3 ms·

I'm sure Google knows what they are doing. They have a competitor and were able to obtain a domain name that in some cases will direct people away from DuckDuc

I'm sure Google knows what they are doing. They have a competitor and were able to obtain a domain name that in some cases will direct people away from DuckDuckGo and to Google. Yes its seemingly evil but its competition. Yes, yes but its Google and they are 'not evil'. BS - they aren't evil or nice - they are a corporation. They will do whatever helps their profit machine. If you don't like this particular action raise awareness around it and maybe someone at Google will reconsider that this move may put them in a negative light that impacts their profits in other ways. Lastly it makes me somewhat sad that people seem so shocked when Google does something seemingly evil. You're personifying something that despite all the marketing is by its nature setup solely to most efficiently make money. Google's "don't be evil" is just marketing in that their products inherently require the public's trust to be profitable. I would actually argue that by the nature of their business plan and profits, Google has to be one of the most responsive to scrutiny by the public. In other words, in comparison to other corporations, Google should be one of the easiest to get to change 'evil' actions.

Terretta 15y ago
Google's "WebM" video codec is derived from work by a company they acquired, On2, which was formerly Duck, with a codec called TrueMotion[1]. Duck.com belonged to that company, which Google bought. This Duck.com[2] is from long before DDG existed. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueMotion_S http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueMotion_S 2. http://web.archive.org/web/19970209085620/http://www.duck.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/19970209085620/http://www.duck.co...
- moocow01 15y ago
  Thats fine but I think many are misinterpreting what occurs upon acquirement of a company. The assets get broken up and each asset is analyzed to decipher how it should be put to use or disposed of for the company. Some person or work group made a decision to point the duck.com new domain name at search. Its not like when they acquire the domain names they just automatically all switch to Google.com. I actually don't find it to be incredibly evil. There are a number of teams at Google that try to best understand how to best put these domains and assets to use in the interest of Google. They pointed it at search and continue to do so because they have gotten some benefit from it. Additionally, if Google wasn't getting benefit from this wouldn't it make more sense to point this domain at something WebM related for customer transition?
  - Terretta 15y ago
    In my opinion, just like landing pages, it makes most sense to point unused domain names to the place that makes you the most money. Pointing On2 at company info makes sense. People typing it would be looking for that company info. People typing "duck" are very unlikely to be looking for anything about the old company called Duck so it should go to the money page.
    - underwater 15y ago
      This is obviously a deliberate poking-of-tongues at DDG. http://www.on2.com/ http://www.on2.com/ was apparently owned by the same company but leads to an page with information about the buyout.
      - Terretta 15y ago
        I just said that about On2, and explained why the two domains would be handled differently.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

Terretta 15y ago

Google's "WebM" video codec is derived from work by a company they acquired, On2, which was formerly Duck, with a codec called TrueMotion[1]. Duck.com belonged to that company, which Google bought. This Duck.com[2] is from long before DDG existed. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueMotion_S http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueMotion_S 2. http://web.archive.org/web/19970209085620/http://www.duck.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/19970209085620/http://www.duck.co...

moocow01 15y ago
Thats fine but I think many are misinterpreting what occurs upon acquirement of a company. The assets get broken up and each asset is analyzed to decipher how it should be put to use or disposed of for the company. Some person or work group made a decision to point the duck.com new domain name at search. Its not like when they acquire the domain names they just automatically all switch to Google.com. I actually don't find it to be incredibly evil. There are a number of teams at Google that try to best understand how to best put these domains and assets to use in the interest of Google. They pointed it at search and continue to do so because they have gotten some benefit from it. Additionally, if Google wasn't getting benefit from this wouldn't it make more sense to point this domain at something WebM related for customer transition?
- Terretta 15y ago
  In my opinion, just like landing pages, it makes most sense to point unused domain names to the place that makes you the most money. Pointing On2 at company info makes sense. People typing it would be looking for that company info. People typing "duck" are very unlikely to be looking for anything about the old company called Duck so it should go to the money page.
  - underwater 15y ago
    This is obviously a deliberate poking-of-tongues at DDG. http://www.on2.com/ http://www.on2.com/ was apparently owned by the same company but leads to an page with information about the buyout.
    - Terretta 15y ago
      I just said that about On2, and explained why the two domains would be handled differently.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]