
Level Playing Field - julien
https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/level-playing-field/
======
jacquesm
Level playing field?

[http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/04/firefox-install-google-
chro...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/04/firefox-install-google-chrome-home-
page/)

> Without Chrome, we’d be at the mercy of Internet Explorer or other web
> browsers when users want to get to Google.

How so? Is Matt (or Google) afraid that other web browsers would block Google
properties?

I never saw Chrome as the way for Google to ascertain that the general public
can have unfettered access to Google properties, I saw - and see - Chrome as a
way to extend the Google eco-system onto the end users device, and to gain
access to URLs that otherwise would remain hidden from Google to reduce the
'dark web' as seen through Google as well as a way to track users on pages
that don't have Google Analytics installed. When technically speaking it
really shouldn't matter what browser the users uses, as long as it is
standards compliant it should simply work.

Killing off reader didn't do much to level the playingfield either, RSS is so
much more open than everything that tries to replace it.

On the whole, Matt is on the ball that Google would be a better company ('less
evil') if they were willing and able to play on a level playingfield but I
don't see Google as a company willing to do either. They could if they really
wanted to, but they are definitely not doing that.

Between the corporate newspeak about how every change that violates consumer
privacy even more that gets hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread
and Googles abuse of their muscle when it comes to such things as copyright
violation on an unprecedented scale Google, if anything, seems to be totally
allergic to level playing fields.

Anyway, props to Matt for making public his call on Google to be nicer
(especially during his leave), let's see what will happen because of this.

~~~
vertex-four
> Is Matt (or Google) afraid that other web browsers would block Google
> properties?

No, they're afraid that other web browsers will fail to implement features
that Google needs unless Google has a significant say in the standardisation
process by means of having a web browser. They'd be at the mercy of other web
browsers for those features otherwise.

~~~
jacquesm
What about all those other companies not being Google, Apple and Microsoft?

Do they not get a 'significant say in the standardization process' because
they _don 't_ have a web browser? And if not why should those who have a web
browser get a say? Much less a significant one? The only way this matters is
if you extend the capabilities of your browser _outside_ the standards
process. So if everybody would follow the standard then that wouldn't be a
problem.

No more Microsoft sites that only work with IE (remember Active-X/COM
objects?) no more Google using features that are only present in Chrome to
cripple Google docs on Firefox.

~~~
vertex-four
The implementers, sad as it is, get the final say on what they implement.
Standards organisations can standardise whatever they want, but if the
implementers don't want to implement stuff they won't. Hence we don't have
XForms and all the rest of XHTML 2.0, nobody's implemented Persona despite
that being a standard, etc etc.

Google can pressure others to agree to follow a standard by being an
implementer, and they do. (There is practically nothing accessible from a
general web page on Chrome that isn't defined in a standards document or draft
standards document.)

We, unfortunately, don't live in a perfect world where web developers can
unilaterally force browser implementers to implement standards - Google is a
large company that heavily depends on the web, and needs to be able to do
that. For the most part, other companies can contribute to Firefox to get
that, but Google likely decided the politics and potential bad PR of that
("Google are taking over Firefox") were not worth it for them.

------
staunch
As Google has come to dominate the browser market, they've slowly made Chrome
more and more integrated and reliant their own propriety services. They've
done away with the concept of a homepage and exclusively control what the new
tab page looks like. There's no way for users to set a competitor's site as
the new tab page.

[https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2918032?hl=en](https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2918032?hl=en)

> _" If your default search provider isn't Google you may see a different
> layout on the New Tab page."_

They advertise their own products on search results, pushing organic results
down even further.

They pulled a bait and switch with Android, turning it into GoogleOS.

Google throws its weight around just as much as Microsoft ever did, they just
smile while they do it.

~~~
netcan
Each have their own definitions and ethic (or maybe aesthetic is a better
description). Google have a strong advantage in discovery. They have more
influence on "discovery" of everything from podcasts, books, applications,
journalists, and everything else than any other company. They certainly use
that weight. They can get users to any of their products. But, it is true that
these products are not usually very lock-in. Search is very easy to switch
from. Gmail is pretty easy. Network effect products like Wave, talk, circles,
hangouts are actually the products Google has had trouble getting traction
with. They got users, but not the lead in their markets.

MS have "weight" with OEMs and decision makers at companies from one man shows
to fortune 500. They use that, which creates a nasty distance between liking
the software you personally use and the decision to keep using it. Even
Berkshire Hathaway's website is made with frontpage.

