6 ms·

I don't understand the argument. It's google's search engine, if they want to rank certain things higher, why not? If people don't like the result content, the

by aditya 18y ago

I don't understand the argument. It's google's search engine, if they want to rank certain things higher, why not? If people don't like the result content, they'll go to the competition!

nickb 18y ago
I don't understand the argument. It's Microsoft's operating system, if they want to pre-install certain apps, why not? Google's heading in the same direction as MS. They'll probably end up in the same court room in Washington DC few years from now.
- neilc 18y ago
  It's Microsoft's operating system, if they want to pre-install certain apps, why not? There's nothing fundamentally wrong with Microsoft pre-installing apps, just like there is nothing wrong with Apple pre-installing apps on OSX, or Sun on Solaris.
  - vaksel 18y ago
    if it wasn't, they wouldn't have lost all those anti-trust suits
    - akd 18y ago
      The courts do not always assess right and wrong -- they are concerned with legal and illegal, which isn't the same thing.
  - agotterer 18y ago
    but it is wrong that Apple forces safari downloads on windows! grrr!
- aditya 18y ago
  That comparison does not work. Microsoft pre-installing their applications, or tweaking their OS such that their applications provide a better experience is anti-competitive because it lets Microsoft utilize their monopoly to prevent competition. Google is not preventing any other search engines from gaining popularity. People go to google to find the most relevant answer to a particular thing, when the top result is consistently a spam knol, people won't go there to search anymore.
  - alex_c 18y ago
    You're getting the two mixed up. The concern with Microsoft wasn't that they used their OS monopoly to unfairly compete with other operating systems, it was that they used their OS monopoly to unfairly compete with other applications (eg. IE vs. Netscape). The concern with Google isn't that they might be using their search near-monopoly to unfairly compete with other search engines, it is that they might be using their search near-monopoly to unfairly compete with other websites (eg. Knol vs. Wikipedia).
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
jon_dahl 18y ago
The problem is that it's anti-competitive. If Google owns the search business (and they do, more or less), they can drive other companies out of business by tweaking their listings - even companies that have nothing to do with search. What if your local phone company was owned by Verizon, and they "accidentally" misprinted phone numbers of Sprint customers? Or if the supplier of 70% of the world's cars made it harder for its competition's cars to get filled up with gas? Everyone loses except the monopoly. You're right that ultimately, you could get a different phone book (or different search engine). But there isn't really a great search alternative right now. Hopefully that will change soon.
- dhimes 18y ago
  I use the "beta" stuff in myYahoo quite a bit and I like it. It provides search suggestions as you start typing (I've come to rely on them--instead of finishing what I was going to type, if Yahoo recognizes it in a slightly different phrasing I go with it), map links, etc. I use it as my start page with rss feeds, etc., so it's kind of my default. I still have to go to Google for some things, though, when Yahoo can't find it.
azharcs 18y ago
If people don't like the result content, they'll go to the competition! Ya we can surely go to the competition, but wait there is no competition now. Yahoo has outsourced its search ads to Google, that means they are not very serious about their search and Microsoft is still trying very hard but they can't compete with "Resistance is Futile Google". Early search engines like Wikia, Powerset and Cuil get slammed by "wisom of the crowd" users for unable to match Google results. Show me the competition, i would love to go there.
- aneesh 18y ago
  Yahoo is sending contradictory messages, BOSS is very innovative and forward-thinking, but their Google deal pretty much indicates they've packed their bags. Powerset got their payday and is now part of Live. Live is still fighting hard, though they're not there yet. But if you think about it, Live can't really go down much in usage - the people that still use it have got to be pretty loyal! ;) So it can only go up. There is hope, and how ironic that it is from Microsoft. Google right now is looking so much like Microsoft 10 years ago.
  - IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
    their Google deal pretty much indicates they've packed their bags. I don't see how it means that at all. They're making more on the google ads in that location than they were on their own ads. And, of course, there's plenty of rumors out there that the board and Jerry had to come up with a better alternative than MSFT's bid to buy their search product. Sounds like they're doing everything possible to keep their search business and monetize it by any means necessary. If the bags were packed, they'd've sold.
    - aneesh 18y ago
      > "Sounds like they're doing everything possible to keep their search business" Search isn't a business without the ads. The Google deal basically lets Google place ads on Yahoo search results, if they can get a higher price. As a result of its market leadership position, Google commands higher rates for ads. Now that they're deploying ads in Yahoo results, they will get even better at selling ads, pushing rates up further. Since Yahoo is selling less ads, they will get more dependent on Google to monetize their search. The eventual case is that Yahoo outsources search advertising to Google, and Google has a virtual monopoly on search ads. Advertisers will hate this.

