4 ms·

I know there's the sentiment of fear/hate/etc about Google taking over but... 1) Doesn't it make sense for them to do that? After offering the search engine fo

I know there's the sentiment of fear/hate/etc about Google taking over but... 1) Doesn't it make sense for them to do that? After offering the search engine for free for ages (not that paid search engines are a thing) and playing an important role in building the internet? For most, all the internet they know is thanks to Google 2) Wouldn't you do the same? Keep in mind they're a public company and we know how incentives are aligned when you're a public company

gberger 6y ago
> not that paid search engines are a thing They are in enterprise, but I digress
- Jaruzel 6y ago
  Interestingly, they couldn't break into Enterprise Search (their Google-in-a-box product failed).
onetimemanytime 6y ago
1) Doesn't it make sense for them to do that? After offering the search engine for free for ages (not that paid search engines are a thing) They've made a fortune so instead of saying they've "offered it for free" let's point out that they are not a charity. Google became famous for saying that they will list the best SE when ranking, not Google properties or ads. >>and playing an important role in building the internet? For most, all the internet they know is thanks to Google Even if you said is true, another one would have done what Google did. By the way, internet as we know it today, would have happened without Google. In fact, MS and Apple did a LOT more for the internet...a computer in every home and all.
badrabbit 6y ago
No, I wouldn't do the same. Maximize profits? Yes, sacrifice core values and even social stability to acheive the goal? Nope. Be deceptive, do things against people's will? Nope.
- jfoster 6y ago
  Can you mention the worst or most deceptive thing they've done?
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Larry and Sergey said from the very beginning we needed a search engine in the academic realm because ads present an inherent conflict of interest. It's right here! http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html This was who they were and what they believed! Check out Appendix A, it's entirely about the mixed motivation of funding a search engine with ads. Yet not only did they make an ad company that has a search engine, they increasingly made their ads less distinguishable from organic results over time. Big highlighted yellow boxes have become search results with a tiny Ad marker hidden in the paragraph. Because deceiving people into clicking on ads is more profitable than getting them to the best organic result. When DoubleClick was bought they promised they'd keep the data separate to get the acquisition approved. Once it happened, they merged the data. Now they're saying the same about your Fitbit data... Yes, the entire concept of Google is against Larry and Sergey's original paper on the matter. They sold out, and college Larry and Sergey would be ashamed of their present day counterparts.
    - harshitaneja 6y ago
      I read Appendix A and it doesn't seem to be against what they are doing currently. Unless you assume their search engine has exceptions or intentional bias. We have no conclusive evidence to believe the same(including the currently discussed article). I am conflicted by their shopping app integration. But I wonder why I am having trouble accepting shopping integration vs maps integration. Having google maps part of the result makes for a better and quicker experience to information. But if shopping were a more successful product the reasons would hold their as well. I understand the intention behind anti-trust regulations in such cases but have trouble accepting them in data driven products like google which have huge user experience benefits from tighter integration of their own products. I would love if anyone could help me with my conflicting thoughts on this.
uniqueid 6y ago
Give me a break. Google hasn't been a net positive for the internet in nearly a decade. And cry me a river about their "free" search. They're worth over $600 billion, much of which they acquired by selling out their users' privacy. These days, Google is a blight on the world, and deserves all the criticism lobbed at it.
antibuddy 6y ago
Yeah it makes sense, however I don't think we should be grateful* that Google played an important role in building the internet, since for Google it is about control and that's where the problems begin. *not that this was your point
- uniqueid 6y ago
  Google didn't exist for the first decade of the web. When they came along, their innovation was minor and incremental: slightly more accurate search without paid results (funny how things change). They then did a version of Hotmail with a worse GUI, but virtually limitless disk space. Google just poaches talent away from more deserving companies, and puts it to work making their products a little worse every year than they were the year before. I'm not thankful for Google. I'm sad because they stifle progress.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
The fact that it "makes sense" for companies to become evil monopolies when they are capable of doing so is a problem. It's like a big hole in our economic system where everything breaks down and grinds to a halt.
- jjcon 6y ago
  > The fact that it "makes sense" for companies to become evil monopolies when they are capable of doing so is a problem I’m no google fan but I don’t think evil is an appropriate word nor would I call them a monopoly when it comes to search. There are plenty of other options out there from all over the world, the fact that they aren’t that great isn’t googles fault (and it would need to be for them to be considered a monopoly).
  - tristan957 6y ago
