undefined | Better HN

0 pointscachvico7y ago0 comments

> 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).

0 comments

limeblack7y ago

> 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...

HeavyStorm7y ago

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)

EGreg7y ago

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

youeseh7y ago

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

fooker7y ago

How about duck + (Ctrl + enter) ?

youeseh7y ago

That could work =).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse