Slashdot Mirror
European Commission Reopens Google Antitrust Investigation
An anonymous reader writes:
Earlier this year, European Commission regulators finally agreed to a settlement in the organization's long-running antitrust investigation of Google's search and advertising business. Unfortunately for Google, it didn't stick. The EC said today they're reopening the investigation after a large number of "very negative" complaints about the settlement. "The key objection to the proposed settlement, which would have allowed rival services to buy spaces at the top of search results pages, was that it would not prevent Google from favoring its own services, and would divert money from the rivals to Google even if they received clickthroughs from the adverts — rather than the zero-cost solution if they were ranked highly in 'organic' search results, and Google was prevented from putting its own commercial services above those." The Commission is also looking into other parts of Google's business, including its influence over mobile devices through Android.
If Google's rivals are being unfairly treated by Google's search results, then they should make their own search engines that are fair. Yes, I understand Google has an advantage by having a head start, but that hasn't stopped for example Facebook from overthrowing MySpace for social networking. A rival company with a better idea or better results could challenge or even defeat Google without getting even more government involvement in the internet. People voluntarily choose to use Google, at least on desktops (Bing is the default) and even if you have a search engine ballot like the EU loves to do, people still would choose Google, generally. Also remember that Google's results are from an algorithm. Googles products merely get high placement because Google is the most popular website in the internet. If the people think rival search engines are better, they will use them, but right now the simple truth is Google is the best. If you hate that, then build something better, but stop trying to abuse the legal system to get what you want.
why not get it from Teh Goog!e
Give us your Geld, Amerika, or we'll gas ihre Juden. Verstanden, ja?
They will keep setting demands that are dammed if you do, damned if you don't. Then they will shift the goalposts. Google is screwed. The EU is butthurt that no European based tech company has anything even close to a viable competing product. Their old blue chip technology company, Nokia is in ruins. The EU in retribution wants a continuous supply of money from Google into their coffers. Its trade protectionism, pure and simple.
I don't really understand - it's googles product (phones, search, etc) why can't they do what they like with it? I'm sure people would go elsewhere if other products were any good?
Because it doesn't affect the person searching if Google's results don't show correctly the most popular results, it affects the company being pushed down the rankings - and the person searching is the person with decision-making power.
- Person A searches for "maps", either on the site, on the phone or on Chrome.
- Google promotes their own maps to the top regardless of whether they're the best choice, ahead of company B's solution, whether that solution is better or not.
- Person A sees that Google Maps is top and assumes they're better than company B, as you would when looking at a link in the #1 spot.
Company B's previous recourse was basically, to live with it - Google have control over the entire stack, top to bottom. Companies can't go elsewhere because Google index them, not the other way around, and Google keep how they calculate popularity hidden, so SEO for them is a combination of guesswork and research (costs which Google don't have to pay, incidentally). It's therefore up to the searchers to go elsewhere to get search results, but because Google are trusted to provide the correct answers, why would people do that? It's not the user's fault that Google dishonestly reports their results as the best even if others are better, it's Google's.
Anyway, in Europe it's against the law for Google to act in that way considering their position as provider of 66% of searches, so it was challenged. Google's solution in response to that legal action was to allow companies to pay Google to be promoted to top spot, but companies (naturally) thought that it was unfair that they would have to pay for equal consideration when Google do it to themselves for free. Now they have to come up with another idea.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
I'm curious - is there any evidence that Google does this?
Seriously, I've not been paying too much attention to the Google antitrust cases, so I've no clue whether Google is an Evil Monster (tm) or a Wronged Giant (tm)....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
so SEO for them is a combination of guesswork and research (costs which Google don't have to pay, incidentally).
Are you for real; SEO is a wankers activity that directly harms consumers. The more 'Expensive' Google make it, the better, 'cos I wont shed any tears if the whole SEO crowd end up homeless.
As for the rest of your drivel; google maps comes top of the list because it is the most popular destination for Google users. Which part of that is too hard for you to understand?
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
I access from the UK so I can't tell if they do or don't now. I know they used to, but things have changed a bit since then.
We'll have to see the results of the new investigation, I imagine.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Maps was an example rather than the only definitive place that it happens. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.
I don't have a strong opinion on SEO either way, but it's clear that companies believe it helps and are willing to invest in it, where Google doesn't need to as they control the results and the algorithm. Regardless if SEO was paid for or not, I can see why companies wouldn't consider the current situation ideal.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
...ever offering up better search results that didn't include Google results.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Which companies? As far as I can tell the only companies that are complaining about this are other search engines or other people who compete directly with google in another area (e.g. maps).
In the case of search engines if you search for "search" Google isn't even the top result (Yahoo is...), Google is third. If you search for maps Google Maps comes first (which makes sense as it is probably the one most people link to on websites), followed immediately by whereis. As far as I can tell Google isn't intentionally manipulating the results there products are just more popular so get more links and are hence ranked higher (which is fair, this is how Google ranks everything. It is their core product.)