    From the article: 9/10 searches in the US come from Google. There are lots of great search engines. But when Google has the largest share of web analytics and can literally track you around the internet, how can other search engines who respect you as a user even have a chance? Give search engines a level playing field. Google is the default search engine on the most popular web browser. Google is the default search engine on the largest mobile operating system. Please stop defending Google. They have a monopoly on search, and its time for them to get the MS IE treatment.
    - jjcon 6y ago
      > how can other search engines who respect you as a user even have a chance Again, I stay away from google for privacy reasons but just because they don’t respect privacy doesn’t have anything to with monopoly status. You can argue for privacy protecting legislation against google but again, that has nothing to do with monopoly status. Other search engines could choose to track you as well. That is a business decision not unfair advantage.
    - ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
      When ATT was a monopoly, your choice for a phone provider, across the U.S, was ATT. There was no way to switch, and they used this power to raise prices (hurting the consumer is generally a requirement for anti-trust cases in the US). It'll be very challenging to win a serious court case where the Google search monopoly could be conquered by a user typing bing.com at the top of the screen. Never before has a 'monopoly' been so easy to stop using.
roenxi 6y ago
> I know there's the sentiment of fear/hate/etc about Google taking over but... > 1) Doesn't it make sense for them to do that? There isn't any point being fearful/hateful/etc about stuff that it doesn't make sense for someone to do. If someone is acting against their own self interests it makes sense to speak persuasively. And they will likely stop doing it in time even if left to themselves.
michaelbuckbee 6y ago
What's missing from this is an "arms length relationship" - Google is making so much from ads that they're able to swamp entire industries with offhand choices. I would very much like Google to experiment with new technologies and services (translate, flights, etc.) but I wish they'd spin them out as separate services and have them pay for placement in search results or fight it out for SEO placement. As it stands they can launch mediocre products that do well as the new products get "free" premium placement.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
samoa42 6y ago
> playing an important role in building the internet? which role would that have been? internet was fine before google streamlined the web. > For most, all the internet they know is thanks to Google search, youtube and maps were great additions to the web, but i think most ppl here can share the mixed feelings about bringing the masses on the web.
zsfgininionio 6y ago
I wouldn't do that in a million years. We need to get rid of this idea that everyone is selfish, greedy and evil and, therefore, criticizing corruption is hypocritical. I really am better than Google executives, and you should strive to be as well. The way people so casually excuse immoral behaviour, as if we have no obligation to do the right thing, truly sickens me.
mtgx 6y ago
> Doesn't it make sense for them to do that? After offering the search engine for free for ages Absolutely not. They offered the search engine for free so that advertisers could have a huge platform. Same with Facebook offering its social media platform "for free." It's about the users/eye balls/etc. Also they've made billions upon billions of dollars in profit from it - how much more do they "deserve" - especially when they are starting to act monopolistic/anti-competitive/stealing competitor IP, ideas, etc
madoublet 6y ago
I think it is just nostalgia for when the Internet was still young and interesting. Google made it easier and much faster to get to good, useful content. Now, it is just a mess. SEO/SEM folks beat Google. Now, no matter what you search, you either get content directly from Google or one of the thousands (maybe millions?) of content farms hoping to scrape a few pennies from your search.
mellow2020 6y ago
> I know there's the sentiment of fear/hate/etc about Google taking over but... It's the other way around, for these and other such shennanigans by other such megacorporations colonizing our protocols (rather than "building the internet"): yeah, it might make sense for them, in a selfish, short-term, myopic kind of way, but it harms the greater good. Apart from making it rather deplorable how they ate/eat chalk to get their foot in the door. > For most, all the internet they know is thanks to Google How so? Because most people "just google things"? You might as well say all the internet they know is thanks to whoever provided the electricity at the time. People who make good websites made the interwebs something to flock something to in the first place, even though hardly anyone in the real world cared or knew about the web. These days, everybody is on the web because everybody is on the web, and people share workarounds for the latest corporate BS, and "hope" they will "listen" etc. That there are people for whom that's all they know doesn't mean those should be catered to.
cowpig 6y ago
3) Isn't a system in which monopolistic business practices make sense a fundamentally broken one? 4) Shouldn't we, as members of a democratic system of government, be concerned that this has become the case? And express that concern to others in order to spread understanding and continue the democratic process? 5) Isn't it strange how Hacker News comments so often take the position of large companies, as if those individuals aren't going to suffer from a small number of multi-trillion dollar companies ingesting entire industries in the long term?

