
Eric Schmidt Testifies Before Congress - Anon84
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Google-Exec-Testifies-Before-Congress/10737424248-1/
======
aamar
The central question seems to be the following, articulated most precisely by
Mike Lee (R-UT): even if the organic search results are entirely unbiased,
Google also programmatically (via "Google Universal Search", the system that
organizes the overall search page) inserts specific links to other Google
pages--such as Places, Maps, Shopping, or News--in very prominent positions.
There are competitors for all of those sites (Yelp, Nextag), but Google
systematically (it seems) prefers their own version.

This behavior is relevant to an antitrust principle that a firm with a
monopoly in one area/market should not be allowed to use that monopoly to get
inordinate market share in other markets.

The senators do not appear to have concluded that Google is doing anything
illegal, though several have used the words to the effect of "I'm concerned
with what is happening here."

My take: I agree with other commenters here that the senators have at several
points seemed to have gaps in their understanding of Google vs. the average HN
commenter, though I didn't hear any overtly wrong claims with respect to the
central question. Maybe this analysis is better done by the FTC (there is an
investigation in progress there), but it does not seem ridiculous that
Congress, which is somewhat more transparent, is asking these particular
questions, which do not seem incoherent or pointless.

~~~
yanw
Google is free for users and free to anyone wanting to get in their index, so
they do not owe any self proclaimed competitor anything and that is the crux
of it, the law is on their side, you cannot monopolize "free" and all this
politicians' propaganda is waste of time and tax payer dollars..

~~~
Zakuzaa
You clearly have very little understanding of how antitrust laws work.

~~~
coderdude
He shares the point of view of the person defending Google (she's a former
anti-trust investigator?). If you can freely and instantly switch from Google
to Bing then you cannot claim they have a monopoly. If you don't like Google's
results there is nothing locking the consumer into Google except their own
choice.

~~~
mrtron
Not only can you switch instantly from Google to Bing, you can do the same
with the indirect competitors such as yelp.

Yelp claims Google is hurting consumers because often Yelp's results are
better than what Google displays as their own Location results above.

Is it really hurting a user to have to scroll slightly down? Or if Yelp's
results were really better would users not go directly there or use their apps
as an alternative?

I find it very interesting you can claim Google has a monopoly on the web +
mobile, which seems to be the necessary premise to make these claims.

~~~
anon1385
_Not only can you switch instantly from Google to Bing, you can do the same
with the indirect competitors such as yelp._

That argument is quite compelling for search, where switching is easy and
other search engines are going to give you fairly comparable results most of
the time. But search isn't the only market Google is in. In the advertising
market the "just switch" argument doesn't hold as much weight in my opinion:
what good is switching to an advertising network that doesn't generate any
views? If Google can dominate advertising and analytics due to their search
monopoly, does any other advertising platform stand a chance?

Disclaimer: I've never been a Google customer, and I don't really know how
much competition they have in the advertising market, so I don't know how much
ability they have to jack up prices etc.

------
rmrm
I think Google would be well served if Schmidt had a little more Steve Jobs in
him. Not a lot, as I think Jobs might get so frustrated he'd melt down, but a
little. Eric makes everything sound somehow slightly sinister, even when it
isn't.

When asked about something like maps and places the correct answer is:

We realized that is what people wanted in response to their queries. We looked
around, and the other map products sucked. Also, we couldn't use them in the
way we wanted to serve the users, even if we had wanted to. So we spent a ton
of money developing our own -- and it absolutely clobbered the competition. It
was magical, far better than anything that existed before it. Way more
information, way easier and faster to use. And the users have responded
overwhelmingly positively to it.

If you're asking if we favor our own maps properties, damn right we do.
Because it is better. Were the people that made other maps products happy
about it? Of course not. We didn't build it for them. We built if for our
users.

As a part of any online maps product, users want to use it to find information
tied to the locations and businesses they are looking at. We call this places.
We realized we needed to build something so that we could serve up this
information in a highly integrated way, because we believed users wanted a
unified experience. So we spent a ton of money, and we built out our maps
product with Place information. Business hours, phone numbers, pictures, and
reviews. We tried to partner on reviews. It didn't work out. So we built our
own review system.

And it is brilliant, consumers love it. Maps and Places absolutely blow away
anything else that exists in terms of ease of use and functionality and
richness of information. It is one of our greatest feats. Again, consumers
love it.

Were existing business directories and review sites happy about it? Of course
not. We didn't build it for them, we built if for our users.

Maps, and Places, and Product Search -- they are all part of search. They are
all part of finding information, and answers. And that is what we do, and
we'll continue to push forward on that front. Because that is what consumers
want.