Apple have an interesting version of this. It may be their achilles heel, but
it's also made them bold and creative. Apple products sell to the public, not
to businesses and not through businesses. They don't rely on deals with OEMs,
retailers, distributors, corporate buyers or telcoms to make sales. They don't
even rely on discounts and competitive pricing. They definitely don't chase
price/feature niches. More than any other company they rely on sheer consumer
demand for their products. That means they would find it very hard to survive
a "Windows Vista" period of ambivalence about their products. The trait is
probably a long term liability. But, it is a version of level paying field,
win by winning approach that produces bold product decisions.

All three are "cheats" by some standards, including (probably) the standards
of the other two.

------
daurnimator
I run my own XMPP server (prosody), yet use google apps for my domain; due to
an annoying chain of dependencies, this means I can't use Google Photos.

To allow _other_ google users reach you at your non-google server,
Talk+Hangouts have to be disabled in the google apps admin console -> Google+
doesn't work without Hangouts enabled -> Google Photos doesn't work without
Google+ enabled.

The fact this happens seems to mean that google does _not_ want to play on a
level field; but wants to build a walled garden.

~~~
spindritf
Google Apps have always been a tack-on for many of Google's smaller services.
Google+ was completely unavailable for Apps at first. Now Inbox is
unavailable.

It's a fairly conservative product targeted primarily at organizations who
value stability over new features. "A personal account with vanity address,"
while popular with geeks, is not really the intended use.

~~~
daurnimator
Do you have any suggested alternatives for free email hosting with BYO domain?
I don't entirely trust myself to run an email server. Even if I do, are there
trustworthy secondary MXs?

I also really like google voice; and am sad I can no longer call from inside
gmail. I don't know of any other reliable services for completely free calls
to USA.

~~~
kissickas
>sad I can no longer call from inside gmail

How are you trying to do it? If I hit the search icon on the chat pane, I can
type in a number and call from Google Voice. It opens a new Hangouts window,
but that's what it's been doing for as long as I remember, and certainly the
last year at least.

~~~
daurnimator
> How are you trying to do it? If I hit the search icon on the chat pane, I
> can type in a number and call from Google Voice. It opens a new Hangouts
> window, but that's what it's been doing for as long as I remember, and
> certainly the last year at least.

If you run your own XMPP server, you have to disable google Talk, which
disables the calling from gmail (in addition to much more)

------
throwawaykf05
_> [A specific company I won't call out explicitly] sucked contacts out of
Gmail but refused to export contacts back out._

I'm guessing everybody read [A specific company] as "Facebook", but I know for
sure of at least one other company, and possibly two, that it could refer to
:-) In fact, now that I think about it, I can think of several candidates.

But let's talk about reciprocity. Who owns your contacts? You, or _Google_? If
you want to export contacts out of Google's services, why should Google stop
you just because the other service does not reciprocate? Sure, Google makes it
easier than most, but isn't that also what their users wanted? If the user
truly wants the other service to also export contacts as easily, that's
between the user and that other service.

Now consider that Gmail is in the top 3 biggest email providers next to Yahoo
and Hotmail/Live/Outlook/Whatever-it's-called now. Very likely it is now the
biggest, and so they have _the_ biggest set of contacts data in the world. If
any 3rd party service wants access to those contacts, Google wields a
disproportionate amount of power over them, and as this post shows, is willing
to apply it by "requiring reciprocity".

"Level Playing Field" indeed.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Interestingly, I see here a very similar spirit to the one of GPL - you only
get to use our stuff if you share yours on the same terms. Many people avoid
GPL exactly because of that. There are arguments though that this feature of
GPL is what safeguards freedom, and I think one could try and make similar
arguments in case of reciprocity here.

------
deanclatworthy
> The desire for a level playing field also partly explains why Chrome and
> Android are so important. Without Chrome, we’d be at the mercy of Internet
> Explorer or other web browsers when users want to get to Google

Except that Chrome download notices appear at the bottom of Google's homepage
for non chrome users, or at least have in the past.

I see where Matt is coming from here but when you are dealing with Google as a
competitor, rivals are going to try everything to get back market share. If
Google is going to use its competitive advantage in search to push its other
products why shouldn't anyone else?