gberger 6y ago

> not that paid search engines are a thing They are in enterprise, but I digress

Jaruzel 6y ago
Interestingly, they couldn't break into Enterprise Search (their Google-in-a-box product failed).

onetimemanytime 6y ago

1) Doesn't it make sense for them to do that? After offering the search engine for free for ages (not that paid search engines are a thing) They've made a fortune so instead of saying they've "offered it for free" let's point out that they are not a charity. Google became famous for saying that they will list the best SE when ranking, not Google properties or ads. >>and playing an important role in building the internet? For most, all the internet they know is thanks to Google Even if you said is true, another one would have done what Google did. By the way, internet as we know it today, would have happened without Google. In fact, MS and Apple did a LOT more for the internet...a computer in every home and all.

badrabbit 6y ago

No, I wouldn't do the same. Maximize profits? Yes, sacrifice core values and even social stability to acheive the goal? Nope. Be deceptive, do things against people's will? Nope.

jfoster 6y ago
Can you mention the worst or most deceptive thing they've done?
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Larry and Sergey said from the very beginning we needed a search engine in the academic realm because ads present an inherent conflict of interest. It's right here! http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html This was who they were and what they believed! Check out Appendix A, it's entirely about the mixed motivation of funding a search engine with ads. Yet not only did they make an ad company that has a search engine, they increasingly made their ads less distinguishable from organic results over time. Big highlighted yellow boxes have become search results with a tiny Ad marker hidden in the paragraph. Because deceiving people into clicking on ads is more profitable than getting them to the best organic result. When DoubleClick was bought they promised they'd keep the data separate to get the acquisition approved. Once it happened, they merged the data. Now they're saying the same about your Fitbit data... Yes, the entire concept of Google is against Larry and Sergey's original paper on the matter. They sold out, and college Larry and Sergey would be ashamed of their present day counterparts.
  - harshitaneja 6y ago
    I read Appendix A and it doesn't seem to be against what they are doing currently. Unless you assume their search engine has exceptions or intentional bias. We have no conclusive evidence to believe the same(including the currently discussed article). I am conflicted by their shopping app integration. But I wonder why I am having trouble accepting shopping integration vs maps integration. Having google maps part of the result makes for a better and quicker experience to information. But if shopping were a more successful product the reasons would hold their as well. I understand the intention behind anti-trust regulations in such cases but have trouble accepting them in data driven products like google which have huge user experience benefits from tighter integration of their own products. I would love if anyone could help me with my conflicting thoughts on this.

uniqueid 6y ago

Give me a break. Google hasn't been a net positive for the internet in nearly a decade. And cry me a river about their "free" search. They're worth over $600 billion, much of which they acquired by selling out their users' privacy. These days, Google is a blight on the world, and deserves all the criticism lobbed at it.

antibuddy 6y ago

Yeah it makes sense, however I don't think we should be grateful* that Google played an important role in building the internet, since for Google it is about control and that's where the problems begin. *not that this was your point

uniqueid 6y ago
Google didn't exist for the first decade of the web. When they came along, their innovation was minor and incremental: slightly more accurate search without paid results (funny how things change). They then did a version of Hotmail with a worse GUI, but virtually limitless disk space. Google just poaches talent away from more deserving companies, and puts it to work making their products a little worse every year than they were the year before. I'm not thankful for Google. I'm sad because they stifle progress.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

The fact that it "makes sense" for companies to become evil monopolies when they are capable of doing so is a problem. It's like a big hole in our economic system where everything breaks down and grinds to a halt.