~~~
EGreg
Disagree. Eric Schmidt is being very careful and respectful, knowing that his
quotes will be taken apart later, and it's hard when you have congressmen some
of which with their own agendas who want to show their constituents that they
are asking Google the tough questions and are not afraid to take action.

Whenever I see a person and think, "man, that would be really hard for me to
do, and I am a CEO!" I think they are doing an excellent job.

I would say that a programmer's carefulness is serving him well here. Even
though he's not one, _as far as I know_. :)

~~~
sigmaxipi
Eric Schmidt is no longer a programmer, but he was one of the authors of lex:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_(software)>

------
jinushaun
I hope the politicians don't confuse plain old search result rankings with
smart searches.

<http://www.google.com/landing/searchtips/>

When I enter "1+1" into Google, I expect back "2", not a link to a calculator
website. When I enter a street address, I want the first result to be a map,
not a link to a mapping website. When I enter a stock symbol, I want the
current stock price at the top of the results, not a link to a slow loading
website.

Google has had these smart search results since day one and the functionality
keeps expanding much to the displeasure of some companies. One could argue
that this is an example of Google "favouring" its own services, but as a
consumer, that's what I expect and that's why I keep using Google! I don't
want links, I want answers. Bing likes to talk about being a "decision
engines", but Google did it first.

------
pycassa
at D9: According to eric at D9, these are the top consumer companies 1-4-the
gang of four(appl,google,amazon,facebook) 5-6(paypal,twitter) Schmidt said he
believes Microsoft is “not driving the consumer revolution.” He doesn’t count
Microsoft’s Xbox business because it’s “not a platform at the computational
level.”

today before congress: Microsoft's Bing has continued to gain in popularity,
perhaps because it comes pre-installed as the search default on over 70
percent of new computers sold. Microsoft's Bing is the exclusive search
provider for Yahoo! and Facebook. Microsoft recently signed a deal for Bing to
power English language search on the fast-rising Chinese search engine Baidu,
which Baidu has acknowledged will help it become more competitive in markets
outside of China. In addition to Internet Explorer, Microsoft has integrated
Bing into its popular gaming console, the Xbox 360, which it is in talks with
cable companies to convert into the set-top box of the future. Microsoft?s
Bing launched in June 2009 and has grown so rapidly that some commentators
have speculated that it could overtake Google as early as 2012.

Read more: [http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20109615-93/schmidts-
writte...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20109615-93/schmidts-written-
testimony-before-congress/#ixzz1YcCQbU6L)

~~~
MikeCapone
Indeed, but one is comparing the consumer tech market as a whole and the other
is just in the search market, so this isn't apples to apples (so to speak),
no?

~~~
kenjackson
Really? Microsoft does:

Bing -- second largest search engine

XBox -- one of the largest gaming platforms, including Indie games.

Windows -- most popular consumer OS

Halo -- one of the most popular game franchises ever

Kinect -- hottest selling consumer electronics gadget ever

Windows Live Messenger -- most popular IM platform in the world

Hotmail -- one of the largest email sites in the world

IE -- one of the most popular web browsers in the world

Metro -- one of the most interesting consumer UIs currently available

And all this puts them behind -- Twitter? Really?