------
dilap
I liked it better when mega-corp didn't come with a side of self-
righteousness.

~~~
bgoldste
amen. take my data, take my liberty, but you'll never take my healthy self
doubt of your true motives.

------
sz4kerto
Google's attitude towards Windows Phone shows nicely how much they strive for
leveling the playing field. Or we could look at Google Maps on mobile IE -- in
WP 8, it is horrible, in GDR1 it works very well, all that's changed is the
user agent.

~~~
xorcist
What you say is very different from the release announcement of GDR1 which is
"includes hundreds of enhancements for the mobile web".

When it comes to mobile IE performing poorly, I don't think you need to look
further than the software itself.

~~~
sz4kerto
The biggest 'improvement' they did to IE in GDR1 is faking user agents so
mobile sites think it's an Android browser so the site appears correctly. At
the moment, IE on WP does 100/100 in ACID3. It does not support HTML5 as well
as Chrome on Android though - but I really doubt that that's the main reason
why Google stuff does not work well on it (as the previous example shows it as
well).

------
abcd_f
> _We’ve expressed the principle of “Don’t be evil” from the early days of
> Google._

The glory days of ancient past. How can anyone seriously defer to this moto in
the context of modern day Google is beyond me.

------
xorcist
Well put, Matt. I take it it fell on deaf ears, given that Google users
stopped communicating with me over XMPP before that and it has never worked
again?

------
jfuhrman
Can anyone tell me how many things in this list are about a "level playing
field" or "do no evil". If Apple or MS did even half of the things in this
list, people would be screaming about it from rooftops a couple of decades
later, but as Assange noted, Google seems to get a free pass.

Most of the Google search page area is now occupied by ads, or ads disguised
as content

[http://searchengineland.com/google-results-too-ad-
heavy-1662...](http://searchengineland.com/google-results-too-ad-heavy-166226)

Profiting off adware ads for downloads

[http://regmedia.co.uk/2014/08/15/firefox_dodgy_download.jpg](http://regmedia.co.uk/2014/08/15/firefox_dodgy_download.jpg)

Decreasing contrast in the background of ads, this especially hurts older
people as ability to see contrast decreases with age, and the FTC found that
almost half the people fail to notice that there are ads on the page, thus
forcing products that are first in the organic results to pay Google for ads.

[http://ppcblog.com/fbf0fa-now-you-see-itor-maybe-
not/](http://ppcblog.com/fbf0fa-now-you-see-itor-maybe-not/)

[http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-
intentional...](http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-
intentionally-trying-to-minimize-the-fact-that-these-are-ads/)

[http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/ftc-googles-ad-
practice-i...](http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/ftc-googles-ad-practice-is-
deceptive.html/?a=viewall)

Tracking the emails in the free Google Apps for Education and even paid Google
Apps for Business to build ad profiles, making misleading statements to the
public that they're not doing so, and then when it finally came to having to
make statements to federal court, having to tell the truth about it and then
claiming the consumer Gmail policy applied to Apps for Education data.

[http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.ht...](http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.html)

Paid inclusion for shopping search results

[http://marketingland.com/once-deemed-evil-google-now-
embrace...](http://marketingland.com/once-deemed-evil-google-now-embraces-
paid-inclusion-13138)

Ranking Google+ reviews over Yelp results even if the user explicitly searches
for Yelp

[http://www.searchenginejournal.com/yelp-complains-
outranked-...](http://www.searchenginejournal.com/yelp-complains-outranked-
google-local-listings/111539/)

Conspiring to kill SkyHook(and succeeding) with its 500lb outsized influence
like Microsoft used to, in order to gather wifi & user location data.

[http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-
la...](http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-
motorola-Samsung)

Getting fined by FTC for violating Gmail users privacy by exposing their
friends lists in Google Buzz in order to compete with Twitter

[http://www.netcompetition.org/antitrust/why-
ftcs-22-5m-googl...](http://www.netcompetition.org/antitrust/why-
ftcs-22-5m-google-privacy-fine-is-faux-accountability)

Tracking the physical location of Android phones for ad purposes without
properly informing users and disabling things like Google Now if you disable
the tracking.

[http://digiday.com/platforms/google-
tracking/](http://digiday.com/platforms/google-tracking/)

[http://www.datadrivenbusiness.com/google-quietly-testing-
off...](http://www.datadrivenbusiness.com/google-quietly-testing-offline-
store-visits-tracking)

Google employee accesses personal information of others. Google says it has
fixed the issue, but how do we even know? Is there any legal safeguard against
someone at Google reading your email?

[http://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-
tee...](http://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-teens-spied-
on-chats)

Tying Android App store to having Google search engine as default on Android,
ensuring that alternative search engines cannot be shipped as default.

[http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/02/12/documents-shed-
light-...](http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/02/12/documents-shed-light-on-
google-rules-for-android/)

Stopping Acer from shipping Aliyun OS by threatening to pull the Play Store
and Android beta access. Bonus points for enforcing this by the duplicitous
moniker 'Open Handset Alliance' doublespeak

[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/report-google-
threate...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/report-google-threatened-
acer-forced-it-to-dump-rival-os/)

Making people literally cry with the forced Google+ integration into Youtube
and making confusing UX to make people share more than they want to, in order
to compete with Facebook.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccxiwu4MaJs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccxiwu4MaJs)
(warning, NSFW language)

Extracting petty revenge on CNET for googling(!) information on its CEO

[http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/](http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/)

Convicted in the courts for colluding with other tech firms in illegal non-
poaching agreements

[http://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-
wage-...](http://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-
cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/)

