5 ms·

No I am not confused about getting testimony from competitors. I am very interested in hearing from companies that probably have legitimate grievances: DDG, Kag

No I am not confused about getting testimony from competitors. I am very interested in hearing from companies that probably have legitimate grievances: DDG, Kagi, Brave, etc. MS is not among those companies.

cmcaleer 3y ago
Why shouldn't MS be in that group? Google pay far above the mark to be default search in FF, and own the most popular web browser.
- havnagiggle 3y ago
  Because Microsoft is in the game of being a big business, and demonstrably is not in the group that needs a fair market to thrive. MS is/was willing to make the same deals as Google for defaults, it's just Google valued it more. They should be in hot seat #2. Smaller companies like DDG, Brave, Kagi are the ones trying to build narrow, competitive businesses in the search and browser space. If those are struggling due to anti-competitive practices I want to hear it.
  - 26fingies 3y ago
    Does microsoft testifying preclude any of those companies from testifying?
    - AraceliHarker 3y ago
      If it is true that people are reluctant to change their default search engine, as Nadella says, doesn't that mean all Windows users are using Bing?
      - deprecative 3y ago
        Us Windows folks are typically defaulted to Bing in Edge, but in any other browser you'll probably get tacked with Google or DDG(Bing).
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Microsoft's size is part of what makes their testimony so valuable to the government here. If even Microsoft's CEO is willing to testify under oath that Google's practices make breaking into search impossible, that's extremely relevant to the case. Leaving that testimony out because there are smaller companies that are also hurt would be foolish. The ideal witness makeup would be composed of a combination of large, medium, and small competitors all saying the same thing.
    - havnagiggle 3y ago
      I'll be honest and say your interpretation is probably right, and that's how the NY times reporter interpreted it. However, my strong anti-MS + all conglomerates (i.e., bias that would probably would have disqualified me from being on the jury heh) sees a guy only concerned about MS stock, taking a hypocritical jab at his direct competitor. I am mostly disappointed that it indicates to me (possibly incorrectly) that the DOJ is not simultaneously pursuing MS for related practices. Maybe it's not in the ads space, but MS is not without their own anti-competitive issues. Or maybe they are, and are able to walk and chew gum. But DOJ asking MS to be a witness is just not a good sign to me.
      - deprecative 3y ago
        Isn't the FTC in court [0] with Microsoft over concerns of monopolist behavior? [0] - https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-ftc-sets-date-internal-arguments-microsoft-deal-buy-activision-2023-09-27/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-ftc-sets-date-internal-argu...
    - cellis 3y ago
      I’ll say what everyone is thinking but won’t say; Bing is a horrible name and is a theme of Microsoft’s lackluster approach to search and, well, anything internet. They slow-follow. So why should they have an easy time competing against Google?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- AraceliHarker 3y ago
  Because Microsoft is doing worse things than what they are accusing Google of, such as forcing users to use Edge and Bing in Windows. Also, considering the fact that Bing's market share did not increase even when Microsoft signed a contract with Apple to make Bing the default search engine on iPhones, and the testimony that Apple did not acquire Bing because of its poor quality, Microsoft's argument is completely unacceptable.
  - hackernewds 3y ago
    Not to mention the perpetuation of Teams (blatant copy), Outlook (subpar product), Edge (a Chrome downloader) solely because they come pre-installed
  - deprecative 3y ago
    Skipping the nonsense about not investigating and conducting a trial because other people might also be doing a crime. > Because Microsoft is doing worse things than what they are accusing Google of, such as forcing users to use Edge and Bing in Windows. Given that Google and other parties will have their chance at giving their evidence and testimony, would it not be better for Microsoft to be involved here where their own testimony will available for exploration? Given that Bing powers DDG and Brave at least, and I assume Kagi consumes Bing also, I see no reason why the only other competitor to Google (in Search) should not be present.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    > share did not increase even when Microsoft signed a contract with Apple to make Bing the default search engine on iPhones, I don’t recall Bing ever being the default search engine in Safari. The deal was exclusively about Siri (which barely anyone used..)
sokoloff 3y ago
You want to hear from all those other search companies, but not from Bing?

