5 ms·
Google should respond by blocking Amazon in their search results. Then Amazon will really see who gets hurt the most.
by AznHisoka 9y ago
Google should respond by blocking Amazon in their search results. Then Amazon will really see who gets hurt the most.
- trekforever 9y agoBetter yet - Google Maps should change the directions when someone is navigating to an Amazon office to end up at a sewage treatment plant instead
- noncoml 9y agoWhat's going on with HN??
- letsgetphysITal 9y agoContent quality decreases as popularity increases. HN is about to go full Tumblr / Digg / reddit.
- thirdsun 9y agoWhile certainly effective, it would also be a good way to paint Google as the villain in this matter. It's childish, irrational behaviour in my opinion.
- jhasse 9y agoThey already have the villain image. Doesn't matter though, as everyone is forced to use their services anyway.
- jacksmith21006 9y agoChildish? All that Amazon will listen to. Amazon anti competitive behavior is out of hand. They have now pulled Twitch from the Roku. Google should do what Amazon does and when search for a Fire give the person a chromecast.
- ktta 9y agoThis will break the search integrity that Google says it upholds(leaving out government and DMCA requests)
- cube00 9y agoJust treat them in the same way; integrity upheld. In response to a competitor being a big meanie, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read about why they smell in our blog.
- noncoml 9y agoA retailer not carrying one item, is different from a search engine blocking results.
- Joakal 9y agoA search engine can simply not crawl Amazon's sites.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- namdnay 9y agoThe problem isn't Amazon retailer not carrying the Chromecast, it's Amazon marketplace refusing to let any retailers carry the Chromecast. A lot uglier IMHO
- deanCommie 9y agoWhy? Search is a service provided by a company trying to make money, just as a retailer. Just because it's an invaluable service now core to using the internet, doesn't make it a public utility. Here's the actual difference: If Google started blocking Amazon search results there would be an upoar. Amazon has blocked selling certain Google items, and there is barely a whimper. Here's the other difference: When GOogle shows Amazon search results, and users go through those results to make an Amazon purchase, Google gets a cut. That's how e-commerce works on the internet.
- noncoml 9y ago> Why? Search is a service provided by a company trying to make money, just as a retailer. I don't have any horses in this race, so I am not trying to take anybody's side, but since you ask, here is my opinion: A retailer is by default selecting what items to sell. A search engine is by default crawling everything. So one is kind of opt-in and the other opt-out.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
- Itsdijital 9y agoThis would be way worse for google than amazon.
- jacksmith21006 9y agoGoogle has all the leverage. Amazon already used what they had by banning Chromecast from their store. Google could remove Amazon app from play store. Or remove Amazon from search. Or change terms of Android that Amazon uses for the Fire and Echo.
- mrep 9y agoGoogle has 63.9% market share. That's way more risky. They already got in trouble with the European union for promoting their own sites in search due to their market share.
- jhasse 9y agoThe damage done to Amazon would benefit them a lot more than the laughable fine from the EU would hurt.
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoConsider that the width and depth of Google's anticompetitive violations is already massive, and increasing. The EU's record-breaking fine against Google was the first of three. There is a point where the EU may have to take steps beyond fines, and bar Google from doing business in... effectively, an entire continent. I don't know where that point is, but if a company doesn't really care about the fines for it's illegal activity and continues to violate the law, you've got to escalate. And that wouldn't just impact Google's global profits, but it'd likely entail shutting down multiple Google offices in multiple countries, and if their employees weren't interested in immigrating to another country, they'd potentially lose a lot of talent as well.
- jhasse 9y ago> The EU's record-breaking fine against Google was the first of three. I just had a look at Alphabet's stock graph from this year. I couldn't tell from it when the fine happened. So I guess they can afford another two of those. > There is a point where the EU may have to take steps beyond fines, and bar Google from doing business in... effectively, an entire continent. I doubt that we're anywhere near that point. Google is way too important, I also guess that the population wouldn't like everything-Google gone. Google could even threaten to brick all Android phones in the EU, no one would risk that.
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoConsidering that most Android phones are built and sold by other companies, can you possibly imagine Google surviving as a company through that? Consider that if Google was to brick Android phones in the EU, Samsung, HTC, LG, Motorola, etc. would all immediately drop their platforms, globally? And not just those corporations would be suing, but carriers who sold the affected phones in every country applicable as well. Carriers in other countries like the US would also shift away from selling products that Google could arbitrarily brick. At risk of losing their data due to a legal fight, everyone would migrate their email away from Gmail. Businesses would transfer away from G Suite. Google would never even threaten to brick all Android phones, because even threatening it would likely put them out of business.
- jacksmith21006 9y agoAgree that until Amazon behaves should remove from search. Also remove from play store. Amazon has now pulled Twitch from the Roku and their anti competitive behavior needs to be checked. Enough is enough.
- jacksmith21006 9y agoOr Google should do what Amazon does and when you search on a Fire give you a chromecast.