I never said Google did or does anything. Controlling better 60% of the search market they could easily alter search results (not a competitor's search product) that could put their competitors at a disadvantage. Being the dominant player in a large and critical internet market like search means Google needs to play nice with others otherwise the FTC might get involved.
Nobody needs to use Google for search just like nobody needed to use IE from MS back in the days before the FTC became involved with that.
It isn't the same thing. Google is arguably using its monopoly position in one area (e.g. search) to strengthen its position in other areas. For instance, if you were to go to Google and use its search service and type in smart phones and it were to kick back the Nexus One as the number one result, it arguably would be using its dominant position in search to try and conquer another market. If it didn't have a monopoly in search (which it might not), that would be OK. If it does have a monopoly in search, it can't use its monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in other areas.
Your example doesn't work because no one car dealership has a monopoly.
No, you misunderstood the point I was trying to make.
Google is not a monopoly because you chose to go there in the first place. Google is not the only choice, you could have made, right? Cadillac dealers are a choice too, but if you go there, you'll be told how great Caddies are. That doesn't make them evil. That how it works.
More to example about typing "maps" into Google: they also rank pages based on what people click, so if the majority of visitors to Google use the search term "Maps" to get to Google Maps because that's what they wanted, then Google Maps will zoom to the top of the search results. So it's your fault (well, not you personally, but collectively) Google is returning quote-unquote biased search results.
More to example about typing "maps" into Google: they also rank pages based on what people click, so if the majority of visitors to Google use the search term "Maps" to get to Google Maps because that's what they wanted, then Google Maps will zoom to the top of the search results. So it's your fault (well, not you personally, but collectively) Google is returning quote-unquote biased search results.
Google have admitted that they can and do override the algorithm
Your other point is that users aren't being forced to go to Google, and that thus it's all on the up-and-up. That might make common sense but it isn't the law. US antitrust law applies to any firm that has a monopoly, even if the monopoly arose purely because the customers love the product.
Once you have that monopoly, anti-trust applies and forbids you from abusing that position - customers, like randy 15 year olds cannot give consent for you to f*ck them, even if they enjoy it.
So while Google may have a workable defence, it won't primarily be customer satisfaction.
I never said Google did or does anything. Controlling better 60% of the search market they could easily alter search results (not a competitor's search product) that could put their competitors at a disadvantage. Being the dominant player in a large and critical internet market like search means Google needs to play nice with others otherwise the FTC might get involved.
Nobody needs to use Google for search just like nobody needed to use IE from MS back in the days before the FTC became involved with that.
Are they altering search results? This "OMG THEY COULD DO THIS!" type of reasoning is stupid. Apple could technically word their TOS so that they could harvest your organs because no one reads those things anyway. Will they do it? No.
The thing that you, and several others fail to realize is that Google is NOT a search company. they are an advertising company. Think about what they make their money from. They don't make money by people using their servers. They make the money because of the meta-data they gather. (contrary to popular belief, they could care less what you as an individual searches for, they're looking for patterns)
Their lifeline is in Ads, not search. This means that in order to make more money (the prime directive of any company) they want to have as many people using their services (aka eyeballs) as possible. Now, if you were looking for something, would you be more prone to use a service that gave you the answers you wanted, or would you be ok with one that gave you totally pointless results?
Obviously you want relevant results. Thus, in order to make more money, It's in google's best interest to provide relevant links that YOU want to see. (yes, surrounded by their ads, which may or may not be relevant). In fact, Google, Facebook, et al had a bit of a controversy surrounding them just a few months ago that their results are TOO exact, and that it effectively forms a "self-censored" web. (forget exact wording, but there is an excellent video on TED about it)
If google was going to "abuse" their monopoly, the LAST place they would do it was search, since the second someone can verify that (and it affects people) they start losing eyeballs once someone has better search results. Remember, better doesn't mean "Who pays me most to be on top" better means "customers keep coming back for search." I read that article on "whitelist" and while my search jargon isn't up to date, it seems like this list is not used to "promote" or "Demote" sites, but only (if I am reading this correctly) to rework rankings if they update their search patterns and it unfairly ranks a site. This is a far cry from them going out of their way to block competitors.
I'm not saying that some issues might not pop up from this "Investigation" (but it is much more likely to come from controversies like Skyhook, or Yelp reviews popping up un-sourced in Places than it is in manipulated ranking)
As for competition, I don't think Bing is competition. At least not yet. Their interface is a LOT nicer, and some of their mobile innovations (specifically their visual search in mango) are amazing. But for text results, I still don't find them as relevant.
Google's two biggest competitors (imo) are Facebook and Apple.
Facebook because it's increasingly becoming the most viewed site on the net, with its own ad network. Facebook is also actively trying to push this content out to others, through Single Sign on, Facebook Comments, etc. And facebook has shown no qualms in the past about playing fast and loose with your privacy. You don't even need a "What if" scenario.