~~~
gregpilling
Thanks for the list, was it researched today or is this an ongoing passion of
yours?

~~~
jacquesm
Given the 6 hours between the article's appearance and the list here I figure
the best bet is on the research being done today.

------
lwh
So if others are evil , it's okay to be evil because that's a level playing
field? Maybe change it "Don't be Evil*" ?

Hangouts/XMPP , RSS, the big brother aspect of GA - No matter how you justify
them they're never going to be good.

------
OoTheNigerian
It is important to read this in the context of republishing an internal
memory.

It it interesting to see how to disagree with the company's direction and
drive home a point.

Publishing openly is subtly communicating to the top brass at Google.

It is clear Matt finish a not excited about the direction Google is going re:
standards. Thankfully, Microsoft is going the other direction.

~~~
jacquesm
> Publishing openly is subtly communicating to the top brass at Google.

It's not all that subtle. This is a pretty strong signal coming from someone
as careful with words as Matt.

~~~
OoTheNigerian
Do you know if he's back from his sabbatical?

~~~
jacquesm
It's been extended.

------
nl
I suspect publishing this post now is aimed as much at an internal Google
audience as at external players.

Bearing that in mind, I think "a level playing field" is an excellent goal for
Google to aspire to.

To say what Matt can't: if Google plays on a level playing field it makes them
a much more attractive partner and supplier.

~~~
jacquesm
Why can't Matt say that? Effectively he is saying that. And saying it from his
now-extended-to-2015 leave. It's a pretty powerful statement. And it makes me
wonder if he's going to return to Google or move on.

------
7952
If they want to level the playing field they should properly support oauth and
openid. That means letting me log into Google services with an external
provider.

------
aabajian
>"Without Android, phone makers could shut Google out of mobile phones
completely. Chrome and Android help ensure that users can get to Google
without interference; they protect our users from other companies’ potentially
unlevel playing fields."

Isn't this just saying that Google won't block its own services on Android?
There's no guarantee that Google won't block some other search engine. FWIW, I
think the App Store / Google Play stores are the biggest obstacles to
openness. They are literally determining what users can and cannot be run on
their respective platforms.

~~~
josteink
>"Without Android, phone makers could shut Google out of mobile phones
completely. Chrome and Android help ensure that users can get to Google
without interference; they protect our users from other companies’ potentially
unlevel playing fields."

This quote just rings so incredibly hollow.

I challenge anyone to name _one_ mobile-OS (or OS in general) who has blocked
Google servies ever. And no, not being the default is not blocking. First one
to do so would be facing widespread consumer outrage, so I doubt anyone is
even considering this.

Now turn it around, and ask if Google has ever blocked anything for its
competitors (XMPP, apps on WP, non-Chrome browser access to Google-services,
blocking non-Chrome browsers with Google-only DRM, non-Google advertising on
Android, etc etc).

