EU Antitrust Chief: Google "Diverting Traffic" & Will Be Forced To Change

Dupple writes "It looks like the EU is coming close to a decision regarding its investigation of Google. While saying he's 'still investigating,' the head of the European Union's antitrust regulatory body has said that he's convinced Google is 'diverting traffic' and that it will be forced to change its results. From the article: 'Despite the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's move earlier this month to let off Google with a slap on the wrist -- albeit, a change to its business practices, a move that financially wouldn't dent Google in the short term but something any company would seek to avoid -- the European Commission is looking to take a somewhat different approach: take its time, and then hit the company hard.'"

Comments

nonsensical allegations

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell do they mean by "diverting traffic", and why would it not be allowed?

What, exactly, does Google have a monopoly of, and how are they abusing monopoly power in any way?

TFA suggests they have a monopoly on "search" which is nonsensical, since there are many competitors and no barrier to entry, and they give the "product" away for free, so it would hard to claim any monopoly pricing power is even being used or existing.

A more sensible allegation would be that they have some kind of monopoly on advertising or user data collection, since that at least they charge for, except, that as far as I can tell, they don't have that either.

So, all in all, it looks like either a blatant cash grab by the EU, or a bullshit legal attack funded by the likes of Microsoft.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[hinchles]

I believe they mean stuff like putting "favoured" search results at the top in return for cash. Either their own or partner/advertiser sites

Re:nonsensical allegations

[Anonymous Coward]

So exactly what every search engine has done since the dawn of time.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[rossdee]

And The EU has no authority over what google.com does, since its not based in the EU
They have some jurisdiction over the european subsidiaries like google.fr b ut don't most searches go through google.com anyway? Except for those people who want to use a foreign language, and a lot of eurpeans are fluent in english anyway.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[sFurbo]

They do have authority over the Google offices in Europe.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[FireFury03]

What the hell do they mean by "diverting traffic", and why would it not be allowed?

It looks like they're talking about doing stuff like including results from Google Maps in your web search results (whilst not doing the same for results from Bing Maps, etc.).

What, exactly, does Google have a monopoly of, and how are they abusing monopoly power in any way?

They are the dominant search engine, and the EU appears to be deciding that they are using that dominance to help gain dominance in other markets (e.g. the aforementioned maps, amoungst others).

TFA suggests they have a monopoly on "search" which is nonsensical, since there are many competitors

They are the dominant search engine. I think you are misunderstanding antitrust legislation:
- Antitrust legislation doesn't care whether or not you have competitors, it only cares whether you are the *dominant* vendor. As a well known example, Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust violations in their operating system business, but there have always been other operating system vendors. The key was that they were the *dominant* vendor.
- Antitrust legislation doesn't say there's anything wrong with being the dominant vendor (or even the only vendor). All it says is that if you are dominating the market, you're nor allowed to use that dominance to help you gain dominance in other markets. So going back to the Microsoft example, they were dominant OS vendors, and by shipping certain freebies with the OS (e.g. a web browser) they were unfairly using their existing position to gain dominance in the browser market. Netscape, on the other hand, could never have hoped to do this since they weren't shipping anything which already dominated the market, with which to bundle their browser to compete. The EU is saying Google is using their dominance in the search engine market to push their other products in a way that is unfair to their competition.

and no barrier to entry

There's always a barrier to entry - setting up a search engine is going to involve R&D and then a hell of a lot of time and bandwidth to spider the web. However, that isn't what this is about - this isn't about Google doing anything to stop people competing in the search engine business, this is about using their existing search engine position to make it harder for people to compete in other sectors.

and they give the "product" away for free, so it would hard to claim any monopoly pricing power is even being used or existing.

No one said anything about pricing. It isn't relevant to this discussion.

So, all in all, it looks like either a blatant cash grab by the EU, or a bullshit legal attack funded by the likes of Microsoft.

Or the EU is trying to level the playing field for the smaller businesses. Whilst having everything run by a single megacorp is convenient, historically it has always been better for the consumer in the long run to have many smaller businesses offering services. The EU usually takes the attitude that a bit of short term pain (inconveniencing people by preventing the "convenient" integration of services from a single vendor) is better than the long term pain of having a single megacorp in control of huge markets and no chance for a smaller business to survive.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[sFurbo]

I think the EU could make it hard for Google to accept payment from European countries for ads shown in Europe. And if they really want to push it, forcing the EU ISPs to reroute DNS for google.com and youtube.com could be possible. But that runs the risk of enraging the population, depending on how much of a smear job against Google have been done before.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[jonbryce]

My searches go through google.co.uk. If I visit google.com, I get redirected to google.co.uk. I believe there is a way to override that, but it isn't straightforward.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[Anonymous Coward]

No Country Redirect: www.google.com/ncr

Re:nonsensical allegations

[aaron552]

IIRC, the problem is that Google's own services appear to be favoured in search rankings over competitors. I would think that this is primarily be because they're significantly more popular than the competitors, though, and not due to any bias on the part of Google.