~~~
kamaal
I guess that's the whole problem, Microsoft wants to be everything to
everybody.

Now just compare the same with Apple. They don't have 1/10th the product line
as Microsoft and are still more successful.

Focus is important here, when you do so many things and none of them properly
you are ultimately in a situation where all your products are weak quality
wise. There are always better alternatives in the market and people will feel
compelled to switch to them. Imagine this happening with most of your
products. Ultimately the whole ecosystem gets weaker.

Even though your numbers may be looking good due to volume, that doesn't tell
the whole story. Slowly your competitors one by one will drive you out of the
market.

~~~
kenjackson
_Now just compare the same with Apple. They don't have 1/10th the product line
as Microsoft and are still more successful._

The Apple comparison is a red herring. Apple is unique, not only to the
computer industry, but virtually all industries. No other company has risen so
quickly, from so low, on a few products.

To put it another way, if you take Apple out of the equation, MS appears
favorable to just about every other company in the industry. From SAP, to HP,
to Google, to Facebook, to Twitter, to EA, to DropBox, to Oracle.

------
AgentConundrum
So.. who is the asshole, sitting behind (visible to the left of) the ex-FTC
commissioner, that's constantly laughing, shaking his head, and rolling his
eyes at what she's saying?

He is extremely irritating.

~~~
miql
I noticed that, too. Not only did I find that annoying, I think it was
disrespectful.

~~~
nkassis
I wouldn't be surprised either. I'd like to know how do spectator get access
to the room? Can anyone show up to a hearing like this?

Placing someone would be hard, involving knowing where the cams are and how to
position yourself and getting there first.

------
endlessvoid94
The lack of eloquence and understanding by those congresspeople is very, very
disappointing.

Mr. Schmidt answered those questions in an excellent manner.

The racetrack analogy was particularly unnerving.

~~~
jaryd
+1

Did anyone else notice that Al Franken was almost entirely incomprehensible?
I'm happy that Schmidt has the presence and patience to pleasantly attempt to
correct these scary misinterpretations.

------
oldstrangers
The antitrust regulator just asked about sending in a third party to review
google's search algorithm. Haha. Hahahahaa.

Not a chance.

~~~
0x12
And why not?

Google could put up a lot of resistance but if the government wants something
bad enough they generally get it. The other option is not to do business in
that particular country, and for google that option is not on the table.

~~~
zmmmmm
Not sure if it was the GP's point, but it seems incredibly naive to think that
the search algorithm itself is such that someone can just go in and "look" at
it and gain any meaningful understanding. Even assuming Google is guilty of
outright manipulation there's never going to be a smoking gun of "if(website
== google) rank = rank +1, it is going to be an abstract machine learning
algorithm with hundreds of inputs and dozens of outputs, all themselves the
results of complex statistical properties gleaned from the web. There would be
zero insight available to any mere mortal who might gain access to the code
driving it.

------
melling
I'm going to get burned for this comment but ...

Microsoft has had a desktop monopoly for 20 years. They have 90% desktop
market share and people don't complain about that. They destroyed their
competition yet people complain because Google has 65% market share on a
product that people can leave overnight. I'm not sure why people get bent out
of shape over Google.

~~~
tzs
> Microsoft has had a desktop monopoly for 20 years. They have 90% desktop
> market share and people don't complain about that

You don't count being fined billions of dollars over that monopoly, being
forced by governments to make changes to Windows to help competitors, and
being sued by several state governments and others as people complaining!?

------
jaryd
We need more technically savvy congresspeople.

~~~
DrHankPym
Maybe we should start electing websites as our representatives.

------
martingordon
Last I checked it wasn't possible to switch the default search engine on
Android phones (whether it was set to Google or otherwise). Is this still the
case? I couldn't find anything conclusive in my searching.

~~~
nextparadigms
I'm not sure what you mean. You can't try a new widget instead of the Google
Search one? Or are you saying that widget should allow you to switch to Bing?

------
misterkeeter
Seems to me that one way you can tell Google has competition is the
facebook.com/cspan tag at the bottom of the screen.

