not need to prove that the illegal behavior had specific effects.

I think you are correct, the harm is assumed.

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

#90

Post by timmg »

BirAdam wrote: post #68
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.

You forgot: different defendant.
Post reply on HN