Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

2 things:

1) I think most people suspected this, and it's not amazing.

2) Is this not an abuse of their monopoly position in search? In that, to obtain a better placement or even just retain existing placement, you would have to participate in Google+

IMHO, no. Its easier for Google to use +1s as an indicator to measure social reach since it is their own data. Contrast this to: [1] Facebook and LinkedIn: most shares/likes are private by default [2] Twitter: Google would have crawl Twitter's entire corpus and tweet stream. It could do it, but Twitter's increasingly restricting access to this data.

So it makes sense from a technical perspective that Google can use only the limited information available to it in terms of social strength of an article.

Do they really have a monopoly in search? Have they bought/created all the patents that stop other companies from implementing online search engines?

I don't think there is a monopoly in search, look we have duckduckgo for instance.

Since it's their search and their google+ why aren't they allowed to use one as metrics for the other?

Patents are a legal monopoly. To say a company has a monopoly just means that it is extremely difficult to compete. In search, the market naturally created a monopoly.

Not only does google have twice the market share of anyone else, they likely have more than twice the number of advertisers as well. This means they are making more money on each visitor. That's why Yahoo and Ask both had to outsource their ads to Google, even though they had large market shares. Blekko has cited this as a huge reason they are having trouble competing.

Creating a real search engine (not a meta-search like Duck Duck Go) from scratch is very expensive. Blekko started out with 700 servers. Until you get to a very high scale, the server costs are prohibitive.

They have more than 90% of the market. The fact that alternatives exist doesn't make them not a monopoly when hardly anyone is using those alternatives. See windows in the late '90s.

Actually, by definition, you are wrong. And you are wrong about 90% of the market as well.


IIRC, Google tends to have more "real" searches. A lot of Bing and Yahoo searches probably have the query string "Facebook" because people have it as the default engine, or are already on a Yahoo / MS property (like their web mail). A lot of these people will then type "Google" into the Bing / Yahoo search box, when they need to find something.

A lot of Google searches come from the same place: having google as the default search engine and then typing in "facebook" rather than "facebook.com"

That's only for the U.S. In all but a few foreign countries, Google has closer to a 90% market share.

IIRC it's actually around 95%-ish in italy. We had some data shown by an important web analytics player during the italian Search marketing conference in December 2012. http://www.convegnogt.it/2012/interventi/lo-stato-del-search...

Google has plausible deniability here: "Unlike Facebook, which hides data from Google, or Twitter, which directs Google not to follow most of its links, Google+ data is immediately and fully accessible to the company that built it." Neither can turn around and argue about monopolistic practices because google can say that twitter and facebook refused to give them data (and they would use those sources if permitted)

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact