7 ms·

I'd encourage you (and everyone) to read the comments in the other thread happening today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712 https://news.ycombinato

I'd encourage you (and everyone) to read the comments in the other thread happening today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712 You'll see people baffled by this decision and generally happy with the service and products google offers. It's just a reminder to remember that what doesn't work for you may be pure bliss for other people.

walterstucco 9y ago
Mob in Italy is pure bliss for a lot of people. It's still a bad thing.
_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
You seem to have replied to the wrong comment. I've read through the other thread, I couldn't find a comment that agrees with "connecting our users with thousands of advertisers, large and small, in ways that are useful for both."
- jasode 9y ago
  To me, the comment from theBobBob agrees with the convenience of Google search connecting users to advertisers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14644022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14644022
  - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
    It could be just me, but could you point out where the comment says he likes to be connected to advertisers? The thing is, personally I prefer getting integrated results from Google's other search services when I do a Google search. I like getting Google Maps results when I search for a location, I like getting Google Flights results etc. When I do a Google search I am not just using it as a simple website search. I want it to use it to search the whole Google suite of services. If they are forced to stop doing this it will make my search experience worse for me. Random, maybe silly idea. Maybe they could start providing two search streams. One would just be a simpler website search while the other would be a more involved google services search as well as a general website search. This way search users could explicitly say that they want to see direct integrated results from the whole Google ecosystem.
    - jasode 9y ago
      Maybe you're not seeing it because you're looking for literal exact words. Instead, look for meaning ... such as the one embedded in this sentence: >I prefer getting integrated results from Google's other search services when I do a Google search. One example of "other search services" is Google Shopping. It's the retail advertisers that sponsor their ecommerce buying links to Google Shopping. Hence, the "advertisers connection to users". Btw, there are also other posters making similar comments about the convenience of Google "connecting users to advertisers". Like the previous example, you won't see it if you're looking for that exact phrasing. E.g. another comment by cyxxon: "Currently Google's services just so damned conveniently integrated": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14644100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14644100
      - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
        Ah, "the words are what I mean them to be". Can't argue anymore then.
        jasode 9y ago
        There's no need to play semantic games. Let's say I'm looking for a Seagate 10 TB harddrive. The Google Shopping results would look something like this: https://www.google.com/shopping/product/3954751729784172026?prds=scoring:tp https://www.google.com/shopping/product/3954751729784172026?... That example "connects me, the user, to the advertisers". Seriously, without playing the game of "words are anything I want them to mean just to win an argument"... what would _you_ call the mechanism of those Google Shopping results? <Genuinely confused here.>
        yorwba 9y ago
        > That example "connects me, the user, to the advertisers". But did you want to be connected to the advertisers, i.e. those who paid Google to give their product a better placement, or did you want to be connected to the sellers, ranked by how desirable their product is to you?
TeMPOraL 9y ago
GP wasn't complaining about product issues (which were discussed in the other thread), but about the doublespeak used in Google's response.
- weberc2 9y ago
  Doesn't doublespeak imply a self-contradiction? At any rate, I thought the OP was complaining about "spin", in which case the reply is valid, as it isn't spin; there's just multiple valid ways of interpreting Google's behaviors, and which interpretation you choose depends largely on how satisfied you are with their business model.
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak "Not to be confused with Double-talk. Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words."
  - xg15 9y ago
    I take deliberately leaving out crucial facts - such as that Google's "beneficial for both sides" product ads are paid by one side - as a pretty creative way of "interpreting".
flexie 9y ago
On the contrary, in the other thread I see people mainly being supportive of the decision to fine Google for the abuse of its dominant position.
anonymousab 9y ago
I think that is more that some people find great value in Google's product integration, such as getting map or flight results from the main search, and they are unsure as to how Google can continue to offer such a convenience in light of this decision.
- surak 9y ago
  If I understand the decision correctly it does not ban Google delivering other search types, but does limit its right to inter-connect search services on their search platform.
Freestyler_3 9y ago
Having a monolopy comes with great disadvantages. Suddenly you can't bundle services (or push down other results in favor of your own). Anyhow, I like google shopping (when I click the google shopping tab, not when im actually on the search tab), I can trust it more than other comparing sites. Also just like other comparing sites, it doesn't have all sources.