So in this case they appear to be in the right.
null
Yes, there is evidence of this. But it may not be illegal.
Part of the reason is a network effect. As Google brings in more and more information, it gets better at sorting it and finding connections. In the above example, Google knew people were wanting to search on maps so it bought a map outfit and started pouring data in. As it gets better at integrating various sets of data, the better it gets, the more people visit it, the more money it makes, the more data it can buy, and the virtuous cycle goes forth.
Then there is bundling, where Google uses it dominate position to promote it own second rate offerings above better results, tamping down completion.
Then there is jealously and fear at having such a large and powerful corporation outside their realm.
If the money isn't flowing, then the market isn't free. Any private entreprise, be it Google are whoever, that diverts money to itself is anti-free market.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I don't have a strong opinion on SEO either way, but it's clear that companies believe it helps and are willing to invest in it
Well obviously. SEO is largely an attempt to cheat the search-engine. Of course the companies investing in it want it. That doesn't mean it's good for Google, the web, or the end-user.
Analogy: a fraudster might be willing to invest heavily in his fraud schemes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a strong opinion on it.
Regardless if SEO was paid for or not, I can see why companies wouldn't consider the current situation ideal.
I can't really think of a better way to run things. I wouldn't want Google taking secret pay-offs. I think the current tension between SEO and Google (who occasionally slam websites that play too dirty) is a good thing.
Your first example is NOT an example of Google favouring its own offering over other, better, services. You describe a case where Google makes its map service the best, and gets more hits for that reason.
Your second case is pretty much what I was asking about. Any particular examples, or is this theoretical?
And your third case is a matter of "Google is evil(tm) because they do such a good job and my third-rate service can't compete".
So, again, any actual examples of Google promoting its own, second-rate (or third- or fourth-) services above its (superior) competition?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I know of 2 cases where the EU alleged issues:
Google Maps, where Google put it's own reviews in front of other, like Yelp
In shopping results, where it put it's shopping search engine before others.
To your point, take a look at what you are saying. If Google ranks it's own services ahead of others, is it because they offer the best service? Google says yes, but then again their biased, so arguing that point is going to be futile.
A better question is if the are they optimizing their algorithms to make it look like their serveries are the best? A analogy might be Microsoft's Explorer. A big issue was not that Microsoft included Explorer in all their copies of Windows, but that Microsoft had optimized Windows so Explorer. i.e. Explorer could make special secret calls to the OS while other bowers could not. If they are that would be a big issue.
Okay, you've reached the point of reframing my original question.
I'm not actually trying to find out what my question is, since I already know that.
What I want is an ANSWER to my question.
So, let's ask again - is there any evidence that Google is adjusting its search results to favour Google's own services over superior competing services?
Yes, we know that they are physically capable of doing so. That's not the question, so don't bother to tell me that they're capable of doing so....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Here we hit the problem of trust, and they won't publish the algorithm, so we can't know either way.
The result is to fall back on the "congenial host principle": no guest in your house should receive lesser treatment than a member of your household. It is completely acceptable to treat your own household worse than the guest (smaller steak, non-silver cutlery etc) but the guest must receive good treatment.
Perhaps Google have to be unfair to themselves in order to prove that they're not being unfair to their guests -- that's the way of the world.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
The problem with that sentiment is that Google's rivals aren't other search engines. Their rivals are any business whose model Google finds favorable, then copies copies, and then promotes it using its own search engine. For example, let's say you want to fly to Toronto from NYC. If you google "nyc to toronto", one of the first and biggest search results is from Google Flights showing you a wide range of flights and prices. In this case, Google's rivals are Orbitz, Expedia, Travelocity, etc. Same thing goes for review services. No matter what one thinks of Yelp, they were one of the first few place review services around. Then Google tried to buy them and, when that failed, copied their business model and turned it into Google Places which held top place in any location search.
The EU's business model approach is a LOT like that of Tony Soprano. And they will not go away until the EU owns a large minority stake in Google.
It is a paid advertisement, followed by another paid ad for Verizonwireless app store. Organically I get the Apple iOS App store, and the next link is the OSX App store for Mavericks. SO If Google gave themselves an organic first result they'd be "Evil", and if they buy an ad to promote their own service, then they are Evil. The only way for Google to not be Evil is to completely ignore the end user and their own platform in the search.
Note when I do the same search for app store via Android, the same results are there. Considering the app store search from an Android device is significantly less likely to be concerned with the Apple App store, then you'd expect the results to promote the Play store, and they still don't./ What does Google need to do for horse shit commentators like you to be considered fair? From what I've seen they are damned for anything they do...
Because it doesn't affect the person searching if Google's results don't show correctly the most popular results, it affects the company being pushed down the rankings - and the person searching is the person with decision-making power.
Of course it affects Google and the person searching if their results aren't the most useful results. People use and used Google because it gives the most relevant results for searches in the most easily usable manner thus far. If Google put shit results in the search page, then people would immediately go elsewhere as the friction/effort has increased to get the correct results. Google's entire business model is predicated on search relevance. That is why they beat the paid model that Yahoo and everyone else were using.
