Google says user choice makes DOJ antitrust lawsuit 'deeply flawed'
Google has issued its public response to the Department of Justice's antitrust lawsuit filed on Tuesday, defending itself from the "deeply flawed" lawsuit claiming users choose to use Google, rather than being forced.
Google on a MacBook Pro
On Tuesday morning, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Google, claiming the tech giant was abusing its position as a "gatekeeper" to the Internet, by behaving in an anticompetitive way regarding search.
The DoJ put forward the argument that Google's spending of considerable sums to become the default search in browsers, such as Safari, as well as agreements for Android requiring Google's search tools be preinstalled on smartphones and preventing others from doing the same, severely hampers the search market. DoJ Officials believe Google owns or controls search channels covering 80% of US-based searches, making it extremely hard for rivals to gain an audience and grow to become proper competition to Google.
In a blog post, Google SVP of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer Kent Walker rails against the lawsuit, believed it to be "deeply flawed" due to user habits. "People use Google because they choose to, not because they're forced to, or because they can't find alternatives," writes Walker.
"This lawsuit would do nothing to help consumers," he argues. "To the contrary, it would artificially prop up lower-quality search alternatives, raise phone prices, and make it harder for people to get the search services they want to use."
Citing the DoJ's use of "dubious antitrust arguments" to criticize Google, the company reckons its paid access for default search is similar to how "a cereal brand might pay a supermarket to stock its products at the end of a row or on a shelf at eye level." While Google negotiates agreements for similar purposes, to put search in front of customers, it reckons "our competitors are readily available to, if you want to use them."
Other search engines also compete with Google to secure these agreements, Walker adds, asserting "our agreements have passed repeated antitrust reviews."
Google also claims it is simple to change search engines in Safari, with a single click on Macs providing a list of options, while it is said to be similarly easy to accomplish on iOS. "It's even easier on iOS 14" to use alternative search engines, the post continues, with the ability to add widgets from other providers to the home screen.
For Microsoft, Google explains that the Edge browser is preloaded on Windows systems, not Chrome, with Bing as the default search engine.
On the subject of Android, Google admits to the existence of promotional agreements with carriers and device vendors to feature Google services, reasoning "these agreements enable us to distribute Android fro free, so they directly reduce the price that people pay for phones." Even with said agreements, Google highlights that some carriers and device producers often preload "numerous competing apps and app stores" onto hardware.
"This lawsuit claims that Americans aren't sophisticated enough to do this," Walker insinuates, "but we know that's not true. And you know it too: people downloaded a record 204 billion apps in 2019. Many of the world's most popular apps aren't preloaded - think of Spotify, Instagram, Snapchat, Amazon, and Facebook."
Google's data supposedly claims to show users select their preferred service, before Walker goes into an example involving Mozilla's Firefox, a browser "funded almost entirely by revenue from search promotional agreements." Walker claims most US users switched the default search to Google during a time when Yahoo! paid to be the default search service on the browser, a choice apparently bolstered by Mozilla later choosing to use Google by default over an "effort to provide quality search."
"We understand that with our success comes scrutiny, but we stand by our position," Walker writes in conclusion. "American antitrust law is designed to promote innovation and help consumers, not tilt the playing field in favor of particular competitors or make it harder for people to get the services they want. We're confident that a court will conclude that this suit doesn't square with either the facts or the law."
Google on a MacBook Pro
On Tuesday morning, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Google, claiming the tech giant was abusing its position as a "gatekeeper" to the Internet, by behaving in an anticompetitive way regarding search.
The DoJ put forward the argument that Google's spending of considerable sums to become the default search in browsers, such as Safari, as well as agreements for Android requiring Google's search tools be preinstalled on smartphones and preventing others from doing the same, severely hampers the search market. DoJ Officials believe Google owns or controls search channels covering 80% of US-based searches, making it extremely hard for rivals to gain an audience and grow to become proper competition to Google.
In a blog post, Google SVP of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer Kent Walker rails against the lawsuit, believed it to be "deeply flawed" due to user habits. "People use Google because they choose to, not because they're forced to, or because they can't find alternatives," writes Walker.
"This lawsuit would do nothing to help consumers," he argues. "To the contrary, it would artificially prop up lower-quality search alternatives, raise phone prices, and make it harder for people to get the search services they want to use."
Citing the DoJ's use of "dubious antitrust arguments" to criticize Google, the company reckons its paid access for default search is similar to how "a cereal brand might pay a supermarket to stock its products at the end of a row or on a shelf at eye level." While Google negotiates agreements for similar purposes, to put search in front of customers, it reckons "our competitors are readily available to, if you want to use them."
Other search engines also compete with Google to secure these agreements, Walker adds, asserting "our agreements have passed repeated antitrust reviews."
Hardware-specific arguments
For Apple devices, Apple features Google Search in Safari because "they say Google is 'the best," the blog states, and that the arrangement isn't exclusive. "Our competitors Bing and Yahoo! pay to prominently feature, and other rival services also appear."Google also claims it is simple to change search engines in Safari, with a single click on Macs providing a list of options, while it is said to be similarly easy to accomplish on iOS. "It's even easier on iOS 14" to use alternative search engines, the post continues, with the ability to add widgets from other providers to the home screen.
