Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnfn | Hacker News Reader

Is this not just a classic example of HN looking for the negative in every positive? Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy and MS pushed them off it. Conversely, DDG is nowhere near bankruptcy and although it may be easier to type, a shorter domain name is not going to drastically increase the competitive edge that DDG has over google. To me they seem in totally different categories.

View on HN

> Is this not just a classic example of HN looking for the negative in every positive?

A company single-handedly helping to save a direct competitor defies all business logic and obligations to shareholders of that company. The truth is this was a business move to benefit Microsoft, even though it had a benevolent factor to it.

Thinking otherwise is overly optimistic, similar to how you believe it being a classic example of HN pessimism.

I agree in the case of Microsoft/Apple. In Google/DDG we're talking about transferring a domain name from one company to another, not saving a direct competitor.

I accept that MS/Apple was a competitive move. I’m not sure I accept that duck.com is.

What you described does defy all business logic... except in the presence of regulatory externalities (anti-trust legislation) that causes the business move to be a net positive.

I don't think there's any optimism or pessimism to it, just rational actions.

DuckDuckGo is hardly a competitor to Google. I struggle to think of some future scenario where Alphabet looks back and thinks "Damn, we never should have given DDG that domain name, it was all down hill from there!". No antitrust investigation is going to believe that this small action makes any difference to Google's total dominance of search.

There is nothing illegal about a monopoly. A monopoly that uses it's position to prevent competition is illegal. Giving DDG a very valuable domain name (given their name) absolutely does what you're saying it doesn't.

How is not giving the domain name to DDG using their monopoly to suppress competitors? This is not equivalent to say, removing DDG from their search results.

I don't think that's what they're saying. The point isn't that withholding the domain name is the end of the world, the point is that handing it over is a small token that Google can use to claim that they aren't anti-competitive. I don't know what my stance is on that interpretation, but that seems to be (to me) to be the intended interpretation.

Does that make sense?

That's not what they're saying. If/when the feds come after Google for (most likely unrelated) monopolistic suppression, Google can say "we don't suppress our competitors--look how we helped out DDG!"

At the time, Microsoft made more on application software for every Mac sold than for every PC sold. Microsoft and Apple were competitors on operating systems, but not on applications, and Apple's Macs were a significant (though smaller) part of the market. The relationship between Apple and Microsoft was never as simple as just direct competitors.

> Is this not just a classic example of HN looking for the negative in every positive?

No. Google has the monopoly on search (outside of China). Avoiding anti-trust is a huge concern of theirs. Look at MS and IE in the browser wars - they were forced by the EU to build into Windows links/ads to the other browsers - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu#/media/File:B...

Whilst DDG has huge momentum by now, duckduckgo.com is still an ache to type - that's why ddg.co has existed for years, and why you use "DDG" yourself ;) duck.com is way more memorable and even faster.

Not a lawyer, but given DDG's brand recognition, I'd imagine they would have a strong case in an ICANN dispute given that Google are not using it. Google are proactively avoiding at least this bad PR by doing the right thing (this week).

> No. Google has the monopoly on search (outside of China).

No. Russia has yandex.

[1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/rus...

If Facebook owns groups.com but aren’t using it, can we go to ICANN and ask them to give it to us?

ddg.gg is easier to type and for my fingers to remember than duck.com.

How about duck + (Ctrl + enter) ?

That could work =).

How is having the duck.com dns a trust issue? Google could just as easy create some purpose for it and ddg would have a hard time proving that a domain that does not have its product name to be inflicting monopoly.

Conversely, how does transferring the domain helps Google on court? If they are a monopoly, then surely it isn't because of naming.

(I do defy the affirmation that Google has a monopolity at all - Bing and ddg are likely alternatives that anyone can use - it's very different from, let's say, IBM mainframes... But I'm no expert in antitrust laws)

It’s not only looking for the negative. It didn’t happen.

Whatever the reason, MS only infused $150 million into Apple’s coffers.

Apple turned around and used $100 million to buy PowerComputing’s Mac license. Apple also continued to lose money for 3 years. The Net $50 million didn’t “save Apple”.

I hadn't heard that bit of history, found it interesting. Though apparently they spent $10mm in cash and $90mm in stock to acquire the company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com