~~~
zmmmmm
Yes, I find it odd that Google gets so much attention while Facebook never
rates a mention. I find Facebook way more creepy and actually much harder to
switch away from - I can use bing any day of the week and the results are
comparable. I can use G+ today and the results are useless. To my mind there
has to be some recognition of whether a "monopoly" is due to exploitation of
natural barriers to entry or not, and Google seems one of the least
problematic in this regard.

------
GeneTraylor
They keep pounding the same misconceptions again and again in endless
repetition, and I can't help but wonder, who hired these guns? (that's not to
say that some of their arguments don't hold water, but they are going to
incredible lengths to cast Google as a monopoly, why?)

The cynic in me doubts that the cause is a lack of understanding.

------
kposehn
Jeff Katz (NexTag) is slamming Google right now for copying his business.

~~~
kposehn
Yelp is up now.

~~~
jc4p
I can't wait until he starts talking about why Google is bad, I wonder if any
one knows about Yelp's "pay us for advertising or you'll have your good
reviews deleted" policy.

~~~
electrichead
This was my first thought as well. I completely disagree with him that Yelp
would not have been able to start up right now. Google would have helped drive
traffic to yelp now just as it did then. Edit: I think I remember it being
"join Yelp so you can delete the bad reviews".

~~~
jc4p
I really thought he was going to talk about how he couldn't create Yelp now
because of Google buying Zagat but it seemed like his entire point was "Google
is evil."

I'm glad the person currently speaking who actually understands technology
(seemingly) and worked on antitrust law suits knows what she's saying.

------
zyb09
Holy shit, they're are hammering down on Eric Schmidt accusing Google of
tampering with search results and what not for pretty dumb reasons imho. Seems
really unfair to me.

~~~
Helianthus
They expect him to be able to say "We know that we are not tampering with
search results because of x, y, and z"--a strong statement--instead of "Search
is a magic box that is imperfect. Shrug?" which is kinda what he said.

------
dmpayton
Something that kind of irked me about Jeremy Stoppelman's testimony: He failed
to mention that Yelp provides an API and, in essence, gives away their data.

If Google was consuming their API (vs. scraping content directly from their
site), would this even be an issue?

Let's assume, hypothetically, that Google used the API provided by Yelp to
enhance their search results. If Yelp said, "We don't like what you're doing,
so stop because we said so", I feel that it would totally be within Googles
rights to say, "Fine, we no longer wish to do business with you and will
exclude you from our index".

Of course, I'm not entirely sure what the Yelp API of 2010 looked like, nor
have I read their TOS. However, I still feel that Stoppelman's testimony did
more to remove my desire to ever use Yelp than it did to convince me that
Google is this big evil monopoly that's destroying the little guy.

~~~
vogonj
<http://www.yelp.com/developers/getting_started/api_terms>
[http://www.yelp.com/developers/getting_started/display_requi...](http://www.yelp.com/developers/getting_started/display_requirements)
<http://www.yelp.com/static?p=tos>

"5. Restrictions

You agree that you will not, and will not assist or enable others to:

...

B. modify the Yelp Content, or use it to update or create your own database of
business listing information;"

"As between you and Yelp, you own Your Content. We own the Yelp Content,
including but not limited to visual interfaces, interactive features,
graphics, design, compilation, computer code, products, software, aggregate
user review ratings, and all other elements and components of the Site
excluding Your Content, User Content and Third Party Content. We also own the
copyrights, trademarks, service marks, trade names, and other intellectual and
proprietary rights throughout the world ("IP Rights") associated with the Yelp
Content and the Site, which are protected by copyright, trade dress, patent,
trademark laws and all other applicable intellectual and proprietary rights
and laws. As such, you may not modify, reproduce, distribute, create
derivative works or adaptations of, publicly display or in any way exploit any
of the Yelp Content in whole or in part except as expressly authorized by us."

republishing of Yelp's content, except as allowed by its Terms of Use, Terms
of Service, and Display Requirements, is against the terms of your agreement
with Yelp, and illegal. even though someone grants you an API to remix their
data, their intellectual property rights to that data are not waived.

