Slashdot Mirror
FTC To Recommend Antitrust Case Against Google
NeutronCowboy writes with news that a majority of top staff members from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission have become convinced that Google "illegally used its dominance of the search market to hurt its rivals." The FTC is now drafting a memo that recommends the U.S. government begin an antitrust case against Google.
"The agency’s central focus is whether Google manipulates search results to favor its own products, and makes it harder for competitors and their products to appear prominently on a results page. ... The memo is still being edited and changes could be made, but these are mostly fine-tuning and will not alter the broad conclusions reached after an inquiry that began more than a year ago, said these people, who spoke on the condition that they not be identified. ... The FTC staff memo does not mean that the government will sue Google for antitrust violations. Next, the vote of three of the five FTC commissioners would be required. And each step is a further prod for Google to make concessions to reach a settlement before going to court. Last month, Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the FTC, said a final decision on whether to sue Google would be made before the end of this year.
If you were in the business of advertising...
Wouldnt it be 100% your control AND your business to do exactly this? determine which ads to put where and why to get the best result?
Google is being investigated for doing their job... lol
Nobody forces anyone to use Google to search. They don't sell search. I fail to see a case, but IANAL.
Wrong company jackasses! You should be going after Apple!!!!
You get the government you pay for.
Wait, there is another Jon Leibowitz, that is not Jon Stewart? (And also not his brother.)
Apparently, there is. ;)
That screams for some funny trolling.
Anything you want to do, he offers to do for you, apparently for free. On the face of it he appears to be a great lad but a bit on the nosey side, he has a good rumble through your stuff while you're gone and although he's careful putting everything back you still know he was there and still suspect him. He might have some contacts who occasionally try to sell you stuff but it seems harmless, until you realise he is indirectly trying to flog stuff to all your friends as well.
He offers to run your email server for free, in the hope that you will forget how to yourself and that the people writing MTA's now will just give up development allowing Uncle Goog to leap miles ahead of anything out there now and that you and everyone else become utterly dependent on him. He offers to drive your car so eventually he controls where you go, how you go there and at what speed, tells you its for your own good because he reckons he's a better driver.
Once you are completely dependent on him of course he can start to dig in, the stuff his friends try to sell you isn't so cheap anymore, he'll no longer drive you to where you used to get your stuff, his email service will be filled to the brim with invasive ads. In fact he'll turn out worse than the worst helicopter parent. Tell him to take a long walk off a short pier before it's too late.
If I go to Google and search for "web browser" the results are:
1. Wikipedia
2. Opera
3. Opera again
4. Mozilla
5. News for web browser
6. Chrome
7. Safari
8. Webopedia (of all things)
9. Maxthon
10. Flock
11. docs.python.org
Those bastards!
Google doesn't have an illegal monopoly. They have such a large market share because they have consistently delivered the best product for over 10 years.
Google's algorithms are not an end in themselves. The whole point of the algorithms, and the reason Google is always tweaking them, is to deliver the best user experience. If Google decides that the best way to do that is by emphasizing other Google products in the search results, how can you argue with that? Is that an antitrust violation? Does Google have to make their results *worse* in order to comply with the law?
The whole thing is nonsensical. My bet is that the DOJ feels that Google didn't give enough money to Obama's campaign this year.
It is easy enought to get on the first page. Simply develop a decent page, keep it simple, and you win. Disgusting that FTC is being bought by other businesses which is likely MS.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And you get Google Analytics as the first result.
I wouldn't go to the same extremes you do in describing google. I do agree that google's business model is built on exploiting consumer's habit for profit, but the issue with the FTC, is that the other creepy uncles of the world are demanding their chance to go through your things. Getting the FTC involved will only make things worse.
Show some love for Microsoft also...nevermind, cuz my girlfriends said they saw you and Mikey Soft kissin'.
I'm sure I'll be modded up for this, but, fuck Google.
And so the crowd cheers as it gets its bread and circuses, while the government is going absolutely crazy, attacking successful business because it's successful and it doesn't 'share' enough with the government obviously.
Just like the cases of Standard Oil (the company that over the stretch of 30 years brought prices of oil down from 30 cents per gallon of refined oil in 1869 to 5.9 cents in 1899, and by the time it was broken up in 1911, there were 150 competitors, and since it was broken up the prices for oil never went down again, thus gov't ended up hurting the consumer), Alcoa Aluminium (again, the same thing - a large business giving its customers the best deal in the market for years, so the gov't saw an opportunity to make tons of money by allowing fake competition to emerge by preventing the successful business from being so successful) the same thing with many companies.
The same thing is happening here. What is Google? One of the worlds search engines, a successful advertising platform, an Internet app provider, a researcher and developer, etc.etc., one of the (if not the most) coveted employees.
It is obviously stepping on too many toes for it not to be attacked by the government dogs, and they are dogs.
Actually, personally, I have more reasons to be upset at Google than gov't does. I have problems with their advertising, but not because they push their own services more, or whatever, but because of their stupid policy on advertising, I don't want to get into details, but basically I have to advertise with their various competitors and not with them, but that's too sad for me. But AFAIC there are alternatives.
And even if there were no alternatives, while Google was highly profitable and problematic for some advertisers, what it would tell me is that there is a good opportunity in that space, not that government should be used by me to attack Google.
Yeah, I could use government to attack Google, in fact it would be a good business practice for me to attack Google by using the government, it makes perfect sense for a business to use the path of least resistance, and if that means using government, paying off some politicians to promote my business, I should do that.
Who really should be pissed off and upset are the people who get something from Google rather than from government. Whether you call them the clients, the consumers, even 'the product', they should be upset.
Right now Google is providing a good product, it provides a good platform, it provides people with what they want, and in case of the home users, they don't have to pay for it! What if government does get something from Google that it wants? What does it mean?
It means more money going to the government, it means reduction of money that Google has to spend on its own initiatives, on its own development and research, on its own business. It means reduction of service.
Does it mean that the quality of searches will increase? BY GOVERNMENT DECREE? Of-course not. It means that there may be new laws and regulations, it means there may be new licences, it means there may be new government positions, it means that Google may even be broken up into pieces! That's what it means!
Why would ANY of it be good for the consumer? It never is! Just like breaking Standard Oil or Alcoa was NOT good for the end consumer, this won't be either.
As an end consumer, do you give a shit that there is more artificial "competition" created by government in some field, with licenses, with taxes, with breaking of successful business apart? Why would you care if what YOU get is reduction of services, higher prices, less options?
What about investors, they are going to take a hit! In this economy.
What about employees? They are going to take a hit. In this economy.
Does this mean it's good for the government? Well, for SOMEBODY in gov't it may be good, but the overall situation will be bad. Google may outsource more of its operations into other countri
You can't handle the truth.
This is a strong claim, I wonder if there's any proof to back it up. I've never noticed a bias towards Google's services in search, the only time I remember is when they displayed a warning on Youtube saying that it only works in Chrome. That was somewhat distasteful but has been removed since, and in fact I used Google to find another email service without much problem. Can someone show search terms that have a bias?
So blame Google for it...
because telling people how to use their mod points is lame.
They need the FTC to protect them from the big mean Google.
This page is full of comments insisting that the FTC/government is wrong. I just wanted to let you know that government failure isn't an isolated incident and you can expect the same treatment from ObamaCare as you get from the TSA.
When I go to the comcast directory, I see comcast's top five pay-per-video being previewed. Comcast does not advertise HBO movies, even if those movies are available.
Seems to me that television networks give preference to their own shows? How is that different from what Google does?
Should CBS advertise NBS shows?
We now know why Apple pulled google maps, just before MS sued Google over maps.
I thought the legal responsibility of any public corporation was to do any thing ethical and legal to earn money for shareholders. What do the regulators expect them to do ?