A search for "email" on Google returns Hotmail as the first result and "web browser" gives an ad for IE, the wikipedia page for "web browser", Opera, and Firefox before Chrome appears. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly shady on there based on my rather unscientific test.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[Anonymous Coward]

But then they have to start paying taxes.... And the tax break they get laundering their money through Ireland an the Netherlands is a lot bigger than a possible fine...

Re:nonsensical allegations

[clickclickdrone]

>And The EU has no authority over what google.com does, since its not based in the EU Alas that sort of thinking doesn't stop the US trying to do the same thing and enforce its laws all over the globe.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[Genda]

I just did a search on just "Beer" and the first thing to show up was "Sam Adams", I'm guessing that right there would be enough to start a war with the German's and we all know as goes Germany so goes the EU...

Re:nonsensical allegations

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the filter bubble anyway. It shows Hotmail first for YOU. It actually shows Gmail first for me.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again I am pointing out a Troll that got moderated to +5 Insightful:

Poster said:

nonsensical allegations

Both the European Union and Google's own American Government said that they were breaking the law. I take it these super powers have lawyers, economists and stuff like that making arguments based on international law and trade agreements. NOWHERE, and I mean no where in your post do you point out what is a "nonsensical allegation". You don't cite any law, any United Nations charter, any trade agreement, you don't even cite a verse from the Bible (which I was half expecting from you).

Poster said:

What, exactly, does Google have a monopoly of, and how are they abusing monopoly power in any way?

You use the word "monopoly" throughout your post. In fact your entire post is based on YOUR claim that these unfair, greedy Europeans want to make money off of Google because it is a "monopoly". Unfortunately for people who are interested in the TRUTH, the source article by ZDnet does not mention anything about a monopoly or anti-monopoly legislation. So your whole argument is based on a lie and yet you get up-moderated to +5 (I'm hoping and expecting this will change as newer Moderators see through your Bullshit... as is often the case).

Just out of Interest the comments on ZDnet are highly biased against the EU as well. I get the feeling that most Americans feel that if some negative judgment is made against one of their Corporate status symbols, that this is somehow anti-American, and the result of people who are obviously more stupid than Americans. I will give examples:

The EC should shut up...
and follow the American leadership

and

... and Google should being immediately blocking all EU IP's from accessing their system.

and

Why is Almunia talking to the press like this ? Abuse of Power or did promises of a large amount of money loosen his lips?

and

The EU will use whatever tactics they believe will extract funds form internet companies. If they can't manage to tax them they will fine them to get the money.

  Oh yes, unfortunately I see the same type of people posting the same types of arguments on Slashdot as well. Too bad.

Unlike the parent poster (who got moderated to +5 Insightful!), I will supply you with a reference to my evidence:
http://www.zdnet.com/eu-antitrust-chief-hints-at-forced-changes-for-google-7000009665/

Re:nonsensical allegations

[theVarangian]

So? Even if they were, why is that a problem? A search engine exists for end users to find what they're looking for, not to give commercial entities some sort of equal platform for advertising. I ask a question, Google tells me what it thinks the best answer is. What does the EU want? The ability to vet Googles' search algorithms?

What does the EU want? It wants Google, a company that has a monopoly on the search engine market, to stop abusing it's dominant positon which it is allegedly now using to try and kill off competitors by wilfully burying results that link to their (competing) services. I don't think the EU gives a rat's ass about what is in Google's blackbox as long as you can put in your search term and get output int the form of fair and balanced search results. I watched a documentary yesterday where an industry observer described Google as an 'adolescent' and postulated that we have not yet seen the real giant that Google will become. Now if somebody had taught Microsoft some manners back when it was still a teenager perhaps we would have been spared a whole lot of pain over the years. Microsoft was only taught a modicum of manners (by the EU) when it was far too late but perhaps we can avoid the mistakes we made with MS by teaching Google to behave before it is once again too late and the damage is done.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[FireFury03]

It looks like they're talking about doing stuff like including results from Google Maps in your web search results (whilst not doing the same for results from Bing Maps, etc.).

This is not an antitrust violation. It's normal business practice for every search engine.

Firstly I'm not saying it is an antitrust violation (IANAL and don't have any particularly strong opinions either way anyway), I'm just explaining what the EU appears to be saying.

However, I'm not convinced that you can say its completely innocent behaviour either. A search engine is supposed to find the most relevant results for what a user is searching for. Google is intentionally adding in results relating only to their own services, even though similar services exist from other companies. Using the maps example, if I search for a business then I'll get:
1. that business's home page on the web
2. people talking about that business on the web
3. a link to google maps showing me where the business is
In the case of (3), Google has intentionally included a link to a relevant page on a separate service that they also own. They haven't provided a similar link to other map services, such as Bing, Openstreetmap, etc. Whether this is right or wrong is debatable, but it is clear that they are using their search engine to promote their own maps service over their competitors', and this search result appears amoungst all the normal results, not as a "paid advertisement" (which is what happens to all the other artificially promoted responses).

