“[Google] also dismisses DuckDuckGo’s approach to privacy as one of its failures, claiming that the approach leads to “significant trade-offs to search quality,” by not utilizing data like search sessions, a signed-in experience, and more.”

gross gross gross gross gross gross gross gross

I get better results when asking an offline AI like a 70B or 8×7B for most things including commercial products and websites. I’m convinced that Google and Microsoft are poisoning results for anyone they can’t ID even through 3rd parties like DDG. When you see someone’s search results posted about anything, try to replicate and see if you get the same thing. I never see the same thing any more. It is not deterministic, it is a highly manipulative system without transparency.

Reading the article, I think the biggest hurdle for adoption of DDG in Europe is simply that the search results in non-english suck in comparison to other search engines. Not only that, but if my language contains characters outside of ASCII, performing a query and then repeating the query with a bang to get better result from another engine results in failure to redirect. Now I have to cut the query, repeat the bang and then paste the query into the other engine manually.

The relevant points:

The filing reveals some details we already knew about DuckDuckGo — for example, that it’s been profitable since 2014 and that its source of operating revenue is currently search advertising, namely search ads provided by Microsoft in the U.S. However, Google’s proposal also attempts to paint a picture of a startup that didn’t invest in search innovation but instead focused on returning investment to its shareholders.

But it contradicts this point, too, noting that a third of DuckDuckGo’s 50 employees in 2018 were working on improving the search engine, for example.

It also dismisses DuckDuckGo’s approach to privacy as one of its failures, claiming that the approach leads to “significant trade-offs to search quality,” by not utilizing data like search sessions, a signed-in experience, and more. If anything, though, these details and others the filing includes show how difficult it is for a competitor to build a search business to rival Google’s.

Neeva was generating less than a million dollars in subscription revenue at the time and was growing, but was still a small part of the search market, the filing also informs us.

The startup exited to Snowflake for approximately $184.4 million in cash, more than double the amount that had been invested, the filing states. This is slightly higher than previous reports that had pegged the number at $150 million.

There’s a bit of editorialising that’s a little too disguised in between facts, but that’s not unusual for Tech Crunch. They’re apparently trying to push against Google’s filing and the arguing that they are indeed a monopoly - not that they’re wrong, mind.