autokad 9y ago
I'm going to get down voted out the wazoo for saying it, but I will voice my opinion anyways. The EU has long used 'anti trust fines' as a way of levying tariffs against US companies.
- glenndebacker 9y ago
  It's not the first time that I see this being described as "anti-US". And that while the reality is that there is a list of European companies/kartels receiving high anti trust fines as well for their behaviour. The "problem" is that this never receives any interest in the states which only contributes to this blurred image that only US companies are getting fined. That is frankly untrue.
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  Upvoted. FWIW, companies in the US have long used 'anti trust complaints' as a means of harming companies they can't compete with (e.g. Microsoft, back in the day).
  - mattmanser 9y ago
    Yeah, like that pesky Netscape that totally screwed over MS and almost stopped the golden age of web browsers between 2001 and 2006. /s
    - duncan_bayne 9y ago
      Hey, I had a 'best viewed with any browser' icon on my sites at the time (in fact http://dougal.sourceforge.net/ http://dougal.sourceforge.net/ still boasts one ...). Doesn't alter the fact that Netscape was incapable of competing with Microsoft (in fact I think you sort of made my point, there) once the latter got their arses into gear. Edited: Wow! The "Viewable With Any Browser" campaign site is still up, in 2017. I wonder if they're keeping it handy for the forthcoming Webkit monopoly ...
      - mattmanser 9y ago
coldtea 9y ago
>It's just a reminder to remember that what doesn't work for you may be pure bliss for other people. What's pure bliss for some people might also be dangerous and cancerous for society. Segregation was "pure bliss" for lots of folks.
interfixus 9y ago
You'll see people baffled by this decision and generally happy with the service and products google offers You'll also see people (me) baffled by this decision and generally disgusted by the services Google offers.
baq 9y ago
consumers were happy when standard oil had 90% market share a century ago, too.
xg15 9y ago
How many belong to the first and how many to the second category? Saying "yes, but in this particular edge-case, my actions will be beneficial to society" is a pretty old way to do spins. Also, as I've said in a different thread, the main problem is not with google's users but the amount of control Google has over 3rd parties (in the case price comparison sites). Of course it's convenient for the users, but's that not the point.
saurik 9y ago
Sure, and there were tons of people who were very happy with Microsoft's products, and if you think about it: they were seriously fined for having the gall to believe that web browsers should be free and that the web rendering engine should be a component that could be used for the UI of things like their file manager; in an age when every operating system comes with a free, first-party web browser that you can't uninstall, are you prepared to say that Microsoft did nothing wrong as well?
- euyyn 9y ago
  Yeah that's not what happened. People were very happy indeed with Microsoft products. Back when Netscape Navigator was better than Internet Explorer in all respects, people were very happy with NN too, and would have been happier if they could have bought Windows computers in which the software preinstalled by the OEM included Netscape. Do you know why they couldn't? MS told the OEMs "you put NN on your computers, you don't get any more Windows licenses at all". People were also happy with the Java applets NN could execute, but MS made its own incompatible version of Java so that they wouldn't be cross-platform. Same with their version of web standards in IE. All this is publicly documented by the courts, including the internal communications in Microsoft about it being a deliberate strategy to preserve Windows' monopoly. So, please, don't go up in arms to defend that cause, or imply that history made them justice.
  - saurik 9y ago
    Did you read the comment I was replying to? I ask, because it sounds like you did not. I am going to quote the entire thing to make this extremely blunt, as I don't trust you will read it otherwise :/. > I'd encourage you (and everyone) to read the comments in the other thread happening today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712 > You'll see people baffled by this decision and generally happy with the service and products google offers. > It's just a reminder to remember that what doesn't work for you may be pure bliss for other people. Read that, then read my comment, and then read your comment... it makes no sense at all. The person I replied to was defending Google using what I consider to a bullshit argument: using the apparent benefits of the monopoly to defend its existence; this (bad) argument also applies to Microsoft. In my post, I demonstrated that if that posted truly believed that, then they had better be prepared to defend Microsoft as well. Then you come out of nowhere and try to attack me, as if I was the one making the argument, rather than replying to it? WTF... I absolutely think that both Microsoft and Google are clearly abusive. This is particularly interesting and annoying as you seem to be going around this thread making the exact same mistake in multiple contexts. As an example, in reply to this other comment from someone else trying to compare the PR spin from Google to that of Microsoft. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646873
659087 9y ago
Are we going to pretend Google and similar companies don't have employees and reputation management firms astroturfing sites like this one when bad PR strikes?

walterstucco 9y ago

Mob in Italy is pure bliss for a lot of people. It's still a bad thing.