And yes, you can say that other search engines do the same, but the point is that other search engines aren't in the same dominant position and therefore antitrust legislation doesn't apply to them. This is the same as pointing at things Microsoft isn't allowed to do and saying "well Apple/Ubuntu/Fedora does them" - dominant companies have to play by different rules to everyone else in order to keep the playing field more level.

You're misusing the Microsoft example. Microsoft wasn't just the dominant vendor, they were actively engaged in anti-competitive practices. At the time they got slapped with antitrust fines you could not buy a computer without windows. It wasn't possible. Any computer you purchased from a store came with their system preinstalled.

This is untrue. You have *always* been able to buy computers without Windows. There have been several antitrust cases against Microsoft; the one you seem to be referring to was where MS were pressuring OEMs to only supply machines preinstalled with windows by offering them substantial discounts for doing so. There were ways the vendors used to get around this, and so you could still buy machines without Windows, but it was more difficult to do so than it should have been.

More recently, there was an antitrust case against Microsoft because they shipped IE with the OS by default, in a way that prevented the OEMs from removing it and replacing it with a competing browser. The EU decided that this was unfair since MS were using their dominant position in the OS market to push their browser in detriment to other browser vendors. This is very similar to what the EU is suggesting that google is doing - using their dominance in the search engine market to bundle other products at the detriment to their competitors.

This is quite the opposite from someone firing up their computer and oh look Internet Explorer is the default browser and Bing is the default search engine and the end user is forced to make an informed choice.

In your example, someone made a choice to buy a Windows machine and found that IE and Bing were bundled by defaults. So long as they stick with Windows, they have to go out of their way to use a different vendor's browser or search engine.

Similarly, someone made a choice to use Google and found that Google Maps, etc. were bundled into the search results by defau

Re:nonsensical allegations

[LordLucless]

An unfair and unbalanced search result is one where Google is modifying search results to assure that it's services are hight on the results list but those of competirors are buried on page 8. If Google is doing that they are engaging in anti-competitive behaviour because they are conciously trying to drive comptetitors out of business like Microsoft did with Netscape.

So what you're saying is, if Google is just using an algorithmic search method, and it happens to select their own sites because they are popular in their own right and legitimate results, they're not doing anything wrong?

Is there any evidence of this not being the case? email, , maps, videos, calendar, search - all of these have competitors on the first page, and half of them have the non-Google service as the first result.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think this would have been a problem if it would have been clear to the end user that the top results is payed for rather than being "most relevant" to their search.

You mean if they'd put a different coloured background under the sponsored results and adding the text "Ads for [foo]"?

Re:nonsensical allegations

[Nerdfest]

Google's own American Government said that they were breaking the law.

Actually, I don't believe they did. The FTC were looking into whether they were or not, apparently due to heavy lobbying from Microsoft. I was under the impression that Google voluntarily changed a couple of practices and the probe was dropped.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[ConfusedVorlon]

the argument is that google has a monopoly on search and they are using that to lock other people out of other online businesses. (or at least to unfairly disadvantage them)

Expedia are one of the companies that complained.

Imagine that every time you searched for a flight on google, all Expedia results were completely ignored, and Google simply showed at the top of the page in a big box, the results from their recently acquired travel company.

It's pretty clear that in this case, they'd be abusing their dominance in search to push their travel company.

The allegation is that to a lesser degree, they are doing exactly this with Maps, Shopping, Travel (possibly others). Not excluding competitor results, but giving their own results unfair prominence.

It seems like a reasonable complaint if true. The 'if' is important.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[FireFury03]

Sponsored results are usually marked as being separate from the "real" results of the search query, at least in my experience. Google used to but changed that at some point so it's hard to tell the difference.

I think the issue here isn't the "sponsored results" (which are marked as such) but the results that are pulled from google's other services and therefore artificially promoted over similar services run by other companies without being marked as such.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[FireFury03]

So what you're saying is, if Google is just using an algorithmic search method, and it happens to select their own sites because they are popular in their own right and legitimate results, they're not doing anything wrong?

No. If you go to google's web search and you search for a local business, amoungst all the search results, fairly near the top, it will give you a link to Google Maps showing you where that business is. It won't give you a link to bing maps, openstreetmap, etc. This isn't because google maps is more popular, its because google integrate their own mapping product with their search engine but don't integrate competing products with it. Google *could* provide an API to allow other services to integrate, but they don't.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[bhagwad]

This is a self correcting situation.

1. People use Google because they think it gives the best results
2. If Google promotes its own products, it either makes their results better or worse
3. If it makes their results better, no one complains
4. If it makes their results worse, customers shift to another search engine (no barrier or lock in remember)

What exactly is the problem here?

Re:nonsensical allegations

[FireFury03]

So the lesson here is that if you build a business, develop something that's really awesome and becomes the go-to choice for nearly everyone on the planet, your reward is to be considered a monopoly and regulated as a utility?

