Wait, Can Anyone Explain Why Google Should Promote Other Search Engines?
from the i'm-confused dept
As the EU continues to use its Tim Wu-sian definition of monopoly where "being successful" equals "monopoly," it is has taken the step that everyone expected and has begun investigating Google for supposedly anti-competitive practices with regards to "competing search engines" such as Foundem. Foundem has been on this kick for a while. It has a crappy search engine that sucks and then it complains that Google doesn't link highly enough to them. The whole thing almost feels like it was set up purposely to have an excuse to go after Google.As per usual, the absolute best response to this investigation comes from Danny Sullivan, who satirically notes that when he searches Google, obviously it had better link to other search engines as the top results:
I did a search at Google today for "cars" and was shocked. Rather than list links allowing me to search for "cars" on Bing, Yahoo, Baidu, Voila, Naver and Yandex, Google instead favored its own search results. I’m glad the EU will be investigating whether this favoritism violates anti-trust laws.He goes on from there. It's worth reading the entire piece, because at the end he dismantles the entire argument of Foundem and the EU. It simply makes no sense. The whole thing is based on a basic fallacy that some companies who failed to actually get the market to come to them somehow think Google owes them traffic. Here's a tip: if your business model depends on getting traffic from Google, you are making a poor strategic decision.
And this is more true today than ever before. It wasn't that long ago that the vast majority of our referral traffic came from Google (the majority of our overall traffic comes from direct access/RSS readers). These days, however, while Google is still high up there, there's a wide mix of alternative sources that bring us traffic: StumbleUpon, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and a variety of other sources. Most of these aren't search engines -- but they are massive traffic generators, showing that people find stuff via social means at an increasing rate, and the idea that any business is totally reliant on one company, Google, to survive, simply suggests a poor business strategy. Regulators should never reward poor business strategies, but that appears to be what they're looking to do over in the EU.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, europe, search, search results
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Thing is that search will eventually evolve beyond the ranking of blue links and become even more personalized, so are they going to force Google to stop innovating and just pump traffic to useless link farms?!
What do you think the EU will do, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the Google account options, include a box to allow you to select which shopping search engine, which image search, video, etc. This way if someone wants to use Bing Image Search when they actually do the search from Google they can.
Of course you have to have a Google account and be logged in for this to work and Google needs to set defaults for people who can't be bothered to choose and who could blame Google for making the default selection their own search results.
Then Google can say that listened to the concerns and there is a way other search engine's fans to optimize their experience using Google. Plus Google will get good PR for being as user friendly as it can be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is not like Google have shown clear signs of abuse or anything like Microsoft did but in politics who cares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except when google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
from the "google is god" Dept..
It is not like Google have shown clear signs of abuse or anything like Microsoft did but in politics who cares
You forget China ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the "google is god" Dept..
Windows doesn't have to provide an install package for Linux. They just can't force IE to be "The one and only browser".
Granted, I thought the whole anti-trust thing was stupid, especially since Firefox and Safari were already gaining ground, but yes, semantics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: from the "google is god" Dept..
I dont agree either google or MS should have to promote similar services from other providers.
they need to, as you said. make their gains on their own merits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the "google is god" Dept..
Who are you and what did you do to darryl our beloved troll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other side, I think it could be beneficial to do it. Take for instance DuckDuckGo, being interconnected is its strength.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
windows come installed on every computer expect over price apple
does the barer of entry to other search engines impassable to the computer illiterate/ non-apple people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that would just piss me off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: search results
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Investigating complaints made is not the same as having actually judged Google of any wrongdoing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search engines
There's no question, Google has done search well. I expect they'll start to see much more of the same treatment Microsoft got, until Microsoft decreased in relevancy.
Google has way more upside potential though, but they're not infallible. One wouldn't expect access to other search engines through Google, but Foundem isn't really a search engine, per se. It looks more like a kind of shopping comparison/affiliate marketing site.
I have often lamented the lack of competition to Google. Bing will, hopefully, begin to eat into Google's market share, but I am pinning my hopes on something like blekko.com.
It would be nice to see three strong contenders out there in search, but the tough part is to get people to use them. I still don't see much search traffic outside of Google with most sites I manage.
That always makes me nervous relying on them for pay per click ad traffic as well as organic search traffic. Thus the importance of social media to help diversify your traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure, but wait.. YES... !!! I agree with you on this one.. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its not that I love Google
And just because I dont use or personally like google, I also believe they have every right to compete on the open market in a fair manner.
Google is a content based advertising company, if their marginal costs become higher (EU fines), then the only people who will lose out are all the consumers where google is the primary search tool.
They have to charge more for advertising, so you pay more for everything you buy. You are allready paying for google, so any damage to them, is damage to you..
They should be allowed to trade in an open market without externalities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Success vs. monopoly
1. Market dominance (e.g. Google)
2. Dominant market CONTROL (e.g. Microsoft)
3. ABUSE of that dominant control (i.e. anti-trust issues)
So, in my opinion, Google is not a monopoly (though any size company can still act anti-competitively in an illegal manner). Microsoft is a monopoly (more or less), but that doesn't matter until they abuse that position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The complaint to the EU is by 2 Microsoft subsiduaries (fouddem and ciao). OK there is an independent in there but I still see it as nothing more than Microsoft gaming the EU competition system having found how powerful the EU can be in regulating the European Trading Area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, unfortunately most of what you've said here is pointless!
Worryingly Danny has made the same mistake - and gone off on a rant that has no relevance to the issues!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google or Microsoft neither are even close to monopolies
You can use alternative search instead of google, you can search for information even without a computer, and without google. Just as you can get software and hardware from multiple sources.
That is not to say that some companies do far better than others, thats to be expected, they get the formula right and they become big, especially if they keep the formula right.
Being the most popular does not mean you have a monopoly (I should know, im very popular :)). It just means you are good at what you do, and you have alot of paying customers who also think so.
Why you would want to punish such success is beyond me, a fine on being good, and successful at what you do.
Probably the EU sees it as a bonus payment for them being so sucessful in the EU !!.
Paying normal taxes like everyone else is not enough for the super sucessful amoung us..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google or Microsoft neither are even close to monopolies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The majority of their business offerings are a pain in the A** to administer and there is no human assistance available anywhere. I can't give them money for that kind of crap service. When someone buys my product they can call me and deal directly with one of my staff. Try doing that on Google. Even their Analytics are buggy. They told us we had 14,000 plus hits on one of our websites and upon checking the actual server logs we had only about 500. I wouldn't trust them or their code. Sloppy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]