4 ms·

Is this not just a classic example of HN looking for the negative in every positive? Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy and MS pushed them off it. Conversely,

by johnfn 8y ago

Is this not just a classic example of HN looking for the negative in every positive? Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy and MS pushed them off it. Conversely, DDG is nowhere near bankruptcy and although it may be easier to type, a shorter domain name is not going to drastically increase the competitive edge that DDG has over google. To me they seem in totally different categories.

TheKarateKid 8y ago
> Is this not just a classic example of HN looking for the negative in every positive? A company single-handedly helping to save a direct competitor defies all business logic and obligations to shareholders of that company. The truth is this was a business move to benefit Microsoft, even though it had a benevolent factor to it. Thinking otherwise is overly optimistic, similar to how you believe it being a classic example of HN pessimism.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
  What you described does defy all business logic... except in the presence of regulatory externalities (anti-trust legislation) that causes the business move to be a net positive. I don't think there's any optimism or pessimism to it, just rational actions.
- Gatsky 8y ago
  DuckDuckGo is hardly a competitor to Google. I struggle to think of some future scenario where Alphabet looks back and thinks "Damn, we never should have given DDG that domain name, it was all down hill from there!". No antitrust investigation is going to believe that this small action makes any difference to Google's total dominance of search.
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    There is nothing illegal about a monopoly. A monopoly that uses it's position to prevent competition is illegal. Giving DDG a very valuable domain name (given their name) absolutely does what you're saying it doesn't.
    - Gatsky 8y ago
      How is not giving the domain name to DDG using their monopoly to suppress competitors? This is not equivalent to say, removing DDG from their search results.
      - cstrahan 8y ago
        I don't think that's what they're saying. The point isn't that withholding the domain name is the end of the world, the point is that handing it over is a small token that Google can use to claim that they aren't anti-competitive. I don't know what my stance is on that interpretation, but that seems to be (to me) to be the intended interpretation. Does that make sense?
      - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
        That's not what they're saying. If/when the feds come after Google for (most likely unrelated) monopolistic suppression, Google can say "we don't suppress our competitors--look how we helped out DDG!"
- mcbutterbunz 8y ago
  I agree in the case of Microsoft/Apple. In Google/DDG we're talking about transferring a domain name from one company to another, not saving a direct competitor.
- johnfn 8y ago
  I accept that MS/Apple was a competitive move. I’m not sure I accept that duck.com is.
- Zanni 8y ago
  At the time, Microsoft made more on application software for every Mac sold than for every PC sold. Microsoft and Apple were competitors on operating systems, but not on applications, and Apple's Macs were a significant (though smaller) part of the market. The relationship between Apple and Microsoft was never as simple as just direct competitors.
scarface74 8y ago
It’s not only looking for the negative. It didn’t happen. Whatever the reason, MS only infused $150 million into Apple’s coffers. Apple turned around and used $100 million to buy PowerComputing’s Mac license. Apple also continued to lose money for 3 years. The Net $50 million didn’t “save Apple”.
- thomasmeeks 8y ago
  I hadn't heard that bit of history, found it interesting. Though apparently they spent $10mm in cash and $90mm in stock to acquire the company.
cachvico 8y ago
> Is this not just a classic example of HN looking for the negative in every positive? No. Google has the monopoly on search (outside of China). Avoiding anti-trust is a huge concern of theirs. Look at MS and IE in the browser wars - they were forced by the EU to build into Windows links/ads to the other browsers - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu#/media/File:BrowserChoice.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu#/media/File:B... Whilst DDG has huge momentum by now, duckduckgo.com is still an ache to type - that's why ddg.co has existed for years, and why you use "DDG" yourself ;) duck.com is way more memorable and even faster. Not a lawyer, but given DDG's brand recognition, I'd imagine they would have a strong case in an ICANN dispute given that Google are not using it. Google are proactively avoiding at least this bad PR by doing the right thing (this week).
- limeblack 8y ago
  > No. Google has the monopoly on search (outside of China). No. Russia has yandex. [1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/russian-federation http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/rus...
- EGreg 8y ago
  If Facebook owns groups.com but aren’t using it, can we go to ICANN and ask them to give it to us?
- youeseh 8y ago
  ddg.gg is easier to type and for my fingers to remember than duck.com.
  - fooker 8y ago
    How about duck + (Ctrl + enter) ?
    - youeseh 8y ago
      That could work =).
- 8y ago

by johnfn 8y ago

TheKarateKid 8y ago

> Is this not just a classic example of HN looking for the negative in every positive? A company single-handedly helping to save a direct competitor defies all business logic and obligations to shareholders of that company. The truth is this was a business move to benefit Microsoft, even though it had a benevolent factor to it. Thinking otherwise is overly optimistic, similar to how you believe it being a classic example of HN pessimism.

bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
What you described does defy all business logic... except in the presence of regulatory externalities (anti-trust legislation) that causes the business move to be a net positive. I don't think there's any optimism or pessimism to it, just rational actions.
Gatsky 8y ago
DuckDuckGo is hardly a competitor to Google. I struggle to think of some future scenario where Alphabet looks back and thinks "Damn, we never should have given DDG that domain name, it was all down hill from there!". No antitrust investigation is going to believe that this small action makes any difference to Google's total dominance of search.
- jhall1468 8y ago
  There is nothing illegal about a monopoly. A monopoly that uses it's position to prevent competition is illegal. Giving DDG a very valuable domain name (given their name) absolutely does what you're saying it doesn't.
  - Gatsky 8y ago
    How is not giving the domain name to DDG using their monopoly to suppress competitors? This is not equivalent to say, removing DDG from their search results.
    - cstrahan 8y ago
      I don't think that's what they're saying. The point isn't that withholding the domain name is the end of the world, the point is that handing it over is a small token that Google can use to claim that they aren't anti-competitive. I don't know what my stance is on that interpretation, but that seems to be (to me) to be the intended interpretation. Does that make sense?
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      That's not what they're saying. If/when the feds come after Google for (most likely unrelated) monopolistic suppression, Google can say "we don't suppress our competitors--look how we helped out DDG!"
mcbutterbunz 8y ago
I agree in the case of Microsoft/Apple. In Google/DDG we're talking about transferring a domain name from one company to another, not saving a direct competitor.
johnfn 8y ago
I accept that MS/Apple was a competitive move. I’m not sure I accept that duck.com is.
Zanni 8y ago
At the time, Microsoft made more on application software for every Mac sold than for every PC sold. Microsoft and Apple were competitors on operating systems, but not on applications, and Apple's Macs were a significant (though smaller) part of the market. The relationship between Apple and Microsoft was never as simple as just direct competitors.

scarface74 8y ago

It’s not only looking for the negative. It didn’t happen. Whatever the reason, MS only infused $150 million into Apple’s coffers. Apple turned around and used $100 million to buy PowerComputing’s Mac license. Apple also continued to lose money for 3 years. The Net $50 million didn’t “save Apple”.

thomasmeeks 8y ago
I hadn't heard that bit of history, found it interesting. Though apparently they spent $10mm in cash and $90mm in stock to acquire the company.

cachvico 8y ago

> Is this not just a classic example of HN looking for the negative in every positive? No. Google has the monopoly on search (outside of China). Avoiding anti-trust is a huge concern of theirs. Look at MS and IE in the browser wars - they were forced by the EU to build into Windows links/ads to the other browsers - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu#/media/File:BrowserChoice.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu#/media/File:B... Whilst DDG has huge momentum by now, duckduckgo.com is still an ache to type - that's why ddg.co has existed for years, and why you use "DDG" yourself ;) duck.com is way more memorable and even faster. Not a lawyer, but given DDG's brand recognition, I'd imagine they would have a strong case in an ICANN dispute given that Google are not using it. Google are proactively avoiding at least this bad PR by doing the right thing (this week).

limeblack 8y ago
> No. Google has the monopoly on search (outside of China). No. Russia has yandex. [1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/russian-federation http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/rus...
EGreg 8y ago
If Facebook owns groups.com but aren’t using it, can we go to ICANN and ask them to give it to us?
youeseh 8y ago
ddg.gg is easier to type and for my fingers to remember than duck.com.
- fooker 8y ago
  How about duck + (Ctrl + enter) ?
  - youeseh 8y ago
    That could work =).
8y ago