[havnagiggle]

I am with you on this one. What the hell is this? Why is DOJ peddling for other trillion dollar companies? Microsft CEO is concerned for _Google's shareholders_? Are you serious? I don't believe a word of this guy.

I'll just add, Bingbot has the same crawling opportunities as Googlebot. Nobody is stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website. It's also been 20+ years: Windows OS is constantly manipulating defaults and Edge is still not uninstallable.

[JohnMakin]

You’re confused why in an anti-trust case they may want to hear from competitors?

[havnagiggle]

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.

[sokoloff]

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

[cmcaleer]

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]

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.

[lolinder]

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]

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.

[cellis]

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?

[26fingies]

Does microsoft testifying preclude any of those companies from testifying?

[AraceliHarker]

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?

[AraceliHarker]

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.

[deprecative]

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]

> 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..)

[hackernewds]

Not to mention the perpetuation of Teams (blatant copy), Outlook (subpar product), Edge (a Chrome downloader) solely because they come pre-installed

[grvdrm]

> Nobody is stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website

I know your comment is about the bot, but the other side is, yes - Google is absolutely stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website. Not Google's bot, but Google's default deals on iOS, browsers, etc.

Even if Bing's index was measurably better, most folks wouldn't think to switch given how easy it already is to stick with Google.

Otherwise, re: Microsoft - you're absolutely right. The latest examples for me: - Teams as a crappy default - In Windows 11 I can't move my taskbar to another part of my window anymore? What the f. 10+ years of user-preference destroyed with one update.

[stefan_]

Well, actually, Google paying other companies to make Google the default is stopping Bing from getting traffic. That's why we are having this whole case, among other things.

In general, making contracts with 3rd parties that negatively impact your competitors is sort of looked down upon.

[cherrycherry98]

I'm no fan of Google, but them bidding to be the default search engine on Apple devices seemed reasonable to me. If paying a third party to be the default is a crime they're both guilty of it. Microsoft and Google both made offers to Apple, Apple went with the one that paid them the most and also arguably offers the superior product. It's not like Bing is outright blocked on Apple devices, it's very easy to change. Satya crying about how Google outbid him seemed pretty disingenuous.

"Do you think Google would continue to pay Apple if there was no search competition? Why would they do that?"

Of course not and the reasons should be obvious. Microsoft being a competent competitor costs Google a lot of money. Lose the search dominance and the place basically shuts down, so they're willing to pay a lot to maintain it.

“I would love an opportunity to sort of not have them pay — maybe on behalf of the Google shareholders.”

Shut down Bing then and save Google shareholders a bunch of money, at the expense of Apple shareholders. He clearly doesn't want to spend what Google does for the same privilege. Google must perceives that the deal is worth it to do for their shareholders.

I imagine his ideal outcome would be something like Microsoft was forced to do with browsers, having a screen during the setup process asking the user what browser (or in this case search engine) they want as the default. I honestly don't think it would move the needle at all unless Bing was demonstrably better than Google.

[lotsofpulp]

>Well, actually, Google paying other companies to make Google the default is stopping Bing from getting traffic.

I cannot see how this is true.

Microsoft, with its tens of billions in annual profits, can invest in all the advertising in the world, literally, to let people know how to change the default browser on their iOS or Android device.

It is a trivial setting to change.

What is not trivial, for Microsoft, is creating a competitive search engine and advertising business.

[rickdeckard]

If the search-engine is a tool which creates ad-impressions which company#A can charge to advertisers (creating profit company#A can then spend for making the search-engine the default, perpetually driving even more attention), I don't think breaking this cycle by company#B "just spending more money than company#A earns" is a system of fair competition.

[ffgjgf1]

> It is a trivial setting to change.

Most/many people won’t it undeniably gives a massive advantage to google.

[makomk]

Enough people are willing to change it that just paying to be the default wasn't all that effective for Bing or Yahoo. Microsoft's previous strategy was to pay to make Bing the default and remove people's ability to change it. In particular, they took advantage of the mobile phone provider oligopoly in the US and other countries to pay off all the major providers to do this, so that consumers didn't really have a choice to not have their devices send searches to Bing. Google ruined that strategy by outbidding them without even imposing the same kind of lock-in that Microsoft did, and so Microsoft are trying to get the US government to ban them from bidding.

[lotsofpulp]

Sure, let’s change it to “it is trivial for Microsoft to spend its greater than Google’s profit to buy the default search position on Apple devices.”

So they can other have a just as good as Google’s product that they do not want to spend enough on to make default, or they do not offer enough of a value proposition for people to go to settings -> Safari -> default search -> bing.

[CPLX]

It's not just looked down upon it's called market splitting and it's patently illegal.

This case exists because it's the opinion of the United States Department of Justice that this law was broken by Google.

[whiddershins]

As I wrote in another comment, anti-trust is about protecting the consumer, the public.

This isn’t about the government trying to help Microsoft or represent their interest.

The whole point of anti-trust is that without competition prices go up and quality goes down.

For the consumer.

[belltaco]

> Microsft CEO is concerned for _Google's shareholders_

Where does it say that?

[havnagiggle]

Maybe I miss-interpreted the quote at the end of the article.

> At the end of Mr. Nadella’s appearance, a Justice Department lawyer asked why he thought Google paid Apple so much money to be the default search engine on Apple’s web browser Safari.

> “That’s a great question,” Mr. Nadella said. “I would love an opportunity to sort of not have them pay — maybe on behalf of the Google shareholders.”

I read that as: Nadella saying it cost Google's shareholders X in expenses. Reading it a second time, he is probably implying it increased Google's shareholders Y in revenue. But either way, CEO of a trillion dollar company making hypocritical remarks on another trillion dollar company. IMO it's just a poor decision of DOJ to use MS as a witness. I'd prefer they bring to light companies that are actually struggling, and not the company that can sign a $10 billion deal to boot strap new features into their competing product.

[hackernewds]

Further he argued why Bing should be the default, and even makes a pseudo business proposition of how they're prepared to lose $20B to harvest this data. Can't make this up.

[hackernewds]

The article goes further into Nadella making a case for Bing being the default in Apple browsers. Ridiculous