Apple because of their push towards native apps. This isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but it means that users are increasingly viewing their content from within an app instead of a browser (even news and blogs). This is one of the reasons Google bought AdMob. But Then Apple came out with their own iAd system (though it's admittedly not doing as well as apple most likely would've liked) as well as trying to lock out some Google Analytics (such as location data for targeted ads) claiming Google would use it to try and unfairly market Android (find iOS user patterns), which may or may not be true, though personally I believe that All google wants is your eyeballs for Ads, and if they can get them on iOS instead of Android that's just fine for them. If Apple could show that Google WAS using this data to benefit Android, this would be a case of Google abusing their monopoly, but to my knowledge this wasn't the case. I don't think Apple is trying to compete with Google when it comes to search, but Apple's business model does mean that Apple's customers (a valuable target for advertisers, as iOS purchasing patterns show) are harder to market towards.
To answer your last statement, I think that the FTC would have to have evidence to show that Google is manipulating their natural monopoly and not just that they think it's "Possible." Because making a case like this without any evidence is a lot like the BS "controversy" They made about Apple and location data. It's nothing more than a Press bite they can use when they run for re-election.
INB4 Anonymouse claiming I'm a astroturfer or some such. Block lists are a wonderful thing.
Are they altering search results? This "OMG THEY COULD DO THIS!" type of reasoning is stupid. Apple could technically word their TOS so that they could harvest your organs because no one reads those things anyway. Will they do it? No.
The thing that you, and several others fail to realize is that Google is NOT a search company. they are an advertising company. Think about what they make their money from. They don't make money by people using their servers. They make the money because of the meta-data they gather. (contrary to popular belief, they could care less what you as an individual searches for, they're looking for patterns)
Their lifeline is in Ads, not search. This means that in order to make more money (the prime directive of any company) they want to have as many people using their services (aka eyeballs) as possible. Now, if you were looking for something, would you be more prone to use a service that gave you the answers you wanted, or would you be ok with one that gave you totally pointless results?)
This is, of course, total Google shill nonsense.
No one is saying that a 'fair' Google would give pointless results. That is an insanely stupid argument.
A typical Google search provides thousands or tens of thousands of hits. Of those, perhaps hundreds are relevant. Google can favor its own advertisers without significantly impacting the accuracy of the results. And there is plenty of evidence that they do.
Such as? Pretty sure if there was "Plenty" of evidence it would hit major tech websites, and they would ALL link back to those stories when this investigation came out because it would bolster SEO and get people spending more time on their site.
There are accusations that it favors it's own options (such as Places over Yelp, or Youtube over Vimeo) but I don't seem to recall any article where it's come down that there is "proof" of this beyond people saying "places show up first!" Which is true, but at the same time, if you search NY Chiropractor on Google and Bing you get the following:
(Following results are Chiropractors in NY, with their places page.)
Drshoshany.com is actually a Sponsored result as well with Google (so it shows up in yellow box) but you see it still had the same ranking as it did at bing, and the "Sponsored" link had a lower "natural search ranking" than another site. Additionally, in both cases, the places result is listed on the side, and does no supplant the main website (though this is a change from a few months ago.)
I used this search term because it was the one used by TechCrunch several months ago to "Prove" that google was pushing places over actual results that customers would be interested in. At the same time, if you type in "Ny Chiropractors" what is more likely: You're looking for information about the chiropractic organizations, or you're looking for a chiropractor in NY you want to go to?
Is google favoring their own content? Possibly. But Apple does the same, so does Facebook, so does any other company that has more than a single service to offer. But their results are still similar, besides for your yet unlisted "proof" that Google is manipulating data to favor their advertisers.
A typical search result does provide tens of thousands of hits, but most people searching don't go past the first page (or maybe the second) In fact, Google's certain that for a lot of searches, people rarely go past the FIRST hit. (aka, Google Instant Pages). This means the potential for them to "silently" manipulate data is a lot smaller than you might think. You need to find manipulation on the first page (more realistically the top half of a page).. because honestly, if you had to go through pages and pages of results to find what you're looking for, chances are you wouldn't be using that search engine anyway.
Ahh more ad hominems flow from your keyboard, I notice you couldn't come up with any substantive reply to my post either. Where on earth did you learn your debating skills? Fox News?
If google was going to "abuse" their monopoly, the LAST place they would do it was search, since the second someone can verify that (and it affects people) they start losing eyeballs once someone has better search results. Remember, better doesn't mean "Who pays me most to be on top" better means "customers keep coming back for search." I read that article on "whitelist" and while my search jargon isn't up to date, it seems like this list is not used to "promote" or "Demote" sites, but only (if I am reading this correctly) to rework rankings if they update their search patterns and it unfairly ranks a site. This is a far cry from them going out of their way to block competitors.
It's complicated. The most common claim isn't that Google is manipulating search results to favour advertisers - it is that they are manipulating search results to directly favour Google. Take maps, suppose Google is directly supporting their map site by favouritism, would that result in a consumer backlash? It's hard to see how it would because their maps are perfectly good, so most consumers would simply shrug even if they knew that was what happened, and how would they even know?