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago

You seem to have replied to the wrong comment. I've read through the other thread, I couldn't find a comment that agrees with "connecting our users with thousands of advertisers, large and small, in ways that are useful for both."

jasode 9y ago
To me, the comment from theBobBob agrees with the convenience of Google search connecting users to advertisers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14644022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14644022
- _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
  It could be just me, but could you point out where the comment says he likes to be connected to advertisers? The thing is, personally I prefer getting integrated results from Google's other search services when I do a Google search. I like getting Google Maps results when I search for a location, I like getting Google Flights results etc. When I do a Google search I am not just using it as a simple website search. I want it to use it to search the whole Google suite of services. If they are forced to stop doing this it will make my search experience worse for me. Random, maybe silly idea. Maybe they could start providing two search streams. One would just be a simpler website search while the other would be a more involved google services search as well as a general website search. This way search users could explicitly say that they want to see direct integrated results from the whole Google ecosystem.
  - jasode 9y ago
    Maybe you're not seeing it because you're looking for literal exact words. Instead, look for meaning ... such as the one embedded in this sentence: >I prefer getting integrated results from Google's other search services when I do a Google search. One example of "other search services" is Google Shopping. It's the retail advertisers that sponsor their ecommerce buying links to Google Shopping. Hence, the "advertisers connection to users". Btw, there are also other posters making similar comments about the convenience of Google "connecting users to advertisers". Like the previous example, you won't see it if you're looking for that exact phrasing. E.g. another comment by cyxxon: "Currently Google's services just so damned conveniently integrated": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14644100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14644100
    - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
      Ah, "the words are what I mean them to be". Can't argue anymore then.
      - jasode 9y ago
        There's no need to play semantic games. Let's say I'm looking for a Seagate 10 TB harddrive. The Google Shopping results would look something like this: https://www.google.com/shopping/product/3954751729784172026?prds=scoring:tp https://www.google.com/shopping/product/3954751729784172026?... That example "connects me, the user, to the advertisers". Seriously, without playing the game of "words are anything I want them to mean just to win an argument"... what would _you_ call the mechanism of those Google Shopping results? <Genuinely confused here.>
        yorwba 9y ago
        > That example "connects me, the user, to the advertisers". But did you want to be connected to the advertisers, i.e. those who paid Google to give their product a better placement, or did you want to be connected to the sellers, ranked by how desirable their product is to you?

TeMPOraL 9y ago

GP wasn't complaining about product issues (which were discussed in the other thread), but about the doublespeak used in Google's response.

weberc2 9y ago
Doesn't doublespeak imply a self-contradiction? At any rate, I thought the OP was complaining about "spin", in which case the reply is valid, as it isn't spin; there's just multiple valid ways of interpreting Google's behaviors, and which interpretation you choose depends largely on how satisfied you are with their business model.
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak "Not to be confused with Double-talk. Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words."
- xg15 9y ago
  I take deliberately leaving out crucial facts - such as that Google's "beneficial for both sides" product ads are paid by one side - as a pretty creative way of "interpreting".

flexie 9y ago

On the contrary, in the other thread I see people mainly being supportive of the decision to fine Google for the abuse of its dominant position.

anonymousab 9y ago

I think that is more that some people find great value in Google's product integration, such as getting map or flight results from the main search, and they are unsure as to how Google can continue to offer such a convenience in light of this decision.

surak 9y ago
If I understand the decision correctly it does not ban Google delivering other search types, but does limit its right to inter-connect search services on their search platform.