Your reward is that you have a business that is worth billions. There is a very minor penalty that you have to adhere to slightly stricter regulations as a result. Its good for the consumer for the dominant company to have to work at staying dominant rather than sit back and stagnate since no one can compete.

There are always penalties associated with being successful, but the success generally outweighs the penalties. Or are you going to complain that successful high-profit companies shouldn't have to pay more tax than low-profit businesses because that would be a penalty on their success?

Re:nonsensical allegations

[FireFury03]

But what Google is doing is no different than what other search engines are doing. If I search for "Starbucks" on Bing, I get the web results I'd expect. I also get a Bing Map for Starbucks in the area. I also get Bing News results for articles about Starbucks.

Yes, and the point of antitrust legislation is that if you get big enough to unfairly distort markets then you have to play by different rules to ensure you don't distort the markets. Google is far more dominant than Bing, so they get hit with the antitrust stick for their troubles. Guess what? Apple gets away with stuff MS could only dream of because they aren't the dominant player.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[MacGyver2210]

I don't know about other languages and countries, but in the US we have this little "Sponsored Results" label. Barring some large shift in English vocabulary, "Sponsored" is quite equivalent to "Bought and Paid For".

It also hasn't been illegal to have paid-for results top your search: as a search engine their algorithm and results sorting, etc, are all proprietary. They can keep them as black-box as they like, and as long as the product functions as they want it to, they aren't doing anything wrong. It is THEIR BUSINESS, and is not up for some money-grubbing politicians to cry foul about ad revenue 10 years after the fact.

So sick of software patents, EU regulation nonsense, China vs Japan, Fiscal Cliffs, Republicans, China vs US, all this crap. Someone start a war against aliens or robots or something, so we can act like one large compassionate human population for a change. It works in the movies....aww, who am I kidding.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[MacGyver2210]

If I wanted to search Google Maps, I'd go to Google Maps, but for the generalised search function I want relevant results from *anywhere*.

Fine, but when you go to GOOGLE and search for MAPS...don't piss and moan when the first result that comes up is Google Maps. Not only are they the most popular mapping service by a mile, but it is owned and promoted by GOOGLE...the search engine you are using at the time. Of course Google is going to put a little map in your results and say "Hey, we've got this map service...".

Don't be surprised when you have to scroll a bit down to find Mapquest or other 4th- or 5th-ranked map providers: if you want a different, less-popular map provider, search by name. Better yet, stop using Google as your address bar like my grandmother, and type the address in the correct place at the top of the browser window.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[FireFury03]

Fine, but when you go to GOOGLE and search for MAPS...don't piss and moan when the first result that comes up is Google Maps. Not only are they the most popular mapping service by a mile, but it is owned and promoted by GOOGLE...the search engine you are using at the time. Of course Google is going to put a little map in your results and say "Hey, we've got this map service...".

When you go to WINDOWS and open the BROWSER...don't piss and moan when it starts IE. Not only is it the most popular web browser by a mile, but it is owned and promoted by MICROSOFT...the operating system you are using at the time.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[MacGyver2210]

That's like saying "When I go to Mapquest and type an address, why doesn't Google Maps come up?"

You are going to a company's website. Why would you expect them to offer other companies' services through their own site? If not for actually hindering their own advertising/promotion/business model, it also brings up copyright issues, where if Google is just serving up Bing maps and results without any attribution(free advertising for competitors) they can get in trouble for plagiarism, fraud, and far worse things than this retarded EU commission seems to think they do.

Don't be a complete retard like these EU folks: If you want Mapquest, go to Mapquest. If you want Bing, go to Bing. If you want Google, go to Google. If you can't understand this, stay the fuck off the internet.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[squiggleslash]

This is nothing like what Microsoft did with Netscape. Microsoft bundled IE, a system that competes with Netscape, with Windows. They did nothing in doing so that harmed the utility and usefulness of Windows to an extent that it would drive people away from Windows, indeed, they made it more useful.

If it were true (and it clearly isn't, it's an all-out lie that's disprovable simply by using the search engine) that Google was burying search results for competing products in their search engine such that they're hard to find, then it would harm the search engine's utility as a result. Google's marketshare for some of these supposedly promoted products might increase, but the number of people using Google would decrease as it would be harder to find the information Google users are looking for.

There are rival search engines, most of which are excellent. Bing's major problem is that everyone knows its from Microsoft, which makes it "uncool", it's a search engine that's at least as good as Google's in practice. It's well advertised and people can and would move to it if Google's search was crippled in the way the EU (and Slashdot's legion of Facebook/Apple shills) is/are claiming.

The same was not true for Windows, where getting out of Windows meant locking yourself out of the infrastructure that most of the world was using, preventing access to content and communications with most entities you would interact with to live your life. Even for the tiny minority that were impacted negatively by Microsoft's decision to bundle IE (again, for most Windows users having a browser pre-installed was a net positive even if you and I roll our eyes about IE's poor security at that time), picking an alternative was not an option.