As for the whitelisting issue, you have to understand that it is part of a pattern. Google for a long time claimed that they didn't whitelist, blacklist or any other kind of list - they claimed everything was the Algorithm. Now that the EU is getting serious and they approach a potential discovery phase they clarified that, and admitted that they do indeed whitelist but only for noble purposes of improving user search.
It's entirely possible that they're telling the truth, but it's also entirely possible that they're full of bullshit. Google could have perfectly decent reasons not to want to let too much daylight in on how they manage search results - but they could also have entirely nefarious reasons, and the problem is that the more that they act like an aggressive monopolist in other markets, the more competitors will start to suspect that they are up to no good in search, and the more regulators will believe them.
What's interesting is the Microsoft complaint in the EU because it pretty much ignores the favouritism charge and focuses on a different line - that Google is abusing its virtual monopoly in video by refusing to let other search sites access YouTube's meta-data.
Ahh more ad hominems flow from your keyboard, I notice you couldn't come up with any substantive reply to my post either. Where on earth did you learn your debating skills? Fox News?
You're new around here. There are a number of paid representatives of various companies who show up on cue when certain topics come up. A few of them have suddenly tried to post on random topics for a little while once it's been pointed out how predictable they are.
These people are liars, paid to deceive, and don't reserve an ounce of respect, nor to be responded to in any way other than to point out who they are.
Ahh more ad hominems flow from your keyboard, I notice you couldn't come up with any substantive reply to my post either. Where on earth did you learn your debating skills? Fox News?
Funny, but you completely ignored my substantive reply.
You claimed that Google couldn't possibly be manipulating results because it would be contrary to their business model to give useless, random hits to search questions.
I pointed out the straw man nature of that argument. No one claimed that Google's results would be random or useless if they didn't cheat. There are lots of potential hits for any search - Google just happens to favor the ones that come from their advertising customers. Your accusation that their results would be random if they were cheating was simply a ridiculous argument. So ridiculous that no one but a paid Google shill would even offer it.
Funny, but you completely ignored my substantive reply.
You claimed that Google couldn't possibly be manipulating results because it would be contrary to their business model to give useless, random hits to search questions.
No I didn't somebody else said that - somebody else who I then disagreed with in fact if you had bothered to read anything. Such a mistake on my part would see you accusing me of shilling, lying, hypocrisy and possibly treason. Since you are demonstrably not perfect and indeed pretty much every post you've made has been wrong about something in this thread I suggest you moderate your rhetoric.
In fact your last post in our discussion claimed that the first amendment wasn't relevant, I demolished you completely and you went silent then started calling other people Google Shills because that is the only kind of argument you are really comfortable with. If you actually want to address my points towards you then my last word on that subject was in my post beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
I don't need to because that's not relevant. The constitution protects more than the things it explicitly states
Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't make them a shill. They may be misinformed, they may be confused or they may in fact be absolutely correct. I've no idea if Menno is a shill, but I'm quite certain that you are unnecessarily shrill.
It's complicated. The most common claim isn't that Google is manipulating search results to favour advertisers - it is that they are manipulating search results to directly favour Google. Take maps, suppose Google is directly supporting their map site by favouritism, would that result in a consumer backlash? It's hard to see how it would because their maps are perfectly good, so most consumers would simply shrug even if they knew that was what happened, and how would they even know?
As for the whitelisting issue, you have to understand that it is part of a pattern. Google for a long time claimed that they didn't whitelist, blacklist or any other kind of list - they claimed everything was the Algorithm. Now that the EU is getting serious and they approach a potential discovery phase they clarified that, and admitted that they do indeed whitelist but only for noble purposes of improving user search.
It's entirely possible that they're telling the truth, but it's also entirely possible that they're full of bullshit. Google could have perfectly decent reasons not to want to let too much daylight in on how they manage search results - but they could also have entirely nefarious reasons, and the problem is that the more that they act like an aggressive monopolist in other markets, the more competitors will start to suspect that they are up to no good in search, and the more regulators will believe them.
What's interesting is the Microsoft complaint in the EU because it pretty much ignores the favouritism charge and focuses on a different line - that Google is abusing its virtual monopoly in video by refusing to let other search sites access YouTube's meta-data.
Thanks for the clarification. It should be interesting to see what comes out. My post was largely in reply to "Realistic" and people like jragosta implying that it was a done deal that Google was filtering results. That link to whitelisting is actually the first one I've seen in this discussion that ads something new. If it's true that they are manipulating data (and doing it maliciously) it will add another layer to this case.
it just amazes me that so many here are supporting this kind of litigation before any of the facts of the case are known. This could be used to set a dangerous president. Or do they really believe that the FTC won't focus on how Apple uses their marketshare in music/mobile space. Apple DOES use their marketshare in music/media to push sales of their devices. Nothing inherently wrong with this, so then why is it evil if Google puts a link to their own "Places" next to search results? (directed more at others than you)
Thank you for actually answering a part of what I wrote instead of ignoring it as Jragosta and others have.
it just amazes me that so many here are supporting this kind of litigation before any of the facts of the case are known.
