First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Google's recent move to jeopardize Crunchyroll.
33165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / BC, Canada
Offline
Posted 2/16/12

dokudokugwo wrote:

Doesn't Google own YouTube? So maybe it would be in their own best interests to promote their own site? It's not like they removed the video link, it's still there. Even when you run a search the "videos" link is on the left hand side easily accessible and defaulted to display results from any source.

Unless there is some law that says that search engines must be impartial and sort links in random order to give everyone a fair chance at people visiting their site.

All I see is that they added a search option for YouTube... so what... videos is still there... they also have a link that searches Google translate specifically... is that anti-trust because they don't have a babelfish link?

I also find it funny that I'm watching a show about conspiracy theories and how ridiculous they are at the moment of typing this... I'm 100% positive that Google did this to purposely screw over Crunchyroll since all of the content on CR is available on YouTube legally and Google finally wants their fair share... I'm also 110% certain that they did this to most of all screw over YOU.

Yes they should make a movie over this... it's totally SOPA PIPA ACTIVIA etc, aliens are probably involved too and if you type in Crunchyroll or westnyorai on Google black helicopters fly in, abduct you, show you a view of a JFK assassination from the viewpoint of the grassy knoll and what not...

Here is another interesting fact... I searched the term "gintama" on Google... I clicked on "Videos" which was on the menu bar of the left hand side of my screen after running the search... a Crunchyroll link came up 4th... when I searched "gintama" under videos on Bing.com... Crunchyroll didn't even show up on the first page of results.... the even creepier thing is... when I went to Yahoo and searched the SAME THING... Crunchyroll didn't appear on the first page of results either.

You're right... this is bigger than all of us... it's not just Google keeping their Video search link and adding a YouTube link... but Microsoft and Yahoo are in on this too... they don't even display results for CR in their first page!! Google is just trying to keep us off the scent by allowing us to search videos as always and keeping CR up there in the results... but you found them out.

This site is doomed... inb4 CR 404's....


This guy knows what he's talking about thankfully.
>see so many threads about sopa/pipa/conspiracy/whogivesashit
>want to kill myself

52005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/16/12
http://duckduckgo.com/ seems to be giving me better results more often or not now. Google is either poluted by spamers or seems to be too highly weighted to utube or their other sites. It is a shame.
2030 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/16/12

westnyorai wrote:
Acts like this can actually be considered illegal. The problem is that it's difficult to determine if it falls under antitrust. In this case it will likely go before a judge who will need to decide if it's illegal or not. There is a high chance that sites like Hulu will fight this to the bitter end and a good chance they will win. This could also be considered a restraint of trade which is another legal issue with businesses, but in this case it's most likely to just be antitrust.


eh, no. google can just argue "it was used less, and this is what our users wanted. anyone who wants to search for videos on crunchyroll, or any other site, is more than capable of continuing to use our regular search engine from the front page, or selecting the video-specific search from the drop-down."
Youtube is perceived as "user-uploaded personal video streaming free service"
Crunchyroll is perceived as "professional industry provided anime video streaming business service"
yes, they're both "video streaming", the markets they are aiming for are functionally completely different

based on these 2 points, i think there's really no case here. "the target audiences and the content provided are different, therefor there is no monopoly, nor any unduly influential competitive practices being used here." ....or something like that. it would be kinda like Ihug internet in New Zealand complaining "antitrust" if Comcast usa doesn't push its services.

of course, i'm not a lawyer, and it's not especially -nice-....
but i use google all the freaking time, and i have used their "video" search service all of ONCE, several years ago. just to check it out.
nowadays if i want to find a video, i'd just search say... "crunchyroll madoka magica"
seriously.. how much spoon-feeding do you really need...

just to compare, i just hit google before posting...
general search, 6.73M hits for "crunchyroll", the first hit being the crunchyroll main site, with that block of sub-headings for Anime, Naruto, Naruto Shippuden, Bleach, Drama, Gintama, "show more from crunchyroll.com >>" and so on.

on the left hand side, there is still the list of types of searches, of which video is still available.. which provides 1.58M rather randomly sorted video hits.

so i dunno man.. sounds like a whole big fuss over something that really has very little impact.
if any site admin wants to pop in and post what kind of referrals from google vs total visitors the stats really show, i'd be quite curious.. tho i can't say i expect that to happen.

Posted 2/16/12
I love Google, but I love my entertainment more.
49145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/12

Kokashiba wrote:


jdolla351 wrote:


Kokashiba wrote:

You realize google is its own company and is not obligated to do anything for anyone right? If they wanted to they could make every link on their site redirect to wherever they want it to just for shits and giggles. Its not their job to make things fair for everyone.


Did you miss the anti trust reference earlier? They're obligated to do many different things for many different people, not the least of whom are their competitors. They're obligated to provide a certain level of working conditions, wage requirements, they even pay money in the form of something called taxes, and we all know companies like to keep their money. Kids these days....


Yes, lets take a post completely at face value rather than out of the context of the discussion. That'll make you appear edgy with a nice dry wit. A real university level debater right here.



Yes, lets take words to mean what their definitions are. A real university level dictionary user right here. "not obligated to do anything for anyone" is pretty explicit. Also the fact that I referenced something earlier in the topic means I was taking your post in context, it doesn't make you any less wrong. You're upset, and it's ok. =) I don't want to appear edgy or with a dry wit, I just want there to be slightly less ignorance starting with you my friend.
49145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/12
Also what Google did probably isn't considered to be illegal, nor do I think it should be, but it should be looked at like all things on this scale. That's what regulation is for.
58039 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / California, USA.
Offline
Posted 2/16/12 , edited 2/16/12
Sorry but none of what google did was illegal lmao. Basically they customized their front page and made their own stuff stand out more. No one is going to fight this with law.