by aditya 18y ago

I don't understand the argument. It's google's search engine, if they want to rank certain things higher, why not? If people don't like the result content, they'll go to the competition!

nickb 18y ago

I don't understand the argument. It's Microsoft's operating system, if they want to pre-install certain apps, why not? Google's heading in the same direction as MS. They'll probably end up in the same court room in Washington DC few years from now.

neilc 18y ago
It's Microsoft's operating system, if they want to pre-install certain apps, why not? There's nothing fundamentally wrong with Microsoft pre-installing apps, just like there is nothing wrong with Apple pre-installing apps on OSX, or Sun on Solaris.
- vaksel 18y ago
  if it wasn't, they wouldn't have lost all those anti-trust suits
  - akd 18y ago
    The courts do not always assess right and wrong -- they are concerned with legal and illegal, which isn't the same thing.
- agotterer 18y ago
  but it is wrong that Apple forces safari downloads on windows! grrr!
aditya 18y ago
That comparison does not work. Microsoft pre-installing their applications, or tweaking their OS such that their applications provide a better experience is anti-competitive because it lets Microsoft utilize their monopoly to prevent competition. Google is not preventing any other search engines from gaining popularity. People go to google to find the most relevant answer to a particular thing, when the top result is consistently a spam knol, people won't go there to search anymore.
- alex_c 18y ago
  You're getting the two mixed up. The concern with Microsoft wasn't that they used their OS monopoly to unfairly compete with other operating systems, it was that they used their OS monopoly to unfairly compete with other applications (eg. IE vs. Netscape). The concern with Google isn't that they might be using their search near-monopoly to unfairly compete with other search engines, it is that they might be using their search near-monopoly to unfairly compete with other websites (eg. Knol vs. Wikipedia).

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

jon_dahl 18y ago

The problem is that it's anti-competitive. If Google owns the search business (and they do, more or less), they can drive other companies out of business by tweaking their listings - even companies that have nothing to do with search. What if your local phone company was owned by Verizon, and they "accidentally" misprinted phone numbers of Sprint customers? Or if the supplier of 70% of the world's cars made it harder for its competition's cars to get filled up with gas? Everyone loses except the monopoly. You're right that ultimately, you could get a different phone book (or different search engine). But there isn't really a great search alternative right now. Hopefully that will change soon.

dhimes 18y ago
I use the "beta" stuff in myYahoo quite a bit and I like it. It provides search suggestions as you start typing (I've come to rely on them--instead of finishing what I was going to type, if Yahoo recognizes it in a slightly different phrasing I go with it), map links, etc. I use it as my start page with rss feeds, etc., so it's kind of my default. I still have to go to Google for some things, though, when Yahoo can't find it.

azharcs 18y ago

If people don't like the result content, they'll go to the competition! Ya we can surely go to the competition, but wait there is no competition now. Yahoo has outsourced its search ads to Google, that means they are not very serious about their search and Microsoft is still trying very hard but they can't compete with "Resistance is Futile Google". Early search engines like Wikia, Powerset and Cuil get slammed by "wisom of the crowd" users for unable to match Google results. Show me the competition, i would love to go there.

aneesh 18y ago
Yahoo is sending contradictory messages, BOSS is very innovative and forward-thinking, but their Google deal pretty much indicates they've packed their bags. Powerset got their payday and is now part of Live. Live is still fighting hard, though they're not there yet. But if you think about it, Live can't really go down much in usage - the people that still use it have got to be pretty loyal! ;) So it can only go up. There is hope, and how ironic that it is from Microsoft. Google right now is looking so much like Microsoft 10 years ago.
- IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
  their Google deal pretty much indicates they've packed their bags. I don't see how it means that at all. They're making more on the google ads in that location than they were on their own ads. And, of course, there's plenty of rumors out there that the board and Jerry had to come up with a better alternative than MSFT's bid to buy their search product. Sounds like they're doing everything possible to keep their search business and monetize it by any means necessary. If the bags were packed, they'd've sold.
  - aneesh 18y ago
    > "Sounds like they're doing everything possible to keep their search business" Search isn't a business without the ads. The Google deal basically lets Google place ads on Yahoo search results, if they can get a higher price. As a result of its market leadership position, Google commands higher rates for ads. Now that they're deploying ads in Yahoo results, they will get even better at selling ads, pushing rates up further. Since Yahoo is selling less ads, they will get more dependent on Google to monetize their search. The eventual case is that Yahoo outsources search advertising to Google, and Google has a virtual monopoly on search ads. Advertisers will hate this.