jjcon 6y ago
> The fact that it "makes sense" for companies to become evil monopolies when they are capable of doing so is a problem I’m no google fan but I don’t think evil is an appropriate word nor would I call them a monopoly when it comes to search. There are plenty of other options out there from all over the world, the fact that they aren’t that great isn’t googles fault (and it would need to be for them to be considered a monopoly).
- tristan957 6y ago
  From the article: 9/10 searches in the US come from Google. There are lots of great search engines. But when Google has the largest share of web analytics and can literally track you around the internet, how can other search engines who respect you as a user even have a chance? Give search engines a level playing field. Google is the default search engine on the most popular web browser. Google is the default search engine on the largest mobile operating system. Please stop defending Google. They have a monopoly on search, and its time for them to get the MS IE treatment.
  - jjcon 6y ago
    > how can other search engines who respect you as a user even have a chance Again, I stay away from google for privacy reasons but just because they don’t respect privacy doesn’t have anything to with monopoly status. You can argue for privacy protecting legislation against google but again, that has nothing to do with monopoly status. Other search engines could choose to track you as well. That is a business decision not unfair advantage.
  - ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
    When ATT was a monopoly, your choice for a phone provider, across the U.S, was ATT. There was no way to switch, and they used this power to raise prices (hurting the consumer is generally a requirement for anti-trust cases in the US). It'll be very challenging to win a serious court case where the Google search monopoly could be conquered by a user typing bing.com at the top of the screen. Never before has a 'monopoly' been so easy to stop using.

roenxi 6y ago

> I know there's the sentiment of fear/hate/etc about Google taking over but... > 1) Doesn't it make sense for them to do that? There isn't any point being fearful/hateful/etc about stuff that it doesn't make sense for someone to do. If someone is acting against their own self interests it makes sense to speak persuasively. And they will likely stop doing it in time even if left to themselves.

michaelbuckbee 6y ago

What's missing from this is an "arms length relationship" - Google is making so much from ads that they're able to swamp entire industries with offhand choices. I would very much like Google to experiment with new technologies and services (translate, flights, etc.) but I wish they'd spin them out as separate services and have them pay for placement in search results or fight it out for SEO placement. As it stands they can launch mediocre products that do well as the new products get "free" premium placement.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

samoa42 6y ago

> playing an important role in building the internet? which role would that have been? internet was fine before google streamlined the web. > For most, all the internet they know is thanks to Google search, youtube and maps were great additions to the web, but i think most ppl here can share the mixed feelings about bringing the masses on the web.

zsfgininionio 6y ago

I wouldn't do that in a million years. We need to get rid of this idea that everyone is selfish, greedy and evil and, therefore, criticizing corruption is hypocritical. I really am better than Google executives, and you should strive to be as well. The way people so casually excuse immoral behaviour, as if we have no obligation to do the right thing, truly sickens me.

mtgx 6y ago

> Doesn't it make sense for them to do that? After offering the search engine for free for ages Absolutely not. They offered the search engine for free so that advertisers could have a huge platform. Same with Facebook offering its social media platform "for free." It's about the users/eye balls/etc. Also they've made billions upon billions of dollars in profit from it - how much more do they "deserve" - especially when they are starting to act monopolistic/anti-competitive/stealing competitor IP, ideas, etc

madoublet 6y ago

I think it is just nostalgia for when the Internet was still young and interesting. Google made it easier and much faster to get to good, useful content. Now, it is just a mess. SEO/SEM folks beat Google. Now, no matter what you search, you either get content directly from Google or one of the thousands (maybe millions?) of content farms hoping to scrape a few pennies from your search.

mellow2020 6y ago

> I know there's the sentiment of fear/hate/etc about Google taking over but... It's the other way around, for these and other such shennanigans by other such megacorporations colonizing our protocols (rather than "building the internet"): yeah, it might make sense for them, in a selfish, short-term, myopic kind of way, but it harms the greater good. Apart from making it rather deplorable how they ate/eat chalk to get their foot in the door. > For most, all the internet they know is thanks to Google How so? Because most people "just google things"? You might as well say all the internet they know is thanks to whoever provided the electricity at the time. People who make good websites made the interwebs something to flock something to in the first place, even though hardly anyone in the real world cared or knew about the web. These days, everybody is on the web because everybody is on the web, and people share workarounds for the latest corporate BS, and "hope" they will "listen" etc. That there are people for whom that's all they know doesn't mean those should be catered to.

cowpig 6y ago

3) Isn't a system in which monopolistic business practices make sense a fundamentally broken one? 4) Shouldn't we, as members of a democratic system of government, be concerned that this has become the case? And express that concern to others in order to spread understanding and continue the democratic process? 5) Isn't it strange how Hacker News comments so often take the position of large companies, as if those individuals aren't going to suffer from a small number of multi-trillion dollar companies ingesting entire industries in the long term?