The situations are completely unlike one another. Google's search engine is harmed by doing anything remotely resembling what the EU claims, Windows was not harmed by bundling IE. And people can switch from Google easily and quickly. In the late 1990s, Windows users couldn't switch from Windows without severe consequences.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[FireFury03]

That's like saying "When I go to Mapquest and type an address, why doesn't Google Maps come up?"

Last I checked, Mapquest wasn't a web search engine. If I go to mapquest, I expect it to give me results from mapquest, if I go to google maps I expect it to give me results from google maps, and if I go to google web search I expect it to give me results from *the web*, not results from google's random other products promoted above everything else.

Why would you expect them to offer other companies' services through their own site?

Because thats what web search engines do - they search the web (i.e. other companies services). The problem isn't that Google is offering links to their own services, it is that they are artificially placing them towards the top of the results based purely on the fact that they are Google products.

Its basically product bundling - they have a popular product (web search) and are leveraging it to make their other products more popular. That's fine until the product you are leveraging becomes dominant in its market, then you have to comply with antitrust legislation to prevent you using that position to muscle your way into other markets.

it also brings up copyright issues, where if Google is just serving up Bing maps and results without any attribution(free advertising for competitors) they can get in trouble for plagiarism, fraud, and far worse things than this retarded EU commission seems to think they do.

If they were so scared of copyright, plagiarism, fraud, they wouldn't offer a web search either. Time and time again its been shown that offering a service to search other people's data is legal (especially if you give them a way to stop you doing it).

Don't be a complete retard like these EU folks: If you want Mapquest, go to Mapquest. If you want Bing, go to Bing. If you want Google, go to Google. If you can't understand this, stay the fuck off the internet.

Not once have I said that what Google do is wrong, I'm simply explaining why the EU has a problem with it. I can certainly see the EU's point, but I have no strong opinions on it either way. I do, strongly, disagree with the the idea that the EU are "retards" though - the EU have laws and it is up to Google to comply with them if they want to do business in the EU. A government is not "retarded" for investigating a company operating in the local economy for a possible breach of local laws.

As for what I *personally* want:
1. I want a web search engine to give me *the most relevant* results for what I'm searching for. For me, "the most relevant" isn't the same as "is another property of the company that runs the search engine". This isn't some entitlement thing - I don't believe I'm entitled to that, and I don't believe (in the general case) governments should legislate for vendors to provide that service. It's just what I, as a consumer, would like.
2. I want a competitive market across the board. Products should be competing on their their own merit, not just succeeding because they're being pushed by a big popular brand. This is something I believe should be regulated in order to prevent a megacorp from cornering markets and pushing out other businesses. I don't know whether Google has crossed the line - I have no particularly strong opinions on it at the moment, but I do see why the EU are investigating and I support the investigation of this sort of thing (note: investigation is not the same as enforcement - just because you're investigating a company doesn't mean they've actually done something wrong and need to be punished, it just means you're keeping an eye on them and are ready to act in case they do cross the line).

Re:nonsensical allegations

[greg1104]

Google shelters enormous amounts of their profits through Ireland and the Netherlands. Since they're evading taxes using EU countries, they can't claim they're not bound by the rules of the EU.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[hexagonc]

There is no generic "browser" request on Windows. You click on the icon (or nowadays, live tile) for the browser you want and it opens. If I clicked on the Firefox icon and IE started up then I would be right to piss and moan. If Windows could understand speech commands and I said "open browser", I wouldn't be too surprised if IE came up and there wouldn't much to complain about. Since the command was ambiguous anyway, I wouldn't be surprised for them to promote their own browser, all things being equal.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[Aighearach]

The MS browser war monopoly stuff wasn't about MS setting their own defaults, of course they do. It was about them using their power of contracts and their monopoloy position to force other companies to give preferred positioning to IE and not to remove it or replace it with another option.

Notice the difference here, Google is not accused of even trying to compel anyone to do anything, nor of interfering with any other business. They're accused of putting a map widget from Google Maps next to a search result when it thinks you're searching for a location. It does NOT, for example, distort searches *for maps* to hide or reduce other map services. This is about Google being able to use their own service to promote their own product, which apparently MS has convinced somebody in the EU is illegal.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[mjr167]

Some questions only have one "relevant" answer because they are not subjective. If you type 5 + 5 into google, it will tell you "5 + 5 = 10". It does not suggest that I go and use the windows calculator or ask bing. It just answers my question. Same thing if I ask it for a location. It just answers the question. If google's answers started telling us to go drive 30 miles into the Australian outback, people would stop asking it those questions and would instead ask bing.

Re:nonsensical allegations

[hawkingradiation]

So, where does Google state that all of its results are algorithmically generated? Obviously they are not because sometimes when I go to google.com on a non-Chrome browser, I get a link advertising "download Chrome" which is there because google wants it to be there. Did you sign an agreement with Google that states that "all results we will provide to you on the condition that they are algorithmically generated". Quit your whining and accept the fact that it is Google's search engine, and they can put whatever links they want. If they are putting pay-per-link links, then they will be damaging there own product, then people can go and use something else. When you assume you make an ass out of u and me.