People tend to pick dogs for any fight and it's a shame. I've certainly been guilty of it myself - back when the DoJ went after MS I was frankly rabid in my support and felt pissed that they never forced MS to split applications from OS. A few friends were pro-MS and it drove me nuts
We're into really interesting legal territory now because there are just so many issues at play, and so many players with dominance in different areas. In the US Google may very well be able to claim strong first amendment rights to order their search results any way they want, in the EU they could try the same with the convention on human rights -though that's far less likely to succeed. Apple's control over the App market on the iPhone is not unprecedented but is certainly eye catching. Amazon is using their tremendous retail presence to push their own products over competitors. Google's control over the Android platform is arguably now greater than anything MS ever had over the PC market, and their requirement of bundling Google location services over Skyhook is a carbon copy of the MS IE bundling - but worse because unlike IE the location services aren't free to the handset makers/carriers.
Quote:
This could be used to set a dangerous president. Or do they really believe that the FTC won't focus on how Apple uses their marketshare in music/mobile space. Apple DOES use their marketshare in music/media to push sales of their devices.
I'm personally not too worried about the 'dangerous precedent' argument. A lot of people felt the MS probe was a dangerous precedent, but without it we might very well not have Google at all today, maybe not even Apple.
What market is Apple abusing?
Music? They sell their music DRM free - there's no reason you can't sync it to an Android phone if you want to. Video? They're limited by their licensing agreements with the content providers - Force Majeure is a very strong defence.
The key will be Apps, where Apple both controls and competes in a market that it has a kinda-sorta monopoly. It's possible that the FTC could construe Apple as holding a monopoly in selling iOS applications, but frankly Apple could just divest themselves of the App Store and move the regulation of the iOS app market into some independent entity. They don't really need the control themselves so long as they make sure that the market is curated by somebody.
Anyway the FTC never investigated Nintendo or Sony over their control of their consoles markets, so it's hard to see how they would justify it in the case of Apple, unless Apple end up owning 80% of the handset market.
Quote:
Thank you for actually answering a part of what I wrote instead of ignoring it as Jragosta and others have.
It's so much more fun to debate the actual issues I really don't get why people feel the need to immediately get personal.
Actually it's far harder to contest Google's search market than you might think, because you can't reliably bid for just a bit of it. Consider how enormous Google's investment in server infrastructure is, in order to compete you have to build an equally sized infrastructure, because otherwise when you launch your big advertising blitz to get people to switch, they do so - suffer horrible performance and never come back.
On the other side if you build multi-billion dollar infrastructure and you don't even have a certainty of a market at the end, then you're seriuosly screwed up. It's not such a strong natural monopoly as OS is, but it is a market with a big barrier to entry. In fact it's arguably harder than it was to break MS' monopoly in the 90s because there we had freeware rivals like linux and bsd that could be used as a jumping off point for a competitors product.
You're right that google search is a good product, and it's quite clear that the search monopoly itself has been acquired innocently. That's a good thing for Google because if it hadn't been just possessing the monopoly would be a Sherman Act violation. However as I said, just because Google has earned their search monopoly with a good product doesn't entitle them to extend it into other areas.
People said much the same when the DoJ went after MS. I would say it's far better for us as consumers if firms like Google, MS and yes even Apple compete on the quality of their products and not by monopolistic power. Google faced a superior competitor in Skyhook - pretty much by their own admission - but they were able to remove it from Moto phones with their power over a platform. That's a textbook MS play.
You are exactly right here! Most people think it is easy to challenge Google in the search space that they got the monopoly by playing nice and free. But there is no free lunch and what mostly bothers me is that Google is not just search anymore. They make operating systems as an advertiser. Now thats creepy!
Google is the modern troijan horse that is just bending the line of whats considered legal. They will cross this line trust me. I dont understand why people are so trustworthy and naive of corporate policy(do no evil). All I see is google corporate greed!
We start with a nice search engine and suddenly the operating system is the same. 10 years ago they could know my searches. But now they might know every keypress I make and every password I have?!?! Where did Google start to assimilate everything??? They Keep bending the line about privacy and soon YOU will see that YOU have been poked in the backhole. What information would YOU classify as private enough for an advertiser not to own? Maybe your bank information? Your health records/medical records? Your habits? Your weekly jogging or shopping routes?
We are at the moment allmost past the point where it might be impossible to compete with Google.
As for search, I CHOSE Google 10+ years ago to take care of my searches because its NOT my operating system maker!?!?! Where the fck does that leave me then? I could have stuck to Yahoo or ms search instead and we might have some actual competition there.
Comments
I never said Google did or does anything. Controlling better 60% of the search market they could easily alter search results (not a competitor's search product) that could put their competitors at a disadvantage. Being the dominant player in a large and critical internet market like search means Google needs to play nice with others otherwise the FTC might get involved.
Nobody needs to use Google for search just like nobody needed to use IE from MS back in the days before the FTC became involved with that.
I have no idea what you just said.
