Live data from Hacker News

US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bing has a brand problem.

This. You can tell by the popularity of DuckDuckGo, which is just reskinned rebranded Bing.

We are not just a "reskinned rebranded Bing." I know we're talking about search here, but to be clear DuckDuckGo is way more than search at this point and that is a large part of why we are popular. For example, we have a browser, duck.ai, VPN, email protection, app tracking protection, etc. We were first known for search (and maybe mostly on this forum since that's where I started), but we're now popular for all this other stuff as well that works to keep you more generally protected (see https://duckduckgo.com/compare-privacy).

In search in particular, search results have been more than web links since the early 2000s when instant answers started to appear on Yahoo. Since then, more and more of the page is instant answers of one kind or another (aka search modules, oneboxes, etc.) and less and less of it is traditional web links.

AI-assisted answers has accelerated this even more in the past two years, and we get 0 of that from Bing. Same with knowledge graph answers before that (e.g., info from Wikipedia and other quick facts, which became the most prevalent search module on desktop), again, 0 from Bing. And same for the most prevalent search module on mobile too — local results — 0 from Bing.

That is to say, a lot of our search results content is not coming from Bing. We have hundreds of team members and millions of lines of search code at this point. We’re constantly working on search, and looking to improve it. We post updates quarterly to https://duckduckgo.com/updates (along with updates on our other products and services).

In terms of traditional web links, yes, we primarily use Bing as an input in the same way Kagi primarily uses Google as an input. As Vlad has said publicly (most recently heard him on The Talk Show) and has been made clear from this US v Google case from Google/Bing/Apple/OpenAI/etc. testimony, it costs upwards of a billion dollars a year to maintain a competitive index of web links. Only the biggest companies can afford that. Nevertheless, we still work on actively crawling and indexing, but the reality is small companies cannot do it all themselves. In fact, that's true for most products in most industries -- they rely on a supply chain for various components, some of them critical.

Finally, even if you have the same traditional links, but you put instant answers above or beside or in between them, change the design significantly, or otherwise add to them (all of which we do), then the actual user experience of the search results ends up being significantly different in terms of how it is perceived and what people click on. For the latter, people engage with a section above another section about twice as much, so for example, if you just put a different box/answer on top you've drastically changed the experience of the search engine.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#832

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google services are not a gift. They are not actually free. Google is not a charity nor is it a non-profit. I want people in this discussion to stop arguing as if Google isn't making money on all these services. If the parents were slowly siphoning off enough of the teen's money through a convoluted set of channels such that the teenager indirectly paid for the truck anyway and the parents ended up effectively taking…

The point is that people are spoiled and still complaining. A replacement for Google is 15 services that are $9.99/mo or ad-supported with zero tolerance for ad blocking. People are blind to this, they think Google is a charity that got greedy. Meanwhile they haven't let a Google ad through their ad blocker for 15 years.

> The point is that people are spoiled and still complaining.

No. Google is making money, it is not a charity. More than that, they do everything they can to obfuscate that fact and brainwash us into thinking we just get it for free thanks to their generosity. It is not the case at all. All these services are data funnels for the actual main business of Google, which is to sell ads.

If they make money off our backs, it is not unreasonable to have some expectations.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#833
post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be you $1 that in five to ten years there will be zero "AI" players replacing search. But that's a different topic than this one.

I'd take that bet. AI players are already replacing search for a lot of users in a lot of cases.

IMO the AI players are only hooking the power users and technically inclined (in regard to AI replacing search), but there's a long, long tail of people who are going to be using Google as their search engine until the end of days. Think the type of person who types "facebook.com" into Google instead of their address bar — they're not switching over to ChatGPT or Kagi any time soon.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#834

The solution proposed by Kagi—separate the search index from the rest of Google—seems to make the most sense. Kagi explains it more here: https://blog.kagi.com/dawn-new-era-search

Separating the index creates a commodity data layer that preserves Google's crawling investment while enabling innovation at the ranking/interface layer, similar to how telecom unbundling worked for ISPs.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You essentially outline why it should be broken up. I'm not convinced making the ad tech sector more competitive would prompt that outcome but, "It would disrupt mature products" isn't a compelling argument to allow the existence of a monopoly. Google is a monopoly, they exert monopoly power and enjoy monopoly pricing. I think the more likely outcome would be more dynamic products under smaller bannerheads.

i like an ad monopoly. it makes ads cost more

which makes everything you buy cost more, are you sure you still like it then?

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

For someone guarding the platform from weaksauce nonsense comments you picked a strange one to defend. I was commenting on the weakness of the analogy. There’s nothing in any of the 4 entities mentioned other than the author’s opinion about them. Sorry my comment missed the mark for you.

It's taken as a given that Siri is inferior to ChatGPT. Both are natural language call-and-response models, but one of them is constantly in the news for diagnosing patients more accurately than actual medical doctors [1] and identifying a picture's location by the species of grass shown in a fifty-pixel-wide clump in the corner, and the other one can turn off your lights and order you a pizza when you ask it what tomorrow's weather forecast is.

Ergo, a person of average scholastic aptitude who is neither trying to ape late night talk show hosts by taking half of each single-colon-pair of an analogy, severing the other pair ends and any remaining context, and repeating the result with a well-rehearsed look of confusion; nor defensive about being called out for doing just that, can readily infer that the message being transmitted is that Kagi is fundamentally a tool very similar to Google, but which delivers inferior results.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/health/chatgpt-ai-doctors...

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You essentially outline why it should be broken up. I'm not convinced making the ad tech sector more competitive would prompt that outcome but, "It would disrupt mature products" isn't a compelling argument to allow the existence of a monopoly. Google is a monopoly, they exert monopoly power and enjoy monopoly pricing. I think the more likely outcome would be more dynamic products under smaller bannerheads.

> Google is a monopoly, they exert monopoly power and enjoy monopoly pricing. What is monopoly pricing?

marginal cost = marginal revenue is the traditional definition

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You essentially outline why it should be broken up. I'm not convinced making the ad tech sector more competitive would prompt that outcome but, "It would disrupt mature products" isn't a compelling argument to allow the existence of a monopoly. Google is a monopoly, they exert monopoly power and enjoy monopoly pricing. I think the more likely outcome would be more dynamic products under smaller bannerheads.

I think the point here is that it should be done carefully and thoughtfully.

This guy Sundars.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#839
post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point. Maybe I'm too young and have bought into the narrative that Google was the first widely available and free email. Still I think though, the plethora of their other services widely available for free (maps, drive, sites, youtube) were extraordinary for the price, at least for me.

Firefox was also extraordinary for the price. point being that Google has never been the only option, just the most popular because why not your gmail is already plugged in.

firefox does not exist without google paying for it

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#840
post #190

How much things have changed when antitrust used mean unfair practices by real monopolies. Real monopolies. Standard Oil which you had no choice in what gas you used. The Bell System(ATT) controlled all of long distance, you had no choice to use them for making long distance calls. Microsoft owned 95% of the market when they got with antitrust, there was other OSes but your software wouldn't run on those OSes. Consum…

You can retrofit today's arguments on both the oil industry and phone industry: if you don't want to pay, then don't use it. Both letter and horses where available.

De facto you don't have any choice but using ms and Google these days. Whatever you loose in doing so (if not money, then privacy)

That is a problem and constitutes a macro risk - and henceforth should be handled.

Monopoly is probably the closet describing term.

Post reply on HN