
Google’s rivals opt out of search engine auction, calling it ‘anti-competitive’ - fourthark
https://venturebeat.com/2019/08/12/googles-rivals-opt-out-of-search-engine-auction-calling-it-unethical-and-anti-competitive
======
jrochkind1
What is the alternative? There is a finite amount of screen space for listing
alternative search engines. How do you choose what shows up there? (I'm not
saying there couldn't be a better one than whoever pays most, I'm just not
sure what it is, and none were suggested in this article).

If you just put, say, a text-entry search box (or select menu with dozens+ of
options?) there to choose any of unlimited number of alternatives (with none
on screen to begin with), it will definitely result in even fewer users
choosing something other than Google.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I think the ultimate problem is Google doesn't pay anyone. Google is the
default winner in this scenario, they always list for free. Essentially
creating a scenario where no matter who is chosen, Google wins. Either the
user selects Google and Google makes money off of them, or they select
Google's competitor and Google takes money from their competitors.

An auction is a fair way to determine a group of options, but an auction where
one party always wins for free is not. The solution is to break up Google, and
force Google to bid for the right to show up on the list on Android-the-
company's platform just like everyone else.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> The solution is to break up Google, and force Google to bid for the right to
> show up on the list on Android-the-company's platform just like everyone
> else.

Google already pays more to fund Android than it would cost to place in a
search engine listing auction. If all you're really suggesting is that they do
separate accounting for part of that funding and call it "large bid in search
engine listing auction" then nothing changes in practice.

Which is kind of the point. They're already effectively paying for placement
by funding Android development in general.

~~~
sm4rk0
That would be fair enough if there wasn't a link (Google account) that
connects _me as an Android user_ with _me as a Google search user_. They even
could be separate companies, but they would be still tracking me as one person
and selling my data together. Please correct me if that would be legally
impossible.

------
GeekyBear
As a bit of history, here's what happened to Microsoft when they refused to
comply with the EU order to open up the protocols that Windows Server used to
communicate with Windows clients as one of the enforced antitrust remedies.

>The European Union's chief antitrust regulator fined Microsoft Corp. another
$1.3 billion (899 million euros) today for what she said were business
practices that "continued to stifle competition" after it was ordered to
change four years ago.

Today's fine, she said, was applied because Microsoft continued to thumb its
nose at the EU for more than a year -- 488 days, Kroes said at one point -- by
charging an "unreasonable price" to rivals that licensed Windows'
communication protocols to make their own software work more smoothly with the
U.S. software maker's server products.

[https://www.computerworld.com/article/2537525/eu-fines-
micro...](https://www.computerworld.com/article/2537525/eu-fines-microsoft-
another--1-3b.html)

~~~
solarkraft
This is amazing. Is the EU still on the same level of consumer protection?
Because I see some pretty large problems with Apple's walled garden.

~~~
cthaeh
Hacker news, the media and politicians love Apple for the doing the same shit
that Google does.

So lets not forget Google is paying apple nearly 10 Billion a year to be its
default search engine.

The hypocrisy makes me sick.

------
whalabi
This is so absurdly disingenuous from Google.

The (very good) idea is that Google Search should be competing fairly with the
other search engines.

It's not fair to make these other search engines, already the victims of anti-
competitive behaviour, pay millions of dollars (or whatever) into Google's
bank account to be listed, while Google pays nothing.

It's like if Ford owned the roads and GM had to pay Ford for each car they
sold.

~~~
summerlight
What is your proposal? I don't see not much other options:

1) Excludes Google from Android/Chrome's default search engine options. This
clearly doesn't make sense for Google and I don't think there's an easy way to
enforce this. 2) Lists all every search engine that exists on the planet. This
still doesn't answer the question who should be placed on the top of the list.
3) Break google up into Android/Chrome and the rest. This is not even an
option for EU since their jurisdiction doesn't reach to Google.

Maybe Google can say something like, "all of the profits from this auction
will go back to the society!", which practically doesn't make any differences
to them since the profit from this auction will likely be a minute fraction
compared to the Google's yearly revenues.

~~~
ryan_j_naughton
Actually making the profits donated to a non-Google entity works quite well.
Then Google should have to bid as well. Then it is fair and competitive and
would actually drive the market towards a competitive equilibrium

~~~
foobarchu
I don't think it really addresses the complaints in the article, though. The
main complaint wasn't that the proceeds go to Google, it's that the premise of
an auction naturally favors profit-focused search engines. I think it's a
valid problem, and the only ways to counter it have to use a ranking that
doesn't involve money.

------
dahdum
Ecosia is just a thin wrapper around Bing that allocates revenue towards
climate crisis. It’s a noble cause but essentially a middleman, I don’t see
why they should be given equal standing to Google/Bing for free.

~~~
Buraksr
I disagree with a lot of what google is doing. It's unfair that google seems
to have a free spot and do not have to compete in the bidding here [0].

IANAL, so I wonder if this really fulfils what Google is trying to achieve
legally. They are giving users more choice but they are effectively using
their market position (Android) to get more google search usage seemingly
unfairly so I would think this would lead to more anti-trust issues for them.

That said, I agree with dahdum, I don't see why any of these providers should
get any help in a competitive bid. If Ecosia sees value in being here there is
a price to be paid, I would be surprised if they didn't pay for all the
advertising they have done.

-0 "Search providers are required to apply for inclusion through a bidding process to become one of three alternative choices to Google Search" \- from Article

~~~
shkkmo
The spot isn't really free. The spot has the same value as the spots they are
auctioning. By not auctioning it off, Google pays an opportunity cost for the
spot. Not that this even matters practically.