It isn't the same thing. Google is arguably using its monopoly position in one area (e.g. search) to strengthen its position in other areas. For instance, if you were to go to Google and use its search service and type in smart phones and it were to kick back the Nexus One as the number one result, it arguably would be using its dominant position in search to try and conquer another market. If it didn't have a monopoly in search (which it might not), that would be OK. If it does have a monopoly in search, it can't use its monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in other areas.
Your example doesn't work because no one car dealership has a monopoly.
No, you misunderstood the point I was trying to make.
Google is not a monopoly because you chose to go there in the first place. Google is not the only choice, you could have made, right? Cadillac dealers are a choice too, but if you go there, you'll be told how great Caddies are. That doesn't make them evil. That how it works.
More to example about typing "maps" into Google: they also rank pages based on what people click, so if the majority of visitors to Google use the search term "Maps" to get to Google Maps because that's what they wanted, then Google Maps will zoom to the top of the search results. So it's your fault (well, not you personally, but collectively) Google is returning quote-unquote biased search results.
More to example about typing "maps" into Google: they also rank pages based on what people click, so if the majority of visitors to Google use the search term "Maps" to get to Google Maps because that's what they wanted, then Google Maps will zoom to the top of the search results. So it's your fault (well, not you personally, but collectively) Google is returning quote-unquote biased search results.
Google have admitted that they can and do override the algorithm
http://www.stateofsearch.com/google-...-legal-issues/
Your other point is that users aren't being forced to go to Google, and that thus it's all on the up-and-up. That might make common sense but it isn't the law. US antitrust law applies to any firm that has a monopoly, even if the monopoly arose purely because the customers love the product.
Once you have that monopoly, anti-trust applies and forbids you from abusing that position - customers, like randy 15 year olds cannot give consent for you to f*ck them, even if they enjoy it.
So while Google may have a workable defence, it won't primarily be customer satisfaction.
What makes it obvious to you that they're unfairly manipulating the returned results of your searches?
Tu quoque.
I never said Google did or does anything. Controlling better 60% of the search market they could easily alter search results (not a competitor's search product) that could put their competitors at a disadvantage. Being the dominant player in a large and critical internet market like search means Google needs to play nice with others otherwise the FTC might get involved.
Nobody needs to use Google for search just like nobody needed to use IE from MS back in the days before the FTC became involved with that.
Are they altering search results? This "OMG THEY COULD DO THIS!" type of reasoning is stupid. Apple could technically word their TOS so that they could harvest your organs because no one reads those things anyway. Will they do it? No.
The thing that you, and several others fail to realize is that Google is NOT a search company. they are an advertising company. Think about what they make their money from. They don't make money by people using their servers. They make the money because of the meta-data they gather. (contrary to popular belief, they could care less what you as an individual searches for, they're looking for patterns)
Their lifeline is in Ads, not search. This means that in order to make more money (the prime directive of any company) they want to have as many people using their services (aka eyeballs) as possible. Now, if you were looking for something, would you be more prone to use a service that gave you the answers you wanted, or would you be ok with one that gave you totally pointless results?
Obviously you want relevant results. Thus, in order to make more money, It's in google's best interest to provide relevant links that YOU want to see. (yes, surrounded by their ads, which may or may not be relevant). In fact, Google, Facebook, et al had a bit of a controversy surrounding them just a few months ago that their results are TOO exact, and that it effectively forms a "self-censored" web. (forget exact wording, but there is an excellent video on TED about it)
If google was going to "abuse" their monopoly, the LAST place they would do it was search, since the second someone can verify that (and it affects people) they start losing eyeballs once someone has better search results. Remember, better doesn't mean "Who pays me most to be on top" better means "customers keep coming back for search." I read that article on "whitelist" and while my search jargon isn't up to date, it seems like this list is not used to "promote" or "Demote" sites, but only (if I am reading this correctly) to rework rankings if they update their search patterns and it unfairly ranks a site. This is a far cry from them going out of their way to block competitors.
I'm not saying that some issues might not pop up from this "Investigation" (but it is much more likely to come from controversies like Skyhook, or Yelp reviews popping up un-sourced in Places than it is in manipulated ranking)
As for competition, I don't think Bing is competition. At least not yet. Their interface is a LOT nicer, and some of their mobile innovations (specifically their visual search in mango) are amazing. But for text results, I still don't find them as relevant.
Google's two biggest competitors (imo) are Facebook and Apple.
Facebook because it's increasingly becoming the most viewed site on the net, with its own ad network. Facebook is also actively trying to push this content out to others, through Single Sign on, Facebook Comments, etc. And facebook has shown no qualms in the past about playing fast and loose with your privacy. You don't even need a "What if" scenario.
Apple because of their push towards native apps. This isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but it means that users are increasingly viewing their content from within an app instead of a browser (even news and blogs). This is one of the reasons Google bought AdMob. But Then Apple came out with their own iAd system (though it's admittedly not doing as well as apple most likely would've liked) as well as trying to lock out some Google Analytics (such as location data for targeted ads) claiming Google would use it to try and unfairly market Android (find iOS user patterns), which may or may not be true, though personally I believe that All google wants is your eyeballs for Ads, and if they can get them on iOS instead of Android that's just fine for them. If Apple could show that Google WAS using this data to benefit Android, this would be a case of Google abusing their monopoly, but to my knowledge this wasn't the case. I don't think Apple is trying to compete with Google when it comes to search, but Apple's business model does mean that Apple's customers (a valuable target for advertisers, as iOS purchasing patterns show) are harder to market towards.