Re:No google for u!

[FireFury03]

The EU apparently don't need the internet.

Yes, because the Internet doesn't exist without Google... </sarcasm>

I'm regreting the death of other search engines

[Grayhand]

I'm into Heirloom fruit and vegetable seeds. After the first of the year I noticed a shocking change in search results. Most heirloom seed companies will give you a list of a list of one to four dozen results for things like bean seeds, Some sites are two to four times that. Some heirloom seed companies are over a hundred years old and most are over a decade old. These are people that grow their own seed and know the subject. Since the first of the year I find the first few pages of search results are what I call scam sites. These are businesses that buy in bulk and sell to yuppies. A year ago the first two pages were virtually all legit sources with maybe one company that bulk sells in the results. Companies that had been in business since the 1800s were showing up on page two or three of the search results. Basically the scam sites were paying a bundle to show up on the first few pages in the search results. I panicked and emailed myself my bookmarks so I could find my favorite websites no matter what happened. Heirloom seeds have become a profitable business so only the ones willing and able to pay the Google search tax even show up on the search results. You may have had a million web hits last year but this year you are five pages in because some start up paid Google to front their site. As a Google user I'm furious and considering any and all options but most of the sheep will simply use the sites willing to pay the blood money to Google. The web is rapidly becoming a place where corporate scam sites are the norm and anyone expecting more is a fool! Just sad to see search engines reduced to advertising and little more.

Re:I'm regreting the death of other search engines

[phantomfive]

This isn't a problem of paid search results, Google doesn't do that.

The problem you are describing is a direct result of the rise of SEO, and it's a darn shame. But it happens with all search engines.

Serious?

[Aeros]

These are just two guys running a simple home grown search engine in their dorm room in college. Give these poor guys a break. Freakin' EU!

Occam's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternatively, those 'scam' sites may do what they do- a great deal of search engine optimization. It was merely a niche market that isn't re-spidered and indexed very often and it's turn came up at the first of the year, no doubt along with many other niche search terms. The index was updated and tada! now all those old, reputable, and not very SEO savvy businesses get to go for a swim in the search results while the modernized middlemen rise to the top.

Re:Thanks Government

[Anonymous Coward]

I have 8 (!) Internet access providers where I live, all of whom provide cheap uncapped bandwidth.

Not one of my friends in the US has more than 3 and none of the ones I talk to on a regular basis has access to cheap uncapped bandwidth.

I can buy any mobile handset and use with any carrier. I buy a "Samsung" or a "Nokia" not a "T-mobile" handset.

The reason we have this freedom is because we take free markets a bit more seriously than you colonials do and we actually enforce the freedom of the market, something a free market is incapable of doing itself (although it does a number of other things very well).

Free markets are not free by virtue of design. They are kept free by regulation.

Re:No google for u!

[Thantik]

The internet still exists, it's just awfully hard to find.

Google should start supporting web search again

[kasperd]

Web search was Google's primary business, which is why they stopped doing it. Sounds strange? Nevertheless that is roughly what happened.

Initially there was google.com, and it was a web search engine. Later Google started introducing other kinds of searches, which would be hosted on subpages/subdomains of google.com. Since web search was the primary business, it remained on the front page.

At some point Google thought it would be good for the users if they could type in their search query in one place and get merged results from all of the different kinds of search, which Google is offering. That was introduced a few years ago, and it was considered such a great idea, that it would go on the front page, displacing the web search.

All the other kinds of search still had their own URLs, on which the individual kind of search could be used. But Google websearch never had such a page in the first place, because it had been on the front page. So now Google is no longer offering websearch alone.

Google should reintroduce the websearch on a subdomain like web.google.com or similar. And it should also introduce a subdomain for the merged search like everything.google.com (or something shorter). Having those existing as separate pages allowing you to search them separately is both a service to the users, who sometimes want to search specific kind of content, and also clears up some of the confusion leading to stories like this one.

Once those two kind of searches each have their own page, the remaining question is which of them users should see when they just go to google.com. At that point authorities will sound even more stupid, once they come and say, you are not allowed to show all search results from the front page, only web search. But it would be less of a problem for Google to comply, because even if it does comply, the search page with all results, which users prefer, will still exist on a slightly longer URL.

While they are at it. I think they should also introduce ads.google.com or something like that, where you can go if you specifically want to search in ads. Payment rules should be slightly different for such a page. A larger percentage of users are likely to click on an ad on such a page, and the price per click should be adjusted down accordingly. Additionally those are users who want to see the ads, and thus should be shown any appropriate ads, even if the advertiser is out of budget.

Re:Google should start supporting web search again

[swillden]

Web search was what they did for a while.