cmcaleer 3y ago

Why shouldn't MS be in that group? Google pay far above the mark to be default search in FF, and own the most popular web browser.

havnagiggle 3y ago
Because Microsoft is in the game of being a big business, and demonstrably is not in the group that needs a fair market to thrive. MS is/was willing to make the same deals as Google for defaults, it's just Google valued it more. They should be in hot seat #2. Smaller companies like DDG, Brave, Kagi are the ones trying to build narrow, competitive businesses in the search and browser space. If those are struggling due to anti-competitive practices I want to hear it.
- 26fingies 3y ago
  Does microsoft testifying preclude any of those companies from testifying?
  - AraceliHarker 3y ago
    If it is true that people are reluctant to change their default search engine, as Nadella says, doesn't that mean all Windows users are using Bing?
    - deprecative 3y ago
      Us Windows folks are typically defaulted to Bing in Edge, but in any other browser you'll probably get tacked with Google or DDG(Bing).
- lolinder 3y ago
  Microsoft's size is part of what makes their testimony so valuable to the government here. If even Microsoft's CEO is willing to testify under oath that Google's practices make breaking into search impossible, that's extremely relevant to the case. Leaving that testimony out because there are smaller companies that are also hurt would be foolish. The ideal witness makeup would be composed of a combination of large, medium, and small competitors all saying the same thing.
  - havnagiggle 3y ago
    I'll be honest and say your interpretation is probably right, and that's how the NY times reporter interpreted it. However, my strong anti-MS + all conglomerates (i.e., bias that would probably would have disqualified me from being on the jury heh) sees a guy only concerned about MS stock, taking a hypocritical jab at his direct competitor. I am mostly disappointed that it indicates to me (possibly incorrectly) that the DOJ is not simultaneously pursuing MS for related practices. Maybe it's not in the ads space, but MS is not without their own anti-competitive issues. Or maybe they are, and are able to walk and chew gum. But DOJ asking MS to be a witness is just not a good sign to me.
    - deprecative 3y ago
      Isn't the FTC in court [0] with Microsoft over concerns of monopolist behavior? [0] - https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-ftc-sets-date-internal-arguments-microsoft-deal-buy-activision-2023-09-27/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-ftc-sets-date-internal-argu...
  - cellis 3y ago
    I’ll say what everyone is thinking but won’t say; Bing is a horrible name and is a theme of Microsoft’s lackluster approach to search and, well, anything internet. They slow-follow. So why should they have an easy time competing against Google?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
AraceliHarker 3y ago
Because Microsoft is doing worse things than what they are accusing Google of, such as forcing users to use Edge and Bing in Windows. Also, considering the fact that Bing's market share did not increase even when Microsoft signed a contract with Apple to make Bing the default search engine on iPhones, and the testimony that Apple did not acquire Bing because of its poor quality, Microsoft's argument is completely unacceptable.
- hackernewds 3y ago
  Not to mention the perpetuation of Teams (blatant copy), Outlook (subpar product), Edge (a Chrome downloader) solely because they come pre-installed
- deprecative 3y ago
  Skipping the nonsense about not investigating and conducting a trial because other people might also be doing a crime. > Because Microsoft is doing worse things than what they are accusing Google of, such as forcing users to use Edge and Bing in Windows. Given that Google and other parties will have their chance at giving their evidence and testimony, would it not be better for Microsoft to be involved here where their own testimony will available for exploration? Given that Bing powers DDG and Brave at least, and I assume Kagi consumes Bing also, I see no reason why the only other competitor to Google (in Search) should not be present.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > share did not increase even when Microsoft signed a contract with Apple to make Bing the default search engine on iPhones, I don’t recall Bing ever being the default search engine in Safari. The deal was exclusively about Siri (which barely anyone used..)

sokoloff 3y ago

You want to hear from all those other search companies, but not from Bing?