Comment by ucaetano | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ucaetano | Hacker News Reader

> Kelkoo CEO Richard Stables says the firm’s revenue from general search traffic dropped by 62% last year, to €2.3 million. In 2018, he projects a two-thirds drop to €800,000.

I decided to go to http://www.kelkoo.co.uk/ to check it out. This website is so clearly a scam created for this antitrust case.

I went ahead to compare two cameras: the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II (a $4k camera) to a Canon Ixus 275 HS ($200 camera), here are the descriptions of each:

Canon EOS 1D X Mark II

The Canon EOS 1D X Mark II offers a good sensor resolution, allowing you to take an astonishing quality of picture. The Canon EOS 1D X Mark II has a very reasonable weight for this type of camera, with its LCD display providing a decent screen size compared to other similar digital cameras. The Canon EOS 1D X Mark II comes with internal memory, which is extendable with an external memory card to match the size of your photo and video collection. The lens aperture (the 'eye of the camera'), which makes your lens contract or dilate to allow more or less light in, is good for a digital camera in this price bracket. You can compare prices for the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II, read the full product details and check out expert reviews at our web site.

Canon Ixus 275 HS

The Canon Ixus 275 HS offers a good sensor resolution, allowing you to take an astonishing quality of picture. The Canon Ixus 275 HS has a very reasonable weight for this type of camera, with its LCD display providing a decent screen size compared to other similar digital cameras. The Canon Ixus 275 HS comes with internal memory, which is extendable with an external memory card to match the size of your photo and video collection. The lens aperture (the 'eye of the camera'), which makes your lens contract or dilate to allow more or less light in, is good for a digital camera in this price bracket. You can compare prices for the Canon Ixus 275 HS, read the full product details and check out expert reviews at our web site.

This is pure bullshit, and bullshit journalism.

> This website is so clearly a scam created for this antitrust case.

I can't speak for the quality of their product but this is absolutely not true, Kelkoo has been around since 1999[0], almost as long as Google itself.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelkoo

If by "Kelkoo" you mean "a yahoo proxy", then yes

See the "a yahoo company" at the very top of this archived page: https://web.archive.org/web/20050701004143/http://www.kelkoo... (you'll need to collapse the archive.org banner on top - it is hidden behind it by default)

From the wikipedia page:

> On March 26, 2004, Kelkoo was bought by Yahoo! Inc for €450 million.

Um, yes, that is the point i am making. Them being Yahoo is precisely why they have beef with Google.

It's not Yahoo anymore since 2008.

From your "source":

> In November 2008, Kelkoo was sold by Yahoo! Inc to the private equity firm Jamplant Ltd.

The current CEO has been there since 2009, shortly after the acquisition.

Jamplant was incorporated in October of 2008, one month before the acquisition. The director was Andrew Simon Davis, who is frequently listed as a director of shell companies and trusts. In the same month he was appointed director to dozens of other companies.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/LQ_FXmuiSA4f8cOG...

The Kelkoo Group is based out of the same office as Jamplant, along with dozens of other companies, what indicates a virtual office or company registration service.

https://www.google.com/search?q=6th+Floor+Portland+House+Bre...

It has 5 employees, and seems to have consistently lost money over the past years, and its largest shareholder (and only institutional shareholder) is Kelkoo Group itself.

Kelkoo itself was already dead on the water by the time of the acquisition: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=kelkoo

That was shortly after the initial complaints against Google:

https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/legal-news-articles/ca...

>The Kelkoo Group is based out of the same office as Jamplant, along with dozens of other companies, what indicates a virtual office or company registration service.

That office is 300k sqft of 'flexible office space.'

Not just the same address, but the same floor.

>This is pure bullshit, and bullshit journalism.

It's the "Wall Street Journal", a Murdoch business publication that approves of every business as long as it isn't Google.

Recently my impression of the WSJ is incredibly poor. Just BS article after BS article. To me the bias has never been more obvious. Though I only see their content on aggregators like HN, so perhaps that plays a part.

> It's the "Wall Street Journal", a Murdoch business publication that approves of every business as long as it isn't Google.

Please don't bring politics into this. If you have a substantive criticism about the WSJ's article, make that criticism. The one you've made is ideological and unpersuasive.

Political? Rupert Murdoch's distain for Google is well documented, and he isn't shy about siccing his papers on them: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/26/battle-rupert-...

Is this honestly a question? Murdoch disdain for Google is well known.

Rupert Murdoch can have well documented dislike for Google without his dislike intrinsically kneecapping the Wall Street Journal’s journalistic integrity. The comment I replied to criticizes the article we’re discussing categorically by origin, instead of specifically on merits.

Murdoch’s agenda can be a thesis statement for why the WSJ has poor journalistic integrity with respect to Google, but it doesn't demonstrate that failing on its own, nor is merely calling out that someone in a position of power has an agenda a well-reasoned thesis.

Basically, it’s not contributing anything more interesting to the discussion, and is just going to attract other comments or upvotes that agree. That’s not insightful discussion, it’s just ingroup commiseration.