The goal always has been, and will be, showing ads and getting companies to pay them to show ads.

Everything else follows from that. The search is not the product, the eyeball using the search is.

This is actually precisely backwards from how Google employees and the company leadership -- all the way up to the CEO -- see it.

Google started as an idea for searching the web, implemented on donated and scrounged hardware in a dorm room and using the university's Internet connection. Eventually traffic rose to a point where it was causing problems for Stanford, so it had to move out, which meant it had to find a way to fund itself. The founders were opposed to using advertising as the revenue source, but couldn't find anything else workable. Even then they didn't find advertising acceptable until they realized that advertising can be useful to the user, if it's relevant and not obnoxious.

That attitude is still what drives Google. The goal is all of the products that users use. When new ideas come up, the first question is whether or not it's cool and will improve peoples' lives. Whether or not there's a way to monetize it comes up much later. Of course, if there isn't a way for it to be profitable Google probably won't do it, because the bills have to be paid, but generally any product that's sufficiently useful to a sufficiently large number of people will have some way of paying for itself and generating a profit. Advertising is a monetization approach that works for many products, doesn't create a large barrier to usage, and often creates revenues that grow naturally alongside usage (and therefore cost), so it's widely used.

The point, though, is that products are the goal, and advertising is (usually) the means.

(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not as a spokesperson. The above reflects my view of the company's motivations from my perspective inside the company, but is not any sort of an official position.)

Re:Google should start supporting web search again

[tlhIngan]

Even then they didn't find advertising acceptable until they realized that advertising can be useful to the user, if it's relevant and not obnoxious.

... not anymore. You do realize that Google owns most of the advertising market on the Web, and not just through Google AdSense, but through ownership of such fine ad purveyors like DoubleClick, too right? And DoubleClick is well known for their obnoxious ads.

And there are more ad companies Google owns -so while Google AdSense may be least obnoxious of them all, Google effectively makes money on obnoxious ones as well - companies well known for blinky/flashy/popunder/popups/noisy ads. Of course, they don't do business as Google, and Google branding is kept away from them for obvious reasons, but still owned by Google.

Re:No google for u!

[FireFury03]

The internet still exists, it's just awfully hard to find.

I know this might be hard to believe, but Google isn't the only search engine...

Re:No google for u!

[TheRaven64]

I've been using DuckDuckGo as my primary search engine for about 18 months. If it can't find what I need, I try Google. In the last year, Google has only once found something that DDG didn't find. If Google decided to pull out of the EU, I think it would hurt them a lot more than it would hurt us...

I did test your keywords and they give google 1st

[aepervius]

email in google :

https://www.google.de/search?q=email&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

first result :
Gmail: Email from Google
mail.google.com/ - Cached
10+ GB of storage, less spam, and mobile access. Gmail is email that's intuitive, efficient, and useful. And maybe even fun. âZGmail - âZSign up - âZWelcome to Gmail - âZMobile
second link: Email - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

definitively an ads for google email

web browser give me wiki first , opera second chrome 3rd. then a shitload of web laden site like cnet, then at the second page firefox. How comes the popular browser is so far behind ?

maps google maps appear first twice wiki third only :
Google Maps maps.google.de/ - Cached - Similar Karten anzeigen und lokale Firmen im Internet suchen. Google Maps maps.google.com/ - Cached - Similar Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps. âZStreet View - âZMaps for mobile - âZGoogle Maps API - âZMaps Help Map - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I call that preferential treatment.

Keep on dreaming

[dutchwhizzman]

Google has a profile on you and they have your android device(s) and your home ISP perfectly matched up to that. Even if you don't own android and don't have a google account, they have a "virtual profile" on you. Not only that, but even if you never use google services even as an anonymous user, they probably have your home address and telephone number in their database, including an IP address for your home computer. Yes, thank the people you gave that information to that put it in their android device, which get synced, how conveniently, to Google's cloud.

Google may not be actively telling that they have this information nicely catalogued available to themselves. They may not even have all their internal applications linked exactly this way, but we all know it would be trivial for them to come up with the queries to produce the information I just described. Once there's profit in doing so, they most certainly will do it in a heartbeat. Since several large companies (the "Target knows you're pregnant" article comes to mind) have already admitted they profile their customers/users this way, it'd be very unrealistic for Google not to do this. If even a grocery store can make money on this, a company that makes their money on selling user demographics would most certainly profit from virtual profiles and linking based on probability.

Ordering a Big Mac at Burger King?

[louic]

If I go to Burger King, should I complain that they don't have a Big Mac on the menu? When I go to Google, I go there because I WANT a Google Maps result!

Re:No google for u!

[sacrilicious]

Not according to DuckDuckGo itself. If you have citations to offer, I'd be curious to see them.

Re:No google for u!

[sacrilicious]

ixquick is also excellent, and very privacy minded.

Re:No google for u!