Freestyler_3 9y ago

Having a monolopy comes with great disadvantages. Suddenly you can't bundle services (or push down other results in favor of your own). Anyhow, I like google shopping (when I click the google shopping tab, not when im actually on the search tab), I can trust it more than other comparing sites. Also just like other comparing sites, it doesn't have all sources.

autokad 9y ago

I'm going to get down voted out the wazoo for saying it, but I will voice my opinion anyways. The EU has long used 'anti trust fines' as a way of levying tariffs against US companies.

glenndebacker 9y ago
It's not the first time that I see this being described as "anti-US". And that while the reality is that there is a list of European companies/kartels receiving high anti trust fines as well for their behaviour. The "problem" is that this never receives any interest in the states which only contributes to this blurred image that only US companies are getting fined. That is frankly untrue.
duncan_bayne 9y ago
Upvoted. FWIW, companies in the US have long used 'anti trust complaints' as a means of harming companies they can't compete with (e.g. Microsoft, back in the day).
- mattmanser 9y ago
  Yeah, like that pesky Netscape that totally screwed over MS and almost stopped the golden age of web browsers between 2001 and 2006. /s
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    Hey, I had a 'best viewed with any browser' icon on my sites at the time (in fact http://dougal.sourceforge.net/ http://dougal.sourceforge.net/ still boasts one ...). Doesn't alter the fact that Netscape was incapable of competing with Microsoft (in fact I think you sort of made my point, there) once the latter got their arses into gear. Edited: Wow! The "Viewable With Any Browser" campaign site is still up, in 2017. I wonder if they're keeping it handy for the forthcoming Webkit monopoly ...
    - mattmanser 9y ago

coldtea 9y ago

>It's just a reminder to remember that what doesn't work for you may be pure bliss for other people. What's pure bliss for some people might also be dangerous and cancerous for society. Segregation was "pure bliss" for lots of folks.

interfixus 9y ago

You'll see people baffled by this decision and generally happy with the service and products google offers You'll also see people (me) baffled by this decision and generally disgusted by the services Google offers.

baq 9y ago

consumers were happy when standard oil had 90% market share a century ago, too.

xg15 9y ago

How many belong to the first and how many to the second category? Saying "yes, but in this particular edge-case, my actions will be beneficial to society" is a pretty old way to do spins. Also, as I've said in a different thread, the main problem is not with google's users but the amount of control Google has over 3rd parties (in the case price comparison sites). Of course it's convenient for the users, but's that not the point.

saurik 9y ago

Sure, and there were tons of people who were very happy with Microsoft's products, and if you think about it: they were seriously fined for having the gall to believe that web browsers should be free and that the web rendering engine should be a component that could be used for the UI of things like their file manager; in an age when every operating system comes with a free, first-party web browser that you can't uninstall, are you prepared to say that Microsoft did nothing wrong as well?

euyyn 9y ago
Yeah that's not what happened. People were very happy indeed with Microsoft products. Back when Netscape Navigator was better than Internet Explorer in all respects, people were very happy with NN too, and would have been happier if they could have bought Windows computers in which the software preinstalled by the OEM included Netscape. Do you know why they couldn't? MS told the OEMs "you put NN on your computers, you don't get any more Windows licenses at all". People were also happy with the Java applets NN could execute, but MS made its own incompatible version of Java so that they wouldn't be cross-platform. Same with their version of web standards in IE. All this is publicly documented by the courts, including the internal communications in Microsoft about it being a deliberate strategy to preserve Windows' monopoly. So, please, don't go up in arms to defend that cause, or imply that history made them justice.
- saurik 9y ago
  Did you read the comment I was replying to? I ask, because it sounds like you did not. I am going to quote the entire thing to make this extremely blunt, as I don't trust you will read it otherwise :/. > I'd encourage you (and everyone) to read the comments in the other thread happening today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712 > You'll see people baffled by this decision and generally happy with the service and products google offers. > It's just a reminder to remember that what doesn't work for you may be pure bliss for other people. Read that, then read my comment, and then read your comment... it makes no sense at all. The person I replied to was defending Google using what I consider to a bullshit argument: using the apparent benefits of the monopoly to defend its existence; this (bad) argument also applies to Microsoft. In my post, I demonstrated that if that posted truly believed that, then they had better be prepared to defend Microsoft as well. Then you come out of nowhere and try to attack me, as if I was the one making the argument, rather than replying to it? WTF... I absolutely think that both Microsoft and Google are clearly abusive. This is particularly interesting and annoying as you seem to be going around this thread making the exact same mistake in multiple contexts. As an example, in reply to this other comment from someone else trying to compare the PR spin from Google to that of Microsoft. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646873

659087 9y ago

Are we going to pretend Google and similar companies don't have employees and reputation management firms astroturfing sites like this one when bad PR strikes?