To answer your last statement, I think that the FTC would have to have evidence to show that Google is manipulating their natural monopoly and not just that they think it's "Possible." Because making a case like this without any evidence is a lot like the BS "controversy" They made about Apple and location data. It's nothing more than a Press bite they can use when they run for re-election.
INB4 Anonymouse claiming I'm a astroturfer or some such. Block lists are a wonderful thing.
Are they altering search results? This "OMG THEY COULD DO THIS!" type of reasoning is stupid. Apple could technically word their TOS so that they could harvest your organs because no one reads those things anyway. Will they do it? No.
The thing that you, and several others fail to realize is that Google is NOT a search company. they are an advertising company. Think about what they make their money from. They don't make money by people using their servers. They make the money because of the meta-data they gather. (contrary to popular belief, they could care less what you as an individual searches for, they're looking for patterns)
Their lifeline is in Ads, not search. This means that in order to make more money (the prime directive of any company) they want to have as many people using their services (aka eyeballs) as possible. Now, if you were looking for something, would you be more prone to use a service that gave you the answers you wanted, or would you be ok with one that gave you totally pointless results?)
This is, of course, total Google shill nonsense.
No one is saying that a 'fair' Google would give pointless results. That is an insanely stupid argument.
A typical Google search provides thousands or tens of thousands of hits. Of those, perhaps hundreds are relevant. Google can favor its own advertisers without significantly impacting the accuracy of the results. And there is plenty of evidence that they do.
. And there is plenty of evidence that they do.
Such as? Pretty sure if there was "Plenty" of evidence it would hit major tech websites, and they would ALL link back to those stories when this investigation came out because it would bolster SEO and get people spending more time on their site.
There are accusations that it favors it's own options (such as Places over Yelp, or Youtube over Vimeo) but I don't seem to recall any article where it's come down that there is "proof" of this beyond people saying "places show up first!" Which is true, but at the same time, if you search NY Chiropractor on Google and Bing you get the following:
Bing:
1. www.nycc.edu
2. ny-chiropractors.com
3. www.nysca.com
4. www.drshoshany.com
(After this is goes to "Related Results)
Google:
1. www.nysca.com
2. www.nycc.edu
3. www.espritwellness.com (Places Result, 63 Reviews, 4.5 star rating avg)
4. www.drshoshany.com (Places Result, 269 Reviews, 4.5-5 star rating)
(Following results are Chiropractors in NY, with their places page.)
Drshoshany.com is actually a Sponsored result as well with Google (so it shows up in yellow box) but you see it still had the same ranking as it did at bing, and the "Sponsored" link had a lower "natural search ranking" than another site. Additionally, in both cases, the places result is listed on the side, and does no supplant the main website (though this is a change from a few months ago.)
I used this search term because it was the one used by TechCrunch several months ago to "Prove" that google was pushing places over actual results that customers would be interested in. At the same time, if you type in "Ny Chiropractors" what is more likely: You're looking for information about the chiropractic organizations, or you're looking for a chiropractor in NY you want to go to?
Is google favoring their own content? Possibly. But Apple does the same, so does Facebook, so does any other company that has more than a single service to offer. But their results are still similar, besides for your yet unlisted "proof" that Google is manipulating data to favor their advertisers.
A typical search result does provide tens of thousands of hits, but most people searching don't go past the first page (or maybe the second) In fact, Google's certain that for a lot of searches, people rarely go past the FIRST hit. (aka, Google Instant Pages). This means the potential for them to "silently" manipulate data is a lot smaller than you might think. You need to find manipulation on the first page (more realistically the top half of a page).. because honestly, if you had to go through pages and pages of results to find what you're looking for, chances are you wouldn't be using that search engine anyway.
Tu quoque.
Which doesn't apply here. But I understand the attempt.
This is, of course, total Google shill nonsense.
Ahh more ad hominems flow from your keyboard, I notice you couldn't come up with any substantive reply to my post either. Where on earth did you learn your debating skills? Fox News?
If google was going to "abuse" their monopoly, the LAST place they would do it was search, since the second someone can verify that (and it affects people) they start losing eyeballs once someone has better search results. Remember, better doesn't mean "Who pays me most to be on top" better means "customers keep coming back for search." I read that article on "whitelist" and while my search jargon isn't up to date, it seems like this list is not used to "promote" or "Demote" sites, but only (if I am reading this correctly) to rework rankings if they update their search patterns and it unfairly ranks a site. This is a far cry from them going out of their way to block competitors.