For Microsoft, Google explains that the Edge browser is preloaded on Windows systems, not Chrome, with Bing as the default search engine.
On the subject of Android, Google admits to the existence of promotional agreements with carriers and device vendors to feature Google services, reasoning "these agreements enable us to distribute Android fro free, so they directly reduce the price that people pay for phones." Even with said agreements, Google highlights that some carriers and device producers often preload "numerous competing apps and app stores" onto hardware.
Bigger missed point
Walker goes on to suggest the bigger point that the DoJ misses in the lawsuit is that "people don't use Google because they have to, they use it because they choose to." Reasoning that it isn't the "dial-up 1990s, when changing services was slow and difficult" that required software purchases, users have a choice of apps and can change their settings "in a matter of seconds.""This lawsuit claims that Americans aren't sophisticated enough to do this," Walker insinuates, "but we know that's not true. And you know it too: people downloaded a record 204 billion apps in 2019. Many of the world's most popular apps aren't preloaded - think of Spotify, Instagram, Snapchat, Amazon, and Facebook."
Google's data supposedly claims to show users select their preferred service, before Walker goes into an example involving Mozilla's Firefox, a browser "funded almost entirely by revenue from search promotional agreements." Walker claims most US users switched the default search to Google during a time when Yahoo! paid to be the default search service on the browser, a choice apparently bolstered by Mozilla later choosing to use Google by default over an "effort to provide quality search."
"We understand that with our success comes scrutiny, but we stand by our position," Walker writes in conclusion. "American antitrust law is designed to promote innovation and help consumers, not tilt the playing field in favor of particular competitors or make it harder for people to get the services they want. We're confident that a court will conclude that this suit doesn't square with either the facts or the law."
Comments
The other issue is that Google don’t operate a closed ecosystem that people opt into (unlike say purchasing into Apple’s ecosystem of devices and services). The web is open, but it’s impossible to use it without interfacing with Google on some level. The ubiquity of their territory extends well beyond their domain. This is an often forgotten point when comparing large tech companies such as Apple, Amazon and Google. The former two require an active choice by the user, the latter does not and is factually unavoidable - and thus requires deeper scrutiny.
the argument of DOJ is almost like assumed American customers are retard. But again, some people don’t even know the simple on and off.
Out government is increasingly getting involved in our lives.
So - even though I personally love my Samsung Galaxy devices - Google should just dump it. That would make everyone happy, right? Let the EU, DOJ and all the other whiners who blame Google for all their problems take it over and see if they could do a better job. Yeah right ... fat chance of that happening. The result would just be even bigger market share by Apple and then Microsoft bringing back Windows Phone to fill the need for devices that cost less than $400 (and cost less than $800 if you want something with a screen bigger than 5.5 inches, which the global marketplace clearly shows that the vast majority of consumers do, including now most Apple fans). And what a wonderful world that would be ...
A power move: after ditching Android, Google could simply put ChromeOS on mobile phones. Result? Everyone who uses Android now would switch to that because that is the OS that Google still supports and the OS that is integrated with Google services out of the box. So go ahead DOJ. Make Android no longer worth the huge trouble and significant expense of Google maintaining it. I have been wanting a ChromeOS phone for years anyway.
Or even better: maybe it would drive Google to stop dawdling and finally release Fuchsia! That's the funny part. Google has been working on Fuchsia for years and is already prepared for the post-Android world that these whiners who are so desperate to go back to the Microsoft-Apple duopoly in PCs that we were forced to live in for 40 years (thankfully ChromeOS has FINALLY gotten enough market share to be a viable alternative). Those were great times, weren't they? Well hey, go ahead, sue Google and take us back to the good ole days where there were only two companies providing commercially available operating systems (and one of those only provides it to you with their hardware, making it effectively just one).
Then because of the dominant position, for financial reasons, as a business you have to advertise on Google, and place trackers all over the place and that in turns improves Google search even more so that everyone including me keeps on using it. Then this giant cashflow of advertising funds everything else: Google makes a huge profit on search and loses money on almost everything else.
But I'm intimidated by arguing with someone who has 33,000 posts. You must have a very thick skin and a warehouse of expertise. So I'm not really expecting to win any argument with you. Just wondering - are you from Hawaii? They are crazy about Spam down there.
This is nothing new with Google, they been doing this for years, what is new is the fact you cannot bypass their preferred suggestions search. I use to be able to use the old style Boolean search of using a + or - in front of words to ensure I found what I was looking for and Google just ignores this now. From time to time I search for specific things and I know it exist since I found them in the past and those things will no longer come up anymore in Google search but I find them on Bing and Duckduckgo.
This is the kind of activity the government is looking into and the fact Google is using it's market dominance to drive or hide consumers to a specific business or information.
I personally miss the old sherlock/Watson on the mac which would search all the search engines at once.
Search "List of patent assertion claims in 2017" on both.
These were actual searches I did today. The second was looking for a particular case I remembered from either 2017 or 2018. Turns out it was 2019.
If you want news articles where someone ranks them rather than personal results that's a search you can do yourself isn't it? Use any search engine you want. The claim the OP made was based on his own searches..