------
hastalabasura
Susan Creighton knows her shit.

~~~
kposehn
She is smart, but she did skate around the question of scraping. They asked
whether Google had scraped content, but instead she attempted to change the
question to whether or not it is scraping when they show the excerpt about the
site in results - not whether they had scraped Yelp reviews.

~~~
lukeschlather
I think that's the crux of it though. Of course Google does scraping. They'll
even give you a full cache of a page if you ask for it.

~~~
kposehn
A cache is a bit different though I think - that is a reference. The Yelp case
was them using content in their own competing product and then not
representing the source clearly.

I deal with this as an affiliate all the time. I don't mind Google cacheing my
web pages to increase our search ranking and help drive traffic to our site.
However, if Google made a competing site about the same products and then took
our reviews to use in that site without our permission, then I would have a
major problem.

I'm not in favor of regulating Google, but I am in favor of some discipline
and guidelines being laid down. The government clearly cannot decide how this
should work, but I think Google is responsible enough to know that things need
to be adjusted and just how much is needed.

~~~
hastalabasura
Not representing it clearly? When the places pages included Yelp reviews it
would put the top review with a link to "View more reviews on Yelp" and very
clearly had a Yelp logo next to it. Same with TripAdvisor reviews. Now the
places page is only showing Google reviews with "Reviews from around the web"

------
xtacy
Is there a recording available?

~~~
jojopotato
<http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/301681-1>

------
brackin
For once Google are being honest and the others are being slimey. In one image
they covered the sponsored ads in a box which hid the fact there is a clear
differentiation between Sponsored and algorithmic results, they also say
"Ads".

~~~
redthrowaway
>For once Google are being honest and the others are being slimey.

For once? I hardly get the impression that Google is slimy and duplicitous,
and their competition not so.

------
itsnotvalid
They still haven't open sourced Android 3.0, in which they said they would
never release that part of Apache licensed code to the public.

So there could then be a possibility, again be hidden APIs so that their
tablet app offerings could be better than others.

I personally think that, if you claim open source, some should be able to
obtain the code if they are using the software itself. I clearly don't think a
normal android tablet user would reasonably grab a copy of that source code.

~~~
myko
Do you have a reason to believe the source code will not be released for Ice
Cream Sandwich?

~~~
itsnotvalid
If ICS would run nicely on tablets, it would have some meaning.

------
dennisgorelik
It sounds like both questions and answers are scripted.

Edit: that was my impression in the beginning of that show. After warming up
the questions became deeper and more interesting.

------
LukeHoersten
Watch the recording here: <http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/OversightofG>

------
llambda
Also available here: <http://sunlightfoundation.com/live/>

------
ashishgandhi
> "Jeremy Stoppelman, CEO of Yelp and also a witness at today's hearing, said
> otherwise. He said Google demanded that Yelp comply with Google demands to
> be included in Google's search engine, including providing its content to
> Google."

Is that quoted out of context? If not, that sounds worrying.

~~~
ybot
From Jeremy Stoppelman's written testimony, as posted on Yelp's blog (here:
[http://officialblog.yelp.com/2011/09/seeking-a-level-
playing...](http://officialblog.yelp.com/2011/09/seeking-a-level-playing-
field.html)):

"In 2010, Google began incorporating the content that it indexed from its
competitors into Google Local without permission. Although Google had
previously acknowledged that it needed a license to use Yelp’s content, it was
now using it without permission to prop up its own, less effective product. In
some instances, Google even presented this content to its users as if it were
its own. [See Exhibit C]

Google’s Offers a False Choice

In response to our objections, Google informed us that it would cease the
practice only if we agreed to be removed from Google’s web search index,
thereby preventing Yelp from appearing anywhere in Google web search results.
This, of course, was a false choice. Google’s dominant position in the market
prevents services like Yelp from exercising any sort of meaningful choice in
the matter: it is a choice between allowing Google to co-opt one’s content and
not competing at all."

