Hacker News Reader

Comment by unreal37 | Hacker News Reader

Sure, they put themselves between users and content, and then they decided they should serve the content too.

Amazon discovers the best selling third-party products on it's site, and then makes it's own version of them too. Everybody is doing it.

Pretty soon, 5 companies will be serving up 99.9% of the content on the Internet. Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing anyone here in startup land needs to worry about.

Right?

View on HN

When your search "calculator" are you angry that Google displays its own web calculator before returning 3rd party results? These are simple utilities, and I don't see why it's bad for Google to offer is own. In fact for web tests it's more useful to me. Much of what I access is Google services, so testing latency and throughput to their servers is better for me.

Well, as a precedent, the browser ballot screen comes to mind ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu

> The web browser choice screen, also known as the web browser ballot box, was a screen displayed in Internet Explorer that offered ten to twelve browsers in a random order.

Note the "in a random order".

> These are simple utilities, and I don't see why it's bad for Google to offer is own. In fact for web tests it's more useful to me. Much of what I access is Google services, so testing latency and throughput to their servers is better for me.

Small clarification: Google doesn't own the speed test. It owns the speed test client, but it performs the test against a third-party NDT server (an open-source server for bandwidth measurement)[1]. The servers are operated and maintained by M-Lab[2], a third-party consortium of companies of which Google is a member. The servers are all in commercial data centers and are completely separate from any Google service, so the speed test doesn't measure your bandwidth to Google.

[1] https://github.com/ndt-project/ndt

[2] https://www.measurementlab.net/

They aren't just doing it for simple utilities, they are literally trying to create some kind of "box" above search results for every possible query, subjective or objective. "Best movies of 2019", "What are the ingredients of pancakes?", the name of any store, restaurant, location, etc.

And if they are producing results better than the blogspam that ends up in the top result, how is that a bad thing?

They are stealing the (often wrong) answers from the blogspam and putting it in their own box - how is that better? They should just filter out the blogspam - that’s ostensibly what a search engine company should be investing their time doing.

> They are stealing the (often wrong) answers from the blogspam and putting it in their own box - how is that better?

Saves a click and the ordeal of loading a gazillion quasi-malicious ads posing as information. Much better in my book.

It’s slightly better to load the (often wrong) blogspam answers into a box than to link to the blogspam, although in doing so, it gives the wrong answer more authority. It’s much better to actually spend resources to filter blogspam from results and link to quality sites which have done actual research.

> Nothing wrong with that. (you are missing the /s) :)

Oligopoly is nearly as bad as Monopoly.

Τechnically once the big4 (plus a couple more) own the 99% of the traffic then we will have monopolies on each areas. Google on Search, Amazon on Shopping, Facebook on Socials, Apple on Phones.

And on the outer circle a parasitic ad/tracking ecosystem working with these 4 monopolies. I am not a pescimist, but as nightmare scenarios go, I take it that this is a plausible one.

Apple will never have a monopoly on phones, but it'll share that honor with Google.

I don't know how you imagine that Apple will have a monopoly on mobile phones. They don't even have a quarter of the market!

There are just 4 companies that supply meat to all of US, there is just one company that supplies like half (or something in that range) of seeds, just 4-5 companies provide cable /internet services...

Monopoly is already a thing. A big part of the world is already controlled by just a handful of mega corporations and possibly just a few hundred ultra wealthy people. The internet is simply mirroring the real world :(

Well corporations on the stock market are essentially reinforcement learning hive intelligence agents that are optimized for growth and profit.

So this is exactly what we’re getting. Megacorps chewing up everything to be as big as they can.

Your examples are even more horrific than what we were talking about in the first place...

With all my respect to startups, I strongly believe that consumers should come first. If a large company can provide a cheaper/better service, then that should be encouraged.

As I see it, almost by definition, startups create their moment in the sun by finding blind-spots in the market. Fair play to the big companies who rise to the occasion and address these user needs once they've been pointed out.

We should not allow an economy where all of the gains from disruptive innovation are effectively subsumed under a few companies that take all the profit with no incentive to innovate on their own. We're already seeing the tech giants eat up every startup they can.

> Sure, they put themselves between users and content, and then they decided they should serve the content too.

Not that I'm a huge Google fan, but without search services like Google, users wouldn't know where content was.

Or hobby project land...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com