3 ms·
I get how this could be confusing (after all, a lot of people access URLs by googling them first). Regardless, this isn't Google being evil but rather, taking a
by rglover 15y ago
I get how this could be confusing (after all, a lot of people access URLs by googling them first). Regardless, this isn't Google being evil but rather, taking advantage of a fortunate coincidence. They acquired a company in the past that owned a domain. Ironically, that domain happens to be similar to a competitor in the present. They have no immediate use for the domain, but why not redirect it to Google (just in case someone was trying to get to their competitor)? That's not evil, that's business. If DDG is that concerned about it, make an offer to Google for the domain name.
- tensafefrogs 15y agoI don't think Google is doing anything evil here at all. The purchase of On2 (where the domain came from) very clearly had nothing at all to do with duckduckgo. That said, if they wanted to be more neighborly they could put up a landing page like this one instead: http://omnisio.com/ http://omnisio.com/ (also a company that was acquired by google/youtube).
- notahacker 15y agoIn all honesty, that "neighbourly" action would be even less helpful since you can't even find DDG from a basic landing page which might cause the same confused users to think DDG was one of the assets that Google acquired. Of course, Google could provide a disambiguation link to DDG on that page, but I can't honestly see any reason why they would or should provide a competitor with free advertising. They could sell the domain, but I can't see any reason why they would or should set an affordable price for a highly-brandable generic four letter domain name.