Are they going to make Walmart take down all the ads for their own services in their own stores?
The Law of Unintended Consequences is a thing.
Depends. Do people go into Walmart looking for non-Walmart services? That's what this bill addresses.
All the time. Walmart sells things, they don't actually make any products. They do sell branded items like Total Wireless. Do they also allow Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile? If they do do they put Total Wireless at the top of the advertising list? In some communities, Walmart is the only store in town so they are looking for everything.
Have you tried it? I did. I searched "Verizon phones" and Total Wireless did not come up. I searched "AT&T phones" and Total Wireless did not come up. I searched "T-Mobile phones" and guess what? T-Mobile phones came up. When you search a particular brand, that brand comes up first, not Walmart's brand. Similarly, when I search Spotify on App Store, should Apple Music come up first? That's what the article is about.
You're not quite understanding what this article is about. When you search "Verizon phones" or "ATT phones" or "T-Mobile" phones, those are not "search queries" as mentioned in the article. Those are searches using a "keyword" and you will alway get Verizon, ATT and T-Mobile on top of the list in each search. But if you were to search "mobile carriers phones", then you will get a list of carriers that provides mobile phones, ranked by using an algorithm that only Google knows. This is what the article means by "search query" and Google placing their own services on top of the list. The article is not saying the Google is placing their services on the top of the search result when doing a search using a keyword.
>More widely, it would prevent Google from putting its own services at the top of a search query.<
For instance, if you search "Spotify"using Google search engine, that is using a "keyword" and Google top result will always be "Spotify". However, if you were do a search query using "music streaming providers" then Google search result should be a list of music streaming providers. With the top rank ones based on some confidential algorithm that Google uses. But what Google would do or can do, is to place Google YouTube Music on the top of the search result, regardless if YouTube Music deserves to be on top of the list. This is what this bill is addressing.
>For example, it would prevent Apple from putting an ad for Apple Music on App Store search resultsfor competitors like Tidal or Spotify.<
The other is ad placement, which the article used Apple as a theoretical example by saying the bill would prevent Apple from placing ads for their competing services, on the search results in the Apple App Store. For example, if an iOS user were to search for the Spotify App in the Apple App Store, this bill if passed, would not allow Apple to place an ad for their own Apple Music, in the search result. This has nothing to do with putting Apple Music on top of the search result. And i'm not aware that Apple places any ads of sorts, along with the search result in their Apple App Store.
Amazon does this. When you search for a specific brand of a product, Amazon result would also include Amazon own brand related to the product in the search. When you search for Energizer batteries, the result will include Amazon own brand of batteries, usually near the top of the page with a banner reading "Amazon's Choice". But all the batteries by Energizer available on Amazon are listed. It's not like you only get a list of Amazon batteries when you do a search for Energizer batteries.
The problem is not even close to being as big as you make it seem. No one is obviously altering the search result that uses a "keyword" and replacing their own services on top of the search result.
And really, if you were searching for say, Bounty paper towels at a Costco, what's the problem with seeing Costco own brand of paper towels at a much better price, right next to the Bounty. Or having Lucky's own Sunny Select brand of soda on the same shelves as Pepsi and Coca Cola, at half the price of Pepsi and Coca Cola.
Using your Denny's and IHOP analogy. If you ask Google Map to direct you to the nearest Denny's and when you get there, it's an IHOP, that's a problem but this is not what's happening. It's more like if you ask Google Map to direct you to the nearest diner that serves pancakes and you end up at a Denny's. Even if you were hoping to find an IHOP. This happens when you search with a "query", instead of a "keyword".
Comments
>More widely, it would prevent Google from putting its own services at the top of a search query.<
For instance, if you search "Spotify"using Google search engine, that is using a "keyword" and Google top result will always be "Spotify". However, if you were do a search query using "music streaming providers" then Google search result should be a list of music streaming providers. With the top rank ones based on some confidential algorithm that Google uses. But what Google would do or can do, is to place Google YouTube Music on the top of the search result, regardless if YouTube Music deserves to be on top of the list. This is what this bill is addressing.
>For example, it would prevent Apple from putting an ad for Apple Music on App Store search results for competitors like Tidal or Spotify.<
The other is ad placement, which the article used Apple as a theoretical example by saying the bill would prevent Apple from placing ads for their competing services, on the search results in the Apple App Store. For example, if an iOS user were to search for the Spotify App in the Apple App Store, this bill if passed, would not allow Apple to place an ad for their own Apple Music, in the search result. This has nothing to do with putting Apple Music on top of the search result. And i'm not aware that Apple places any ads of sorts, along with the search result in their Apple App Store.
Amazon does this. When you search for a specific brand of a product, Amazon result would also include Amazon own brand related to the product in the search. When you search for Energizer batteries, the result will include Amazon own brand of batteries, usually near the top of the page with a banner reading "Amazon's Choice". But all the batteries by Energizer available on Amazon are listed. It's not like you only get a list of Amazon batteries when you do a search for Energizer batteries.
The problem is not even close to being as big as you make it seem. No one is obviously altering the search result that uses a "keyword" and replacing their own services on top of the search result.
And really, if you were searching for say, Bounty paper towels at a Costco, what's the problem with seeing Costco own brand of paper towels at a much better price, right next to the Bounty. Or having Lucky's own Sunny Select brand of soda on the same shelves as Pepsi and Coca Cola, at half the price of Pepsi and Coca Cola.
Using your Denny's and IHOP analogy. If you ask Google Map to direct you to the nearest Denny's and when you get there, it's an IHOP, that's a problem but this is not what's happening. It's more like if you ask Google Map to direct you to the nearest diner that serves pancakes and you end up at a Denny's. Even if you were hoping to find an IHOP. This happens when you search with a "query", instead of a "keyword".