SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Google owns Duck.com, but it'll give rival DuckDuckGo a shoutout anyhow
Google owns Duck.com, which has been driving rival search engine DuckDuckGo up the wall for over six years. Because when you type "duck.com" into a web browser, you get Google.com. Doesn't make a lot of sense, yes?
But after a new round of complaints this Friday, Google has relented. Google comms VP Rob Shilkin just
quackedtweeted that a new landing page will give people an opportunity to click from Duck.com straight through to DuckDuckGo. Or to the Wikipedia page for ducks, because that's only fair.
From on2.com:
Please note that On2 was previously called the Duck Corporation. So if you typed Duck.com, you are redirected to On2.com:
Related: DuckDuckGo Is Google's Tiniest Fiercest Competitor
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday July 22 2018, @07:38PM (12 children)
If DDG visitors fail to realize "duck.com" and "duckduckgo.com" really, REALLY aren't the same URL, then I have 1 million Nigerian dollars to give them through paybuddy.com. Seriously, it's not like there's a one-letter difference between the two...
I fail to see why DDG feels concerned about stupid people who can't be bothered to type the correct address.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 22 2018, @07:44PM (5 children)
Removing "stupid people" from your customer base can leave you with very few customers.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday July 22 2018, @07:55PM
Or fewer problems. If I was DDG, I really wouldn't want doofuses who can't tell the difference between two totally different URLs patronizing my site. I worked first line support long enough to know that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 22 2018, @08:19PM (3 children)
Are you saying DDG users are stupid?
(Score: 4, Informative) by unauthorized on Sunday July 22 2018, @08:39PM (2 children)
No, he is saying that stupid people make most of the population (which is obviously an oxymoron since obviously that cannot be true by definition) and getting rid of them is economically disadvantageous if your revenue model predicates on having a large consumer base to be successful.
The smart people run ad blockers so DDG doesn't even earn anything from them, unlike Google who can at least do some first party tracking on you even if you block ads and third party trackers.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by dry on Sunday July 22 2018, @10:41PM
DDG just has a couple of one line ads (clearly marked) at the top of the search results. Not much for an ad blocker to block and at least I don't mind them.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @05:32AM
By what definition? There is no inherent reason that most of the population can't be considered stupid; it depends on the standard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 22 2018, @08:48PM
I like your thinking and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Sunday July 22 2018, @09:30PM
Reading this thread is proof positive he was correct.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 23 2018, @12:38AM
Busy, in a hurry, and with other things on your mind, like the subject you happen to be searching for, you may not type out the URL that you meant to type. So - you expect to land on DDG's search page, but instead, you land on Google.
It's a concern, because Google is happy to capitalize on silly, simple mistakes. It's part of their business model.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Monday July 23 2018, @04:07AM (2 children)
If DDG was simply annoyed that's pretty reasonable -- to be annoyed. I would be annoyed too if I were them.
And to be fair, this does fit in the realm of a trademark violation.
After all, if DDG owned owned goog.com and directed it to duckduckgo.com; google would be all over them; and right fully so.
So likewise google owning duck and directing it to google search is a bit sketchy. Duck is obviously a much weaker mark, since its a common english language word with lots of other meanings and uses... but using 'duck' in connection with internet search... sounds like a trademark argument is at least plausible.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday July 24 2018, @03:44AM (1 child)
I'm not sure you want to follow the "trademark violation" line of thought; the lineage of the duck.com is far older than DuckDuckGo, and Google bought On2 Technologies/Duck Corporation only a year or so after DuckDuckGo was founded, so Google arguably has a much stronger claim on the duck.com domain, to say nothing of the fact that duck.com is generic enough that DuckDuckGo has no better claim to it than PetSmart does.
Furthermore, Google never branded itself as duck.com; it just owned the domain and redirected it to their main page, which is standard practice for domain ownership. If hypothetically this issue were taken to court, DuckDuckGo would certainly lose, if the case wasn't dropped outright.
> After all, if DDG owned owned goog.com and directed it to duckduckgo.com; google would be all over them; and right fully so.
That would only be a problem if DDG also branded themselves as goog.com, and it's not really a fair comparison, since Google could make an offer for the domain that DDG couldn't refuse.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday July 27 2018, @09:29PM
"Furthermore, Google never branded itself as duck.com; it just owned the domain and redirected it to their main page, which is standard practice for domain ownership."
Right. If I as PepsiCo just 'owned' the 'cokeisit' domain and redirected it to my main page, that would be grounds for a trademark suit.
"If hypothetically this issue were taken to court, DuckDuckGo would certainly lose, if the case wasn't dropped outright."
To me the only question is that 'duck' is quite generic, and perhaps not close enough to 'duckduckgo'; and 'duck' isn't especially strongly associated with duckduckgo.
Like if cocacola picked up the "fido" domain and redirected it to sprite. Would pepsico(7up) be able to argue that it's infringement on their trademarked fido dido character. Its a similar case, the trademark is fido dido, not just fido, and fido by itself is quite generic and associated with a cellphone network, and is even a generic term for dog, etc. But ultimatety I think a court would probalby side with pepsi on this, because coke using 'fido' to promote sprite is pretty sketchy... even if Coke aquired the fido brand/domain in relation to a bottle cap manufacturer or something. If it still went to to a bottle cap manufacturing division that would be ok, but if they folded it down, and redirected it to sprite products... that's not ok.
Likewise, google acquiring and owning duck is perfectly innocent, but pointint it at the google search engine,... that's a bit dodgy. Maybe not dodgy enough for ddg to prevail in court, but dodgy enough that it looks sketchy even if its deemed not illegal.