I think it's pretty obvious which one is need of having its playing field
leveled, and it's not Google. Not by a mile.

~~~
DanBC
> I challenge anyone to name one mobile-OS (or OS in general) who has blocked
> Google servies ever.

Google Chrome on iOS uses a different engine because Apple controls what
engine can be used by browsers. That's a restriction placed on Google -
although the fact that Google happily uses a different engine on that platform
is a pretty big hint that when they want the user data they'll compromise on
stuff like this.

------
ricardobeat
What about a level playing field for Hangouts and GTalk?

------
cwyers
To me, the biggest problem I have in my interactions with Google (and it's
growing over time) is that I never feel like their customer. I don't pay them
anything (now that they've sold Motorola, they don't make phones, and they
don't seem to charge for the OS on the phone), they don't have products I can
buy. They just... put stuff out for me to use, and make money off ads. So
there's this rather disquieting mismatch between what I as a user want from
them and what they do, because their money doesn't come from me, it comes from
people who buy ads. And they need to put SOME effort into user satisfaction,
because they need users to have someone to look at the ads that they sell, but
there's still a mismatch between user wants and Google offerings. Google
Reader is probably the canonical example -- yeah, it wasn't a widely used
service, but the users it did have were devoted, and might even have paid to
keep using it. But it didn't matter, as Google Reader didn't line up with how
Google wanted to sell ads now. So it got the axe. And it's in those moments of
powerlessness -- where you have no say over what Google does, because you're
not its customer, you're just its user -- that Google loses its appeal. It's
not evil, it may even be a level playing field. But that sort of user
powerlessness makes me uncomfortable using Google stuff going forward.

------
asadotzler
Google used to care about an open and interoperable web. Not any more. Most of
their web apps suck in browsers that aren't Chrome and with no good reason
considering most other browsers are completely capable. Google continues to
advertise Chrome on www.google.com while not opening that same lucrative
advertisent spot to anyone else. Level playing field my ass.

When he actually does something to level the field, I'll tune in. Until then
it seems like Matt is ittle more than a PR drone these days.

~~~
jacquesm
> When he actually does something to level the field, I'll tune in. Until then
> it seems like Matt is ittle more than a PR drone these days.

I think you are completely missing the point here. Matt is setting this thing
out for the world to see, that is the employee equivalent of displaying your
dis-satisfaction with how the company and its management reacted to your
previous pleas. It's a pretty brave thing to do and it definitely is _not_
good PR for Google to have this thing out there.

What it does is make me respect Matt a bit more, rather than less.

------
richardw
I would imaging reciprosity and level playing field would require Google's
robots.txt to be an open free-for-all. I mean, since we're talking about
embracing the open web. I Googled "is Google crawlable" and similar and that
doesn't seem to be a thing. I checked the robots.txt and that seems to
disallow a lot of stuff. Search, news, groups, images, etc. [1]

Google does a great job of taking the open web, repackaging it, slapping it up
behind a (crawling) wall, extracting maximum cash from the result. It will
always be able to suck in your content "think of the users!" but that'll
generally be a 1-way street. Yes there are API's, but that's still a different
relationship to "we crawl whatever we want, we put any content we want in our
search results, because users".

Unrelated: Chrome (which I use and love) also had the added benefit of
reducing the amount of money they'd be paying to Firefox for the search deal.
Not a terrible outcome. It might even have paid for itself right there, but
that's utter speculation.

[1] [http://www.google.com/robots.txt](http://www.google.com/robots.txt) \-
seems to be far more disallow than allow

------
lawnchair_larry
So why doesn't XMPP federation work then?

~~~
mkopinsky
Because voices other than Matt's prevailed, presumably.

------
lifeisstillgood
The comments (amazingly) have some insights - including someone who used his
chat history to analyse his changing vocabulary and more - quite a fascinating
idea for those who will live digital lives for decades.

But what seems to be missing is simpler - googles core function is search and
until that is a level playing field we are all at the mercy of Google. I am
not a reactionary "nationalise everything" but the biggest uses of global data
surely surely must be public goods and treated as such?

------
DodgyEggplant
Everyone willingly liberates the non core parts of it's business. Google
should apply these principles to search, support and ad-sense rev share data

------
ancarda
>If another search engine crawls the open web and returns better search
results, people will switch to that new search engine immediately

I don't think people would ditch Google so easily or quickly.

------
CometLord
While i like the approach described by that post, many things are hardly
something that is applied by them or others in RL, money is what drives
decisions.

------
yuhong
OT, but on the European Google antitrust investigation on search results, I am
thinking of a tutorial as a settlement.

------
jorgecastillo
After all is said and done, Google is still the fairest company and the Google
ecosystem is the most open. Seriously, can you imagine a world with out
Google? Can you imagine a world were we're at the mercy of Apple & Microsoft?
I just can't stomach that with Apple & Microsoft you have to pay to program
your own device! You can dislike and criticize Google all you want this
doesn't change the facts.

~~~
cwyers
Microsoft and Apple have a much, much longer track record of playing well with
others than Google's, which is practically nonexistent.