Is it just me that suspects that this will turn out as a giant waste of tax payer money?
If I go TO GOOGLE's SEARCH ENGINE to find a service, I don't generally go there expecting that a search for "webmail" is going to find my corporate OWA page...
If someone want's to find Yahoo's offerings, they would search for "yahoo mail"
and if you weren't sure (or didn't care) you'd likely be one of the stupidly large percentage of people that just use the built-in-bing search in IE to "search" for email.
(which to my surprise, returns yahoo, gmail, wikipedia, mail.com, then hotmail)
I think the real COMPLAINT here is that Google doesn't PROMOTE their competition AHEAD of their own products. (which we all know just means "promote their competition for FREE")
Google's own reply to monopoly charges was something like: If people don’t like our search results, they're free to try Bing, Yahoo,etc., or "even Google Minus Google".
Pretty straightforward response and to the point, if you ask me. If you don't trust Google search, try other search engines. Who's stopping you? They're just one click away... and among the first - Google search - results for "search engine":
1. Wikipedia definition of Web search engine
2. Dogpile Web search
3. Bing
4. Yahoo! Search
Interestingly, Google''s own product, its Custom Search Engine, comes only in 7th position...Seems to me if I were to "abuse my position of dominance to hurt rivals", I wouldn't list my results as above.
All clearly back by microsoft... And more lawsuits to come after this quick release of our newest failure for an Operating System.
http://theworkaround.com/
I am inclinded to think that Google has is manipulating their search results but opposite from what they are assuming in the article.
Think about it this way: Googles algorithm bumps up the most popular results page rank. If people are using Google Search to find other Google products (very common, seeing as how Google Search is integrated in most browsers by default) then the PageRank for those products will be higher. One way around this (as mentioned above by someone else) is to use what is called "google minus google". Essentially when you search using Hoogle Search you append a "-google" to the end of your query. This will filter out any Google related results.
I moved away from Google a while ago, now using DuckDuckGo. Tried StartPage but it just seemed like they were trying too hard to be google, not taking their own direction.
When google bought doubleclick then admobi who was left as a major player in the online ads market? Especially since Google has a massive amount of data on you from all your searches, email, documents, and other services you may use from them or others use via them (analytics anyone?).
iAds competes, but only on iOS. Facebook has ads, but it's only on facebook. If I want to do online advertising for a widget or a branding campaign using online ads on a non-specific platform, there's pretty much google.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
That is a naive conclusion. Google's algorithm adjusts search result ranking based on popularity. If google products are popular, should google up the rankings of less popular products? ...
I see lots of microsoft bing ads on youtube and I don't like them. If I switch away from the ads and google's ranking adjusts so it doesn't show me more of them how is that google's bias?
I don't see how you can separate out the user's preference from google's bias without examining the google ranking algorithms. I could see if google's products were worse than their competitors and everyone widely hated them, that it would be odd to see them ranked higher than their competitors. But when the opposite is true, then there is no need for manipulation on google's part.
It seems the governments wants google to produce an inferior ranking system and it is most likely the government is clueless on the technology and is responding to lobbying. My tax dollars hard at work
Microsoft is evil and the government sues them. Microsoft pays their dues and the government backs off.
Google is giving citizens products that we actually want and the government sues them. They, too, will eventually pay their dues and move on.
One of the vocal complainers is a company named Nextag. I never heard of them but did a search of them from google and guess what? the result I got was "A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt"
lol, Is this real life?
...and pay off the government. The FTC and the EU are just interested in seeing if they have enough of a case to make an antitrust charge stick, so they can levy a huge fine.
Part of Google's utility is that they display information from a database they maintain. Is it easier for me, the user, if Google gives me a list of sites that show me the forecast for my area, or if they just show me the forecast directly? Is it easier if they show a list of places to eat, or a list of sites that show places to eat?
Google isn't supposed to use their web site to promote their own products?
Well shit, my own company's website does that too. I thought that was why we had the site in the first place, to be honest. Guess I'm doing it wrong.