Also there is no such thing as the most popular result. There never has been. The results were always from day one decided on by a Google algorithm based off ranking metrics that they defined. The same is true for Bing or any other search engine,. The results are all interpretive. That is the only way a search engine can exist. Google does not always promote their own services first. Search app store and the iOS app store is the first organic result. Bing could buy and ad and show up near the top as well, and so can Google or Verizon or Amazon...
If only they would put the bank tellers to the same scrutiny...
Alas, you're not proposing that Google be unfair to themselves, you're proposing that they be unfair to ME. And you. And all their other users.
If Google "adjusts" their algorithms to give a benefit to inferior information/products/whatever, it's the users who suffer in the end.
When I go looking online for a map, the thing I care about is that it be the best map possible, not that it is ranked higher so as to give Google's competition a bit of a boost. (Note that this is not to imply that I use Google Maps exclusively, or even mostly. Just depends on the place I'm looking at as to who has the best maps).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Great thread. You guys have done an excellent job of clarifying the issue and getting to the core questions. Much better than most /. discussion of this topic. It's almost like old slashdot.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
What I find interesting is Bing's result for that query: The top hit in the search results -- not ads -- is "Apps for Windows". #2 is the Google Play store and #3 is the Apple App Store. I get the same results when searching on from Chrome on Linux and from Safari on OS X.
It's possible that this result is an accurate reflection of what Bing users want, biased by the self-selection effect that only people who are deeply wedded to Microsoft's platforms use Bing. But it really seems like this is a case of artificial search result manipulation. Granted that Bing clearly has no monopoly position and is therefore under no obligation to play fair, it still seems unwise and wrong.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Right. Go to Google and search for the phrase "map of Europe". The first thing you will see is a link to the Google Maps map of Europe. This is integration of Google Maps with the Google Search. Google Maps isn't brought up as a standard search result, worked into the list by pagerank, it is a specific Google App being placed at the top, before your search results (which incidentally do not include Google Maps.
If I was wanting a Google map, I could have gone to Google Maps and searched for Europe, but I didn't. I went to Google's search engine and asked for a map -- they chose to promote Google Maps over worldatlas.com, mapsofworld.com, yourchildlearns.com etc etc -- all the real, algorithmic search results. That's what people are objecting to -- Google inserting their webapps into the search engine.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
And the second thing I see is a list of images for "map of europe".
And then there's Worldatlas.com, mapsofworld.com, raileurope.com, etc.
Interestingly, of those four choices, only the googlemaps version is (debatably) current. The others don't yet show the Crimean Peninsula as part of Russia, though the Googlemaps version seems to (looks like it has a border between Crimea and Ukraine). Note also that, looking at those maps of Europe and zooming in on Ukraine, the Googlemaps version shows more detail than the other maps.
Note that the raileurope.com page doesn't even show a map of Europe.
Note finally that I don't use Google to find a continental map all that often (actually, I never do - this was the first time). I'm much more likely to ask for a specific street address (or a name, like Stonehenge) than even the name of a city, much less a country, much less a continent....
All that aside, if Europe really wants Googlemaps displayed as just another search result (where it will likely be number one for the most part), I've got no problems with that. Of course, if they insist that something other than the best (read: most popular) map be shown first, I'll have issues....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You may consider it the best result, but it is not there because it is objectively the best result -- it is there because Google chose to put it there. Furthermore, it is now pretty much impossible to determine how much of Google Maps's popularity is down to being liked, and how much is down to the visibility it got from Google.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Person A sees that Google Maps is top and assumes they're better than company B, as you would when looking at a link in the #1 spot.
Do people actually do that, especially when it is visually distinctive if I remember correctly.
Google Maps isn't a good example in this case, due to Google's ever-increasingly bad UI design (sort of like slashdot beta...). With the latest round of changes to make google more smart phone friendly, google maps became more difficult to get to (scan for non-text icon, click, search for another icon in the drop-down, click), rather than just clicking the word Maps that used to be on the top bar. I now find it faster to simply type "maps", hit return, and click the first link, than to try to navigate their more difficult to use UI. For other things, such as Google Scholar, I gave up on trying to find it in the pulldown menus entirely, and have to use google to find its own service in order to use it. So, yes, if I'm using google, and I search for one of their services, then I definitely want the google service as the first link. But this is more due to my working around poor UI design than my desire to determine which Maps site is the most popular.
:)
Along similar lines, I have to use google to search for old slashdot stories, since slashdot search does, and always has, sucked. Same for many other forums. Also many other websites in general, where it can be difficult to figure out how to navigate/find the content that you want. I use google as a workaround to the failings of many other websites poor UI/search design. Google Maps is another example of this, so, at least from my perspective, it's not the best example to use to make your point
Sorry, I just felt like ranting against increasingly poor website design, and this post brought that to the surface. Not like anyone besides maybe the original author is going to read this when I'm only getting around to reading the article 2 weeks after if was posted anyways....