Murdoch also has a well known taste for owning news sources that have no journalistic integrity.

In this case, Murdoch has a track record of using his media empire to push his business and political views, so it's really quite appropriate.

Appreciate the demand for precision, but you won't get more than anecdotes in this case.

I used to work for Google and I remember the 180 degree turn in WSJ's output after Murdoch gave a speech in which he announced Google News was killing journalism and the future of newspapers was the iPad (this was just after the iPad was new). Suddenly bullshit articles about us started appearing constantly.

The first one I remember was about the Safari cookie case, if anyone remembers that. Basically Safari had shipped a third party cookie filter that broke the web as a "privacy" feature. Because it didn't work and couldn't ever work Apple started adding in bizarre documented workarounds that were basically bugs in the filter, but they chose to document rather than fix, so important apps like the Facebook like button would start working again. Google started using these workarounds as was intended by Apple in order to fix its own products. The WSJ paid some academics to go dirt digging and they found this, announced Google was hacking Safari's filter etc, Apple exploited the situation, this caused regulators to go and whack us and so on.

It's quite amazing how easily manipulated governments and especially regulators are by newspapers. My father used to hate Murdoch with a passion (he was in the tv biz), and after that I understood why... the power wielded by people who own newspapers is phenomenal. And they do not hesitate to abuse it!

> this caused regulators to go and whack us and so on.

proof? links? source?

Google is big, does and did a lot of things that could be a problem in the eyes of regulators.

It was specifically about the Safari cookies issue.

On the original story:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17076670

On the resulting fine:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19200279

Mentioning the name of a business leader (not a politician) in the context of his business dealings (not his political views) is, by definition, not bringing politics into it.

You're the one who brought up politics in a decidedly non-political conversation.

No one brought politics into this.

I'm hearing they are a publication who is right for the wrong reasons.

Haha, having worked at Kelkoo when it was owned by Yahoo! so I have to disagree here. The management at Kelkoo really believe Google is shafting them but they used to do crazy things like change the location of the website every time they deploy. They were bad at SEO and blamed Google.

> having worked at Kelkoo when it was owned by Yahoo! so I have to disagree here

The issue isn't when it was part of Yahoo, but after. It was bought by a virtual shell company registered at the same office as Kelkoo, with generic directors and almost no employees. It now has bogus product descriptions, which are the same for every single product (read the rest of the post).

They were clearly bought for the sole purpose of filing a claim against Google.

I think you sound very sure of yourself, maybe you are correct but I think the simplest reason is the one I suggested. It’s worth noting the Kelkoo brand was very well known in France and they were very proud of their company. Them neglecting the quality of reviews on their English product or even just breaking things and not fixing them properly is more likely for me.

>This website is so clearly a scam created for this antitrust case.

What makes you think so? It starts with "We at Kelkoo have been helping our customers find the best products at the most affordable prices for the past 18 years." I clicked on the merchant sign up page, seemed fine.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16269595

This is a text made for SEO, it's not journalism obviously!

No kidding. The "laptop" page says (emphasis mine):

Many of us have replaced our desktop systems with a laptop, as they are affordable, portable, and just as powerful as a traditional desktop PC. Laptops have screen sizes ranging from 9-inches to 17-inches, measured horizontally. Laptops with screens smaller than 11-inches are called netbooks while full-screened laptops are called notebooks. Some laptop models include built-in hardware to connect to wirelessly to a 3G or 4G networks and often require a data contract with a mobile phone carrier. Many laptops include built-in Wi-Fi modems and software to make portable computing easy. Some of the most recognized names for laptops are Apple, Dell, Sony and Acer. Kelkoo has all of these brands and more. You can be assured that you’ll find the best laptops at the absolutely lowest price from online retailers you know and trust.

And the third product lsited under laptops is a razor: https://www.shaver.eu/en/shavettes/proraso-shavette?utm_camp...

But look in archive.org and it is clear who they are and what their beef with google is: they are Yahoo. See the "a yahoo company" at the very top of this archived page: https://web.archive.org/web/20050701004143/http://www.kelkoo... (you'll need to collapse the archive.org banner on top - it is hidden behind it by default)

It took less than 30 seconds to find out that they're not.

https://www.ft.com/content/4044d354-b825-11dd-ac6d-0000779fd...

Do you have a citation that's not behind a paywall? Crunchbase says they were acquired by Yahoo. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/kelkoo

"was sold by Yahoo to Jamplant, a British private equity, in 2008"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelkoo

FT link via Google: https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source...

Yahoo bought Kelkoo in 2004 and then sold it in 2008.

> Crunchbase says they were acquired by Yahoo. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/kelkoo

The information is on the crunchbase page you linked. You need to click on View All in the news section.

  Nov 25, 2008: Kelkoo: ZD Net — Yahoo sells shopping site Kelkoo | ZDNet

links to: http://www.zdnet.com/article/yahoo-sells-shopping-site-kelko...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com