Oh dang, google is asking me to switch to google chrome, is that unfair to firefox? lmao.
2030 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/16/12

GrimCooler wrote:

Sorry but none of what google did was illegal lmao. Basically they customized their front page and made their own stuff stand out more. No one is going to fight this with law.

Oh dang, google is asking me to switch to google chrome, is that unfair to firefox? lmao.


to be fair to google, here.. they're only offering you the option. not even asking.
of course if they -did- say "google is no longer supporting your browser" that -would- be under the antitrust laws.

just saying..
58039 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / California, USA.
Offline
Posted 2/16/12

youwannaroll wrote:


GrimCooler wrote:

Sorry but none of what google did was illegal lmao. Basically they customized their front page and made their own stuff stand out more. No one is going to fight this with law.

Oh dang, google is asking me to switch to google chrome, is that unfair to firefox? lmao.


to be fair to google, here.. they're only offering you the option. not even asking.
of course if they -did- say "google is no longer supporting your browser" that -would- be under the antitrust laws.

just saying..


I know, I was joking :D. I agree with that, well mostly at least.
2030 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/16/12

GrimCooler wrote:
I know, I was joking :D. I agree with that, well mostly at least.


i figured... i was pointing it out mainly for the less gifted
Posted 2/16/12
lets hope we dont disappear like OneManga. *may it rest in peace*
85072 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Irish/German - Am...
Offline
Posted 2/16/12
I don't really know if google will have an impact on crunchyroll. CR's advertising SUCKS!! I love crunchyroll but I didn't even know about it until December and I have been watching anime for YEARS!! I got here because I read an article about youtube users getting sued by X company "and its affiliate crunchyroll" they later went on to say how ironic it was considering crunchyrolls start. I don't really know the statistics but I wonder how many people are reffered here on a blind search versus word of mouth

I just typed in "watch naruto shippuden" and 7 other sites came up before crunchyroll ......

WAIT I just typed in watch gintama and went to videos in the side bar ... crunchyroll is the first one .... I don't really understand the first post now
33165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / BC, Canada
Offline
Posted 2/16/12

jdolla351 wrote:


Kokashiba wrote:


jdolla351 wrote:


Kokashiba wrote:

You realize google is its own company and is not obligated to do anything for anyone right? If they wanted to they could make every link on their site redirect to wherever they want it to just for shits and giggles. Its not their job to make things fair for everyone.


Did you miss the anti trust reference earlier? They're obligated to do many different things for many different people, not the least of whom are their competitors. They're obligated to provide a certain level of working conditions, wage requirements, they even pay money in the form of something called taxes, and we all know companies like to keep their money. Kids these days....


Yes, lets take a post completely at face value rather than out of the context of the discussion. That'll make you appear edgy with a nice dry wit. A real university level debater right here.



Yes, lets take words to mean what their definitions are. A real university level dictionary user right here. "not obligated to do anything for anyone" is pretty explicit. Also the fact that I referenced something earlier in the topic means I was taking your post in context, it doesn't make you any less wrong. You're upset, and it's ok. =) I don't want to appear edgy or with a dry wit, I just want there to be slightly less ignorance starting with you my friend.


Oh boy. Where do I start. You call me ignorant but you chose to argue an obviously exaggerated point as though I meant it exactly how it was phrased. A real university level English student right here. Also, good job referencing that anti trust law. If you had actually read the article to see what anti trust even means and entails, you might have actually made a point against me.

All in all I give your attempt at debating and then trolling an overall 4/10.
2030 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/16/12 , edited 2/16/12

jdolla351 wrote:

Kokashiba wrote:
[google isn't obligated to bend over backwards for other companies*]

[yes it is you're an idiot*]

*summarized to get to the point.

have you missed all the points about this having -ZERO- applicability to any anti-trust legislation?
as for the rest of your argument... COMPLETELY irrelevant to the topic at hand. good for you, way to make your english dictionary proud.
and then you both turn it into a "mine's bigger" competition.

back to the ACTUAL topic..
it's google's website. they haven't changed any functionality, or blocked anything.
they are simply promoting their own completely different type of video service on their front page.
the altered functionality still exists on the drop menu on the front page, or on the standard side menu on the search results page.

so again, since you've ignored it in the past.. NOTHING to do with anti-trust laws.
thank you, move along.

*edited for corrections, and to call the -correct- idiot an idiot.*
33165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / BC, Canada
Offline
Posted 2/16/12

youwannaroll wrote:


Kokashiba wrote:

jdolla351 wrote:
[google isn't obligated to bend over backwards for other companies*]

[yes it is you're an idiot*]

*summarized to get to the point.

have you missed all the points about this having -ZERO- applicability to any anti-trust legislation?
it's google's website. they haven't changed any functionality, or blocked anything.
they are simply promoting their own completely different type of video service on their front page.
the altered functionality still exists on the drop menu on the front page, or on the standard side menu on the search results page.

so again, since you've ignored it in the past.. NOTHING to do with anti-trust laws.
you -can't- prove that you're right, because you simply aren't, in this case.

also, endless chain-quoting looks really horrible and ignorant. (to BOTH of you.)


I think you have the names mixed up in your paraphrased quote there but yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say. This move by google has nothing to do with antitrust, I sincerely doubt one of the worlds biggest and most widely used corporations would do anything that would risk its stock and legality.

Quote arguments don't really serve a purpose to me other than entertainment I'll admit, unless the person has well thought out points against me at which point it's intellectually stimulating.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.