I really don't understand people's obsession with this aspect of it. Google
makes so much money from its search that there is no way that any potential
cost to them from having to bid for this spot would have any real competitive
impact on the search market.

For default search on iOS, Google already pays Apple more per year than the EU
fined Google on this issue.

------
tschellenbach
This is crazy, Google spends billions on Android. They are not blocking you
from installing other search engines (now that would be anti competitive).

I think it's kinda crazy that the EU is forcing them to show other search
engines to begin with. Only fair that those search engines pay a solid
contribution to android development to be featured.

Reminds me of the Microsoft/IE days. At the end of the day better products
came along and replaced IE. Showing competitors doesn't solve anything in this
case.

~~~
whalabi
They're unfairly abusing their dominant market share (75%?) to harm competing
search engines, which is not allowed in EU law.

Nothing crazy about it.

~~~
Buraksr
I do see tschellenbach's point. Way back when google seemingly bought android
to be more able to compete in search [0], and now it has been good business
for them even back in 2010 android showed real promise in terms of profit [1].
So Google spends a lot of time and man hours building the most popular OS. And
I can relate to google in some weird way, for not really wanting to put
competitors as default options. Now as tschellenbach says,

> "Google spends billions on Android. They are not blocking you from
> installing other search engines"

if they did that, they would get a clear anti-trust violation I hope. Reading
up on some history we see this quote from Wikipedia [2](The best source):
"Compared to the European Decision against Microsoft, the DOJ case is focused
less on interoperability and more on predatory strategies and market barriers
to entry." If history is good president, and if Android has interoperability
with other search engines and there are not predatory strategies then it
should be fine right?

I think the word harm, as whalabi uses it, is too ambiguous here, having a
better product 'Harms' your competitor in some way, but we wouldn't file anti-
trust for this reason. The question is more like "is google behaving in a
predatory manner using android". Looking at the US case, I would be tempted to
say no, after all IE/Edge are defaults on windows, and this is fine so long as
those two aforementioned conditions are maintained. But defaults are powerful,
powerful things. Bing has come a long way almost solely because of the power
of defaults [3], so maybe it should be more regulated in this regard.

0- [https://www.cnet.com/news/google-buys-
android/](https://www.cnet.com/news/google-buys-android/) 1-
[https://venturebeat.com/2010/10/27/google-exec-android-
was-b...](https://venturebeat.com/2010/10/27/google-exec-android-was-best-
deal-ever/) 2-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp).
3- [https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-q4-2018-bing-search-
busine...](https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-q4-2018-bing-search-business-
revenue-grows/)

------
no_wizard
I can't say that I blame them. This is really an underhanded way of complying
with the EU's judgement. whether you agree with the EU judgement or not, the
fact is they were fined and found to be in violation, and have been tasked
with creating a _fair and equitable_ way for consumers to choose their search
engine, and this reeks of rent seeking.

------
bobbyi_settv
Why can't/ don't phone makers like Samsung set the search engine on their
Android phones to whatever they want (whoever pays them the most) which would
make the Android default irrelevant?

Is leaving the default alone part of the conditions they have to comply with
to ship Google's apps?

------
Theodores
I don't care for companies that resell search results provided by another
company. Bing! is okay, Yahoo, Ecosia and any of these other middlemen in the
world of search I just don't have any incentive to use or reason to trust
them.

I am sure the work Ecosia does is commendable but reselling search engine
results is not going to plant enough trees to save the planet. It might
provide their founders with a comfortable salary plus an ego-boost for do-
gooding but I might as well do my Christmas shopping from The Hunger Site
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Site](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Site))
for the good it does.

~~~
gibolt
If you want to make a service with positive environmental impact and positive
financials, you have to start somewhere.

The place you start is likely to be close to your expertise. In Ecosia's case,
it could scale massively and they could replace the search stack with their
own as the business grows.

Until a carbon tax is implemented, most businesses trying to have a positive
environmental impact will be hard pressed to find financial stability.

~~~
raws
Yeah, it should be mentioned when you select the default search engine. I fear
the common consumer will default to Google for lack of better understanding of
what the other options provide and those consumers are by far the great
majority. At least a door is opened.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Especially if they're only going to present four options, they really should
allow each company to list a small blurb to go under their title. It's likely
Ecosia would _vastly_ increase it's market share if given this option... and
largely why I'm not surprised Google isn't offering such a blurb in the
screenshot.

------
buboard
The fair choice is a text box: enter your search engine url. If you don’t know
what it is, google it. The purpose of the legislation should be to make users
aware of their options, not to let google prefill it for them. Users bear much
of the responsibility for creating monopolies and have a duty to be educated
about the market, if they wish to keep having a free market.

This would create an incentive for search engines to spend the money on ad
campaigns for brand awareness instead of bidding for google. Win win for the
market

------
MikeGale
As a user I want the option of choosing for myself. (Whatever I want.)

From that potential designs should be obvious.

------
ToFab123
What would happen if every search engine out there each put in a bid of 0
(zero) dollars?

------
bubble_talk
Yes, you can have a scroll bar - but where do you set the minimum threshold
for qualification? If I slap a search box in front of CommonCrawl, have I now
created a search engine?

------
supergirl
how about allow any search engine to apply for a slot for free and then list
all in random order, including goole search. users can then type the name
directly for the popular ones. or they pick random ones until they find one
that is good. pretty sure google can find an even better way than this if they
really want to be fair. anyway, as it is, they will get fined again, pretty
sure about that, EU doesn't like getting off the hook through a technicality

~~~
fosefx
Or a middle way. A "featured search engine" tab for those who are willing to
pay for what is essentially advertisement and an "other" tab where everybody
can apply for a random position.