It's complicated. The most common claim isn't that Google is manipulating search results to favour advertisers - it is that they are manipulating search results to directly favour Google. Take maps, suppose Google is directly supporting their map site by favouritism, would that result in a consumer backlash? It's hard to see how it would because their maps are perfectly good, so most consumers would simply shrug even if they knew that was what happened, and how would they even know?
As for the whitelisting issue, you have to understand that it is part of a pattern. Google for a long time claimed that they didn't whitelist, blacklist or any other kind of list - they claimed everything was the Algorithm. Now that the EU is getting serious and they approach a potential discovery phase they clarified that, and admitted that they do indeed whitelist but only for noble purposes of improving user search.
It's entirely possible that they're telling the truth, but it's also entirely possible that they're full of bullshit. Google could have perfectly decent reasons not to want to let too much daylight in on how they manage search results - but they could also have entirely nefarious reasons, and the problem is that the more that they act like an aggressive monopolist in other markets, the more competitors will start to suspect that they are up to no good in search, and the more regulators will believe them.
What's interesting is the Microsoft complaint in the EU because it pretty much ignores the favouritism charge and focuses on a different line - that Google is abusing its virtual monopoly in video by refusing to let other search sites access YouTube's meta-data.
Ahh more ad hominems flow from your keyboard, I notice you couldn't come up with any substantive reply to my post either. Where on earth did you learn your debating skills? Fox News?
You're new around here. There are a number of paid representatives of various companies who show up on cue when certain topics come up. A few of them have suddenly tried to post on random topics for a little while once it's been pointed out how predictable they are.
These people are liars, paid to deceive, and don't reserve an ounce of respect, nor to be responded to in any way other than to point out who they are.
Ahh more ad hominems flow from your keyboard, I notice you couldn't come up with any substantive reply to my post either. Where on earth did you learn your debating skills? Fox News?
Funny, but you completely ignored my substantive reply.
You claimed that Google couldn't possibly be manipulating results because it would be contrary to their business model to give useless, random hits to search questions.
I pointed out the straw man nature of that argument. No one claimed that Google's results would be random or useless if they didn't cheat. There are lots of potential hits for any search - Google just happens to favor the ones that come from their advertising customers. Your accusation that their results would be random if they were cheating was simply a ridiculous argument. So ridiculous that no one but a paid Google shill would even offer it.
Funny, but you completely ignored my substantive reply.
You claimed that Google couldn't possibly be manipulating results because it would be contrary to their business model to give useless, random hits to search questions.
No I didn't somebody else said that - somebody else who I then disagreed with in fact if you had bothered to read anything. Such a mistake on my part would see you accusing me of shilling, lying, hypocrisy and possibly treason. Since you are demonstrably not perfect and indeed pretty much every post you've made has been wrong about something in this thread I suggest you moderate your rhetoric.
In fact your last post in our discussion claimed that the first amendment wasn't relevant, I demolished you completely and you went silent then started calling other people Google Shills because that is the only kind of argument you are really comfortable with. If you actually want to address my points towards you then my last word on that subject was in my post beginning.
I don't need to because that's not relevant. The constitution protects more than the things it explicitly states
Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't make them a shill. They may be misinformed, they may be confused or they may in fact be absolutely correct. I've no idea if Menno is a shill, but I'm quite certain that you are unnecessarily shrill.
It's complicated. The most common claim isn't that Google is manipulating search results to favour advertisers - it is that they are manipulating search results to directly favour Google. Take maps, suppose Google is directly supporting their map site by favouritism, would that result in a consumer backlash? It's hard to see how it would because their maps are perfectly good, so most consumers would simply shrug even if they knew that was what happened, and how would they even know?
As for the whitelisting issue, you have to understand that it is part of a pattern. Google for a long time claimed that they didn't whitelist, blacklist or any other kind of list - they claimed everything was the Algorithm. Now that the EU is getting serious and they approach a potential discovery phase they clarified that, and admitted that they do indeed whitelist but only for noble purposes of improving user search.
It's entirely possible that they're telling the truth, but it's also entirely possible that they're full of bullshit. Google could have perfectly decent reasons not to want to let too much daylight in on how they manage search results - but they could also have entirely nefarious reasons, and the problem is that the more that they act like an aggressive monopolist in other markets, the more competitors will start to suspect that they are up to no good in search, and the more regulators will believe them.
What's interesting is the Microsoft complaint in the EU because it pretty much ignores the favouritism charge and focuses on a different line - that Google is abusing its virtual monopoly in video by refusing to let other search sites access YouTube's meta-data.
Thanks for the clarification. It should be interesting to see what comes out. My post was largely in reply to "Realistic" and people like jragosta implying that it was a done deal that Google was filtering results. That link to whitelisting is actually the first one I've seen in this discussion that ads something new. If it's true that they are manipulating data (and doing it maliciously) it will add another layer to this case.
it just amazes me that so many here are supporting this kind of litigation before any of the facts of the case are known. This could be used to set a dangerous president. Or do they really believe that the FTC won't focus on how Apple uses their marketshare in music/mobile space. Apple DOES use their marketshare in music/media to push sales of their devices. Nothing inherently wrong with this, so then why is it evil if Google puts a link to their own "Places" next to search results? (directed more at others than you)
Thank you for actually answering a part of what I wrote instead of ignoring it as Jragosta and others have.
it just amazes me that so many here are supporting this kind of litigation before any of the facts of the case are known.
