

EU launches antitrust probe into alleged Google abuses - jkent
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11876443

======
Nitramp
I think the basic question is whether "vertical search" (products, maps, ...)
is a different product from generic web search. If that's the case, then
Google is clearly using its dominating position in generic search to push
forward its vertical search products.

If that's not the case, i.e., products search is so close to generic web
search that a distinction doesn't make sense, then Google is not abusing its
monopoly but just enhancing its product.

I remember a blog post from the creator of "sushikartan.se" complaining about
Google Maps entries being displayed on a search for "sushi stockholm" above
his own website. That caused him a major loss in traffic, and he quite
convincingly argues that his own search results and reviews are much better
than Google's, so Google was (at least in that case) not really working in the
user's best interest.

[http://www.tedvalentin.com/2010/05/google-content-
producer.h...](http://www.tedvalentin.com/2010/05/google-content-
producer.html)

I personally think its legitimate behaviour from Google. They are not pushing
some entirely unrelated product of theirs (e.g. GMail) but really trying to
enhance their product (not always successfully, see sushikartan example
above). And I'd be very surprised if they manually modified rankings of
competitors like ciao on purpose. But I think it's a valid question to raise.

~~~
lwhi
Unfair promotion isn't the only form of anticompetitive behaviour.

------
relic17
The European Commission should be very careful in distinguishing between
illegal activity and success as a good service that people overwhelmingly
prefer. A company (just like an individual) should not be expected to sabotage
itself by promoting competitors' products. It is only natural that a company
supports and advertises its own offerings first and foremost, and any attempt
to force it to do otherwise (given that the company has not acted illegally)
is unethical. In a related article on the BBC site, the founder of Foundem (a
firm that filed a complaint against Google) says "We just want a level playing
field." The proper response to that would be: "Well, go out and create a
compelling product that people want to use." Nothing in business (or in life)
is on a perfectly level playing field; you have to work hard to create
opportunities for yourself. Asking the government to hinder a competitor is
morally questionable and certainly not a viable long-term strategy. An even
bigger problem is asking the government to provide "level playing field[s]"
that go beyond the existing anti-trust laws. I hope the EC will be prudent
enough to punish Google if and only if clear law violations are found, and not
because some competitor is unhappy with the Google's size and customer
engagement.

~~~
lwhi
Can a company become so large (and powerful), that it becomes (realistically)
impossible to compete?

~~~
dantheman
No, not for any real length of time - unless of course they are granted some
privilege by the government.

~~~
lwhi
I hope you're correct :)

From my understanding, this is one of the reasons that we have legal
frameworks that discourage monopolies.

------
lwhi
_For example, it said, Foundem "duplicates 79% of its website content from
other sites."_

 _"We have consistently informed webmasters that our algorithms disadvantage
duplicate sites," the firm said._

Search engines duplicate content by necessity, so this isn't really a very
fair test when it's applied to Google's competitors (i.e. sites providing
search for specific areas and industries).

It's entirely unreasonable to state 'these are the rules, we're simply
sticking to them', when the rules have been set by the organisation in
question.

No matter how much desire there is to project (and enforce) a healthy, non-
stifling culture - when an organisation reaches a large size, the stake
individuals are responsible for grows, and (some) people will act recklessly
and aggressively to provide gains for the organisation in question.

When an organisation or company grows to a very large size, I think it can
become analogous to a large pike in a small pond, consuming almost everything
it can.

Our economic system isn't the pure system many people wish it was - it's not
perfect. As much as I like the idea of a free-market, I think intervention is
necessary.

------
tomjen3
Last time this was up, some people pointed out that the two companies didn't
deserve high google rankings. That may or may not be the case.

The last complaint is correct however. Googles user requirements for its
adservices prohibits webmasters from placing other contextual ads on the site.
I wonder why nobody has complaind before (its not exactly a secret, it was
written in the agreement).

------
jkent
I do think that Google search by definition "manipulates search results". A
tautology? If it didn't, then there wouldn't be results.

Curious that legal threats and regulatory challenges came up in an interview
discussion...

~~~
ZoFreX
This confused me too. If I ran a website "ZoFreX's top 10 websites", and (for
some reason) 80% of the internet populace used it, would I no longer be able
to decide the order of the sites (or which sites appeared) myself? I don't
understand why so many companies think Google is obligated to not manipulate
the search results.

~~~
SimonPStevens
If ZoFreX's top 10 website list became a monopoly, you would have to abide by
the rules for the monopolies. One of which is that you can't abuse your
position to increase your market share in other industries.

For example, it would be against the rules to utilise ZoFreX's top 10 website
list to display ZoFreX's skin cream website at the top of the list.

The key in this case is whether your other site that you are promoting is
considered a different industry or market, and whether your monopoly in the
top 10 lists market has unfairly influenced your position in another market.

There is probably a grey area if the list rankings were generated
automatically in some way, but it could still be argued that knowledge of
unpublished details of the list algorithms have given you a advantage, and
unless you published full algorithm details you would probably be subject to
accusations of fixing the list anyway. The rules are there to ensure that the
markets remain competitive for others to do business in.

~~~
coliveira
This is a very good explanation of what a monopoly is and why they need to
abide to different rules. I think Google, like Microsoft before it, is getting
pretty close to this situation, and we as a society need to look at them in
this new light. In particular, we need to impose restrictions on what Google
can legitimately do with all its power.

------
yanw
Framing the conversation in the context of ranking always bothered me, a
search engine is a question answerer not a traffic pump. Google has different
verticals to handle different query types, geographical, financial, etc. After
sending a query you are presented with the results on the Google SERP from one
or more of these verticals, that is the whole concept behind the ‘universal
search box’.

Google’s obligation is to user experience not to to self-proclaimed
‘competitors’, it should provide answers not send users sifting through
another set of results or to conduct searches elsewhere.

And what if in the future search engines evolves beyond the ranking of blue
links will the EU force Google not to change anything? And what about
personalized search?

This is all quite ridiculous.

~~~
lwhi
A search engine is a question answerer _and_ a traffic pump.

~~~
yanw
Traffic is a consequence of a question being answered, the EU here is
investigating whether there should be another step for getting that answer
which is mind-boggling.

~~~
lwhi
Not another step; the possibility of an _alternative_ step.

~~~
yanw
That's what the address bar is for, type the address of any 'alternative' and
you'll get there. As a bonus you can also google the name of that
'alternative', click the link and you're there, and it won't cost you a thing.

~~~
lwhi
Well, I think that's a slightly disingenuous response when you consider that
most people discover new sites through a search engine - and Google is one of
the most commonly used search engines on the planet :)

~~~
yanw
Search is only but one avenue for discovery, look at the rise of social and
social media. Also they do have the right to an editorial process, you can't
really expect Google to cripple their application so that a useless linkfarm
can get preferable exposure because they are claiming to be a competitor.

~~~
lwhi
I see what you're saying, but I think we'll have a to agree to disagree. I
think maybe it's a difference of politics more than anything else.