-Lod
No one forces you to use Google, unlike Microsoft where every defauly installation of Internet Explorer has BING as the default search engine, and MS embedding msBing into Office applications ..
Bing Bar
AccountKiller
Sounds like typical status quo for this administration: punish those that succeed.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This will be the hardest case the FTC has ever attempted.
In a normal anti-trust case you have a company that has and established product with barriers to entry to the market that typically include:
1. Cost of replacement products (Microsoft is an example of this because the cost of replacement was significant to the cost of the computer).
2. Difficult interoperability (Microsoft again is a good example because the software market made it difficult if not impossible for competitors).
3. Difficult customer access (AT&T is a perfect example of this, building out a last mile telecom network is a huge undertaking, even long distance competitors couldn't access their customers without government intervention).
4. Business collusion and exclusion that prevented competition (almost every FTC case involved this because it's a necessary aspect of enforcement of the sherman-anti trust rules, in the case of MS it was contracts and such that involved the punishing and rewarding of other companies in the business that worked with the competitor).
The FTC might be able to prove that Google is putting their results at the front but they are going to have a hell of time given the facts. No one, not a single soul is forced to use google products. Not only that but the startup costs and difficulty in creating competitive products is nearly non-existent. There are dozens of competing products in almost every single category Google works in and the only reason they haven't been replaced is that they continue to innovate their core products. I really don't think they have case against Google in any of their core markets. Now I do think that what Google did with maps pro (don't jump to conclusions, if you don't know what I'm talking about don't reply) was a dirty evil act right ouf of Microsoft's play-book but I don't think outside that the government even has a case. Everyone could decide to use a different search engine, advertising, maps, calendar, email, phone (android open source doesn't require Google products) tomorrow and there is absolutely nothing stopping people from doing so other than the fact that Google generally offers the better product. With the exception of the maps pro incident Google has none of the barriers to entry that the government hung their hat on during other anti-trust cases.
Personally, I don't think the government will win and I pray Google doesn't just give in.
It's a little more actively blocked than that:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-blocks-google-chrome-extension-for-exporting-friends/1935
The value that facebook and twitter bring to the advertising table is the network graph of user relationships. They actively block Google from getting this information, and as a result, the information Google has on the network relationships from its Google+ product is better information in terms of better representing the connectivity between people, and therefore social relevance.
If Facebook and Twitter quit blocking the connectivity information, then it's likely the rankings would be Facebook -> Twitter -> Google+, when comparing those networks bulk of data.
The real issue is that they feared people taking the network information, and exporting their information to other networks; be aware that the blocking Facebook does is also effective against Twitter importing network information from Facebook as well.
If the graph data were portable, then graph data hosting would be a commodity, and the user value proposition would exist only in the ability to utilize that graph data on behalf of the user. The advertising is a value proposition for the effective use of graph data by advertisers, not the users about whom the data has been collected.
What this means in reality is that these services generally perceive themselves as having little value beyond their network connectivity graphs, and that they are strongly fighting against the commoditization of the graph data because of this.
Effectively, they are admitting that users get little value from this data from the data hosting provider, that can't just as easily be obtained elsewhere - and probably better at the elsewhere, since as long as the data is proprietary, the hosting company can concentrate on the needs of advertisers rather than users, which is where their revenue base lies.
Microsoft banned boxshifters from installing other browsers on the machine they made.
Does google ban putting competing browsers or search engines on Android?
And you can still get more "not google" products in your search. So doesn't even apply in the case of Google.
It is false to claim that an algorithm is neutral because algorithms can be discarded until a favourable algorithm is found.
It is false to claim that an algorithm is neutral because algorithms can be discarded until a favourable algorithm is found.
Assuming there's some evidence that such a selection criterion was used. And I doubt there's *that* much freedom in algorithm selection... remember that the chosen algorithm has to work for all of the rest of the cases in a fashion that's not too sub-optimal.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.