[Bengie]

Too bad DDG doesn't track me like Google does. I get much better results from Google because it tracks me and integrates into gmail and G+. I don't see it as much as a privacy concern as much as I do an optimization. Data collected from tracking is highly relevant to my search results.

Re:I did test your keywords and they give google 1

[CrimsonAvenger]

email in google :

And when I did a similar search, Yahoo's email came out on top. Gmail came in second. Wikipedia's article on email came in third.

No, I don't use Yahoo's email.

Nor do I use gmail.

Nor have I ever used either, for anything...

On the other hand, I do use wikipedia to look things up from time to time, so Google is OBVIOUSLY being paid by wikipedia to pad the results in their favour

Re:Nuts

[FireFury03]

That's because people like google maps. And they don't like bing maps, etc.

Do they? Personally, so long as I get the most relevant results to my query, I don't care where it comes from.

how do you tell a successful product from wanton abuse of the search system? That's that point. In my opinion, google maps is way better then bing maps, and integration into the search system is part of the search system. I'd expect Bing to do the same -- to add value to their services..

Well yes, that's the problem - it's a fuzzy line. Thats why the EU are *investigating* rather than just slapping them with a fine - its not clear cut and needs due consideration from the governing body, and negotiation with Google to come to a mutually satisfactory answer.

You can take the "how much integration is too much" to the extremes. Lets take an operating system vendor, for example: Is integrating a web browser into the OS "too much"? What about integrating anti-virus software and a firewall? What about integrating a top of the line word processor? How about integrating a professional quality photo editor? You can keep going and going - in the case of relatively small-time OS vendors, bundling all this stuff together is fine (indeed, most Linux distros do exactly this). On the other hand, if a company such as Microsoft started doing this, many would argue that they had completely crossed the line because they would have put a whole load of vendors out of business in one go purely because they are able to leverage their dominance in the OS market in order to encroach on all of these other markets.

Integration is good in the short term in terms of the user interface; but putting everyone out of business and ending up with a single megacorp in control of everything is very very bad in the long term. Historically the EU have shown that they are happy to create short term pain in order to protect the consumer in the long term.

And you know this because it sounds like a neat argument? Go learn something about what your talking about and get back to me.

Would you like to calmly explain what was wrong with my comment rather than just making vague attacks against me because I happen to have a world view that doesn't entirely line up with yours?

All search engines distort

[DragonWriter]

However this "optimization" can also lead to shallow, distorted view of what information you have immediate access to when searching. I can't believe you trust a public corporation to create that bubble around you.

Any time you use any search engine, you are trusting a -- probably largely anonymous to you, whether or not its a public corporation -- outside party to populate an immediate-access bubble for you. The fact that the engine supplier doesn't use information about you doesn't stop it from being a shallow and distorted bubble, it just makes it less likely that the distortion aligns with your preferences.

Guilty until your rivals are "convinced" otherwise

[miltonw]

A response from the commissioner is understood to be imminent, after Almunia's office told Google in mid-December that it must convince its rivals that it competes fairly in the web search market or else it could - within months - face sanctions for alleged "abuse of dominance".

I found this statement very strange. Especially in light of the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". Apparently, the EU doesn't have to prove Google broke the law. Even stranger, the EU is not asking Google to prove that they didn't break the law.

No, it seems to be much worse. Google must "convince its rivals that it competes fairly" or face sanctions that its rivals desperately want.

It just boggles the mind.

Any Resemblance

[TechyImmigrant]

Any resemblance between the actions of the European Commission and due process is entire coincidental.

The European Commission gets to act as investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, with no oversight.
It's then left to the courts to clean up, years after the self serving commissioner has moved on from his or her round robin appointment at the commission.
 

Re:No google for u!

[DaFallus]

I hear a lot of praise about DuckDuckGo here on Slashdot. I had Linux Mint installed on one of my laptops. The version of Firefox that comes with Mint hits DuckDuckGo if you use the URL bar to enter search queries. I fucking hated it. DuckDuckGo easily took at least 10 times longer than Google to return results for me. Even if DuckDuckGo gave you absolutely perfect results (which from my experience is no more accurate than Google), I could search Google enough times to find the answer I'm looking for before DuckDuckGo ever responds. I'll stick with Google since their engine returns accurate results quickly.

Re:Guilty until your rivals are "convinced" otherw

[miltonw]

Google: "Gee Microsoft, what would it take to convince you that we compete fairly?"
Microsoft: "Die! Google! Die!"
EU: "You didn't 'play fair' and die, Google, it looks like we'll have to sanction you."

Envy

[argStyopa]

"...There are always penalties associated with being successful..."
And the fact that you believe this is pretty damn sad.

In my view, that's naked envy.

It's a fairly clean identifier, I'd guess, of which side of the political spectrum you belong on: "Should there be a penalty for success?"

Honestly, that concept is fundamentally reprehensible. Next time my kid wins a game of checkers, I should slap him? Or maybe just make him do the dishes? Or sit in an uncomfortable chair to teach him that "...There are always penalties associated with being successful.."?

Wow.