~~~
ashishgandhi
That sounds evil.

------
Volpe
Is this not similar to "Free-to-Air" TV stations promoting their own shows
rather than competing stations shows.

Seems identical given the fact they both generate revenue from advertising,
are "anti-competitive", and free (to the viewer of ads)

------
rev087
Senator: "Ok Mr. Schmidth, tell me what I`m thinking."

------
kposehn
Simply put, IMHO what needs to happen is Google needs to be pushed to stop
blatantly favoring it's own properties vs. others. At the same time, it cannot
become so regulated as to become a utility.

~~~
kposehn
Ms. Creighton is claiming that competition needs to flourish - one important
aspect is that competition in an ecosystem you control falls under this
statement.

------
rshm
Senator, you have so many hypothetical !

------
yanw
For fuck's sake senator Blumenthal just asked if Google "Has ever scraped
content?" !!

~~~
Helianthus
That had a very specific meaning in context. He was asking if Google used
Yelp's content to build its Places content, in which case Google would be
using its capacity as a Search company in order to grant its Places division a
competitive (anti-competitive?) advantage against Yelp. If simultaneously it
can be shown that Search was favoring bringing attention to Places over Yelp,
there might be an anti-trust case.

There's a lot of posts on here about how uninformed the politicians seem to
be. We seem to forget that _we're_ the ones who are uninformed of the vast
technicality that is anti-trust law and the oceans of oratorical precision
required in order to establish a legal case.

~~~
yanw
He asked both question, that was a separate one in general meaning. As for
Google showing snippets of Yelp or anyone else that is still lawful, the whole
search business is built of snippets and fair use.

~~~
Helianthus
again, you're using 'snippets' out of context and taking the letter of the
politician's word at the expense of his intent.

------
yanw
These senators seemed ignorant about pretty much everything involved.

And as for Mr. Schmidt he should have started by saying that Google is free,
it's free for users and for those wanting to be indexed by them so they don't
owe any self proclaim competitors anything.

~~~
npollock
They actually just did. They argued that Google is free, and there's nothing
to prevent users from using a different search engine. The argument seems to
be that a large market share does not constitute monopoly power. In order for
monopoly power to exist, there have to be barriers preventing users from
switching search providers.

~~~
drgath
> In order for monopoly power to exist, there have to be barriers preventing
> users from switching search providers.

That is incorrect. A "monopoly" is simply having a large enough control over
the market that you dictate how others access that market. Monopolies are not
illegal. Google does have a monopoly on search, Schmidt admitted that much
today by saying they are "in the area" of having one.

Abusing your monopoly power is however illegal, and that's what Google is
being investigated for.

~~~
zmmmmm
> Abusing your monopoly power is however illega

However the principle that underwrites all of it is harm to the consumer. If
you can't prove harm then it is hard to justify action. If consumers are
choosing the monopoly provider willingly with zero compulsion by factors other
than that it serves them well then you have a good argument that the monopoly
is not harming the consumer.

The best argument would be that the purchasers of advertising are harmed
because Google's ad prices are bolstered by their monopoly on search. However
even there, Google uses a quite transparent and open bidding system for ads.
They have no direct control over what people pay, they don't set their own
prices - Google only shows ads at the prices people voluntarily bid. This
doesn't put them in the clear but it makes it pretty hard to prove they are
gouging or any of the other obvious signs of a monopoly abusing their power.

------
itswindy
Eric Schmidt: I am not a cook.

So who cooks the algo Eric?