People tend to pick dogs for any fight and it's a shame. I've certainly been guilty of it myself - back when the DoJ went after MS I was frankly rabid in my support and felt pissed that they never forced MS to split applications from OS. A few friends were pro-MS and it drove me nuts
We're into really interesting legal territory now because there are just so many issues at play, and so many players with dominance in different areas. In the US Google may very well be able to claim strong first amendment rights to order their search results any way they want, in the EU they could try the same with the convention on human rights -though that's far less likely to succeed. Apple's control over the App market on the iPhone is not unprecedented but is certainly eye catching. Amazon is using their tremendous retail presence to push their own products over competitors. Google's control over the Android platform is arguably now greater than anything MS ever had over the PC market, and their requirement of bundling Google location services over Skyhook is a carbon copy of the MS IE bundling - but worse because unlike IE the location services aren't free to the handset makers/carriers.
This could be used to set a dangerous president. Or do they really believe that the FTC won't focus on how Apple uses their marketshare in music/mobile space. Apple DOES use their marketshare in music/media to push sales of their devices.
I'm personally not too worried about the 'dangerous precedent' argument. A lot of people felt the MS probe was a dangerous precedent, but without it we might very well not have Google at all today, maybe not even Apple.
What market is Apple abusing?
Music? They sell their music DRM free - there's no reason you can't sync it to an Android phone if you want to. Video? They're limited by their licensing agreements with the content providers - Force Majeure is a very strong defence.
The key will be Apps, where Apple both controls and competes in a market that it has a kinda-sorta monopoly. It's possible that the FTC could construe Apple as holding a monopoly in selling iOS applications, but frankly Apple could just divest themselves of the App Store and move the regulation of the iOS app market into some independent entity. They don't really need the control themselves so long as they make sure that the market is curated by somebody.
Anyway the FTC never investigated Nintendo or Sony over their control of their consoles markets, so it's hard to see how they would justify it in the case of Apple, unless Apple end up owning 80% of the handset market.
Thank you for actually answering a part of what I wrote instead of ignoring it as Jragosta and others have.
It's so much more fun to debate the actual issues I really don't get why people feel the need to immediately get personal.
Actually it has a decent presence in China - http://gs.statcounter.com/#search_en...005-201105-bar
amd besodes. that doesn't change whether it's a monopoly in the US, which it clearly is
http://gs.statcounter.com/#search_en...005-201105-bar
Actually it's far harder to contest Google's search market than you might think, because you can't reliably bid for just a bit of it. Consider how enormous Google's investment in server infrastructure is, in order to compete you have to build an equally sized infrastructure, because otherwise when you launch your big advertising blitz to get people to switch, they do so - suffer horrible performance and never come back.
On the other side if you build multi-billion dollar infrastructure and you don't even have a certainty of a market at the end, then you're seriuosly screwed up. It's not such a strong natural monopoly as OS is, but it is a market with a big barrier to entry. In fact it's arguably harder than it was to break MS' monopoly in the 90s because there we had freeware rivals like linux and bsd that could be used as a jumping off point for a competitors product.
You're right that google search is a good product, and it's quite clear that the search monopoly itself has been acquired innocently. That's a good thing for Google because if it hadn't been just possessing the monopoly would be a Sherman Act violation. However as I said, just because Google has earned their search monopoly with a good product doesn't entitle them to extend it into other areas.
People said much the same when the DoJ went after MS. I would say it's far better for us as consumers if firms like Google, MS and yes even Apple compete on the quality of their products and not by monopolistic power. Google faced a superior competitor in Skyhook - pretty much by their own admission - but they were able to remove it from Moto phones with their power over a platform. That's a textbook MS play.
You are exactly right here! Most people think it is easy to challenge Google in the search space that they got the monopoly by playing nice and free. But there is no free lunch and what mostly bothers me is that Google is not just search anymore. They make operating systems as an advertiser. Now thats creepy!
Google is the modern troijan horse that is just bending the line of whats considered legal. They will cross this line trust me. I dont understand why people are so trustworthy and naive of corporate policy(do no evil). All I see is google corporate greed!
We start with a nice search engine and suddenly the operating system is the same. 10 years ago they could know my searches. But now they might know every keypress I make and every password I have?!?! Where did Google start to assimilate everything??? They Keep bending the line about privacy and soon YOU will see that YOU have been poked in the backhole. What information would YOU classify as private enough for an advertiser not to own? Maybe your bank information? Your health records/medical records? Your habits? Your weekly jogging or shopping routes?
We are at the moment allmost past the point where it might be impossible to compete with Google.
As for search, I CHOSE Google 10+ years ago to take care of my searches because its NOT my operating system maker!?!?! Where the fck does that leave me then? I could have stuck to Yahoo or ms search instead and we might have some actual competition there.