4 ms·

Which basically means inserting pointless extra clicks into the user flow. And think about how horrible this would be for voice interfaces: "hey google, where c

Which basically means inserting pointless extra clicks into the user flow. And think about how horrible this would be for voice interfaces: "hey google, where can I buy Doritos" "ok, let me redirect you to voice product search. Hi, I'm voice product search, please restate your question."

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Is protecting fair competition "pointless"? I'd argue having one or two clicks extra as something that protects us from a monopolistic corporate overlord to be clicks well spent. But your example is also excessively alarmist and obtuse. A competition-respecting voice search client would be configurable. Aka, that it should perhaps be illegal for Google Assistant to automatically play music from Google Play Music, but that it allow you to choose a provider, including Amazon Prime Music, Groove Music, etc. Once a user has indicated their preference, the regular flow would be automatic. This would likely be for product search as well, you might select that you want to look up products via Amazon or Walmart. Surely piping data from one application into another is not new territory.
- cromwellian 9y ago
  > Is protecting fair competition "pointless"? Why should a search engine send me to other search engines? Sending someone to Amazon Prime Music for the the query "Play me X" is like following a link from Google to a SERP result, which is what Google already does. I don't see a problem with that. But that's different than the Product Search example of where Foundem wanted Google to send a query like "Headphone prices" to a SERP page which would include a link which takes the user to yet another SERP page. Users expect searches to yield answers, not more searches. When I want to buy headphones, show me 10 Amazon links if you must that directly link to the landing pages for buying them, but don't show me 10 links, each of which, is a link to another search product search product. When I ask what the weather is, I don't want to be search to a search box on Weather.com. When I ask if my flight's delayed, I don't want a link to be taken to Flightstatus.com so I can re-run the query.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Actually, in the example here, you're wrong: Google Home/Assistant only works with proprietary Google products[1], like Play Music and YouTube Red, with the exception of Spotify... which isn't a competitor for the same type of music service. (And heck, Spotify is a huge Google Cloud customer[2]. Google's still feeding their own here.) It's an excellent example of how Google uses monopolistic design to prevent you from using say, a voice assistant with someone else's music service. Google should be required, by law, to permit Amazon Prime Music, Groove Music (Microsoft), and Apple's iTunes to integrate should those companies so choose. Note that when you search for music on Bing [3], it offers up links to buy it Amazon and Apple as well as Microsoft's own service, whereas Google points you to YouTube [4]. Google is playing by a very unfair set of rules compared to most others. In your weather example, maybe I can pick which weather site provides my preferred weather results. Or Google can pass my flight status request right into flightstatus.com and return information... again, leaving that option open for any of their competitors. The problem here remains that Google primarily feeds into Google, which is, as the EU has clarified, illegal. [1] https://support.google.com/googlehome/answer/7030379?hl=en https://support.google.com/googlehome/answer/7030379?hl=en [2] https://www.wired.com/2016/02/spotify-moves-itself-onto-googles-cloud-lucky-for-google/ https://www.wired.com/2016/02/spotify-moves-itself-onto-goog... [3] https://www.bing.com/search?q=lady+gaga+the+cure https://www.bing.com/search?q=lady+gaga+the+cure [4] https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=lady+gaga+the+cure https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=lady+gaga+the+cure
    - DocTomoe 9y ago
      > Or Google can pass my flight status request right into flightstatus.com and return information... again, leaving that option open for any of their competitors. From a consumer perspective, that is a one more extra step for me to take I would rather not take. Technology should be about making my life easier, not worse. What I want is reliable data about when the flight will be departing, arriving and if or if not it is delayed, cancelled or on time. I do not want to choose from a myriad of options of websites I do not know how current they keep their data. From Google's perspective, now they have four thousand flight status websites, some more reliable than others, and each one will have a case to sue them that they do not get shown equally well. The same can be said about your music example. If I enter an artist / song title, I do want to hear that song, I do not want to choose between different services, some of which require signup (and the one I already signed up for might appear on page three of that SERP). When I wonder if it is going to rain later today, I want a yes/likely/unlikely/no answer, not a choice between different websites who may or may not have the data for me/my location and today, filled with gigabytes worth of ads and self-playing videos. Pruning worthless competitors (see: price-comparison websites which don't give you the cheapest option, but the option which gives them the most referal revenue) is not problematic, but the beauty in the eye of the customer.
IanCal 9y ago
Or they have to provide an interface for other services to hook into. If I build a better comparison shopping service, wouldn't it be good if that could end up at the top in the same format? > And think about how horrible this would be for voice interfaces: "hey google, where can I buy Doritos" "ok, let me redirect you to voice product search. Hi, I'm voice product search, please restate your question." Or how good it would be as your query goes through straight to a better product search engine than the one google has.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Is protecting fair competition "pointless"? I'd argue having one or two clicks extra as something that protects us from a monopolistic corporate overlord to be clicks well spent. But your example is also excessively alarmist and obtuse. A competition-respecting voice search client would be configurable. Aka, that it should perhaps be illegal for Google Assistant to automatically play music from Google Play Music, but that it allow you to choose a provider, including Amazon Prime Music, Groove Music, etc. Once a user has indicated their preference, the regular flow would be automatic. This would likely be for product search as well, you might select that you want to look up products via Amazon or Walmart. Surely piping data from one application into another is not new territory.

cromwellian 9y ago
> Is protecting fair competition "pointless"? Why should a search engine send me to other search engines? Sending someone to Amazon Prime Music for the the query "Play me X" is like following a link from Google to a SERP result, which is what Google already does. I don't see a problem with that. But that's different than the Product Search example of where Foundem wanted Google to send a query like "Headphone prices" to a SERP page which would include a link which takes the user to yet another SERP page. Users expect searches to yield answers, not more searches. When I want to buy headphones, show me 10 Amazon links if you must that directly link to the landing pages for buying them, but don't show me 10 links, each of which, is a link to another search product search product. When I ask what the weather is, I don't want to be search to a search box on Weather.com. When I ask if my flight's delayed, I don't want a link to be taken to Flightstatus.com so I can re-run the query.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Actually, in the example here, you're wrong: Google Home/Assistant only works with proprietary Google products[1], like Play Music and YouTube Red, with the exception of Spotify... which isn't a competitor for the same type of music service. (And heck, Spotify is a huge Google Cloud customer[2]. Google's still feeding their own here.) It's an excellent example of how Google uses monopolistic design to prevent you from using say, a voice assistant with someone else's music service. Google should be required, by law, to permit Amazon Prime Music, Groove Music (Microsoft), and Apple's iTunes to integrate should those companies so choose. Note that when you search for music on Bing [3], it offers up links to buy it Amazon and Apple as well as Microsoft's own service, whereas Google points you to YouTube [4]. Google is playing by a very unfair set of rules compared to most others. In your weather example, maybe I can pick which weather site provides my preferred weather results. Or Google can pass my flight status request right into flightstatus.com and return information... again, leaving that option open for any of their competitors. The problem here remains that Google primarily feeds into Google, which is, as the EU has clarified, illegal. [1] https://support.google.com/googlehome/answer/7030379?hl=en https://support.google.com/googlehome/answer/7030379?hl=en [2] https://www.wired.com/2016/02/spotify-moves-itself-onto-googles-cloud-lucky-for-google/ https://www.wired.com/2016/02/spotify-moves-itself-onto-goog... [3] https://www.bing.com/search?q=lady+gaga+the+cure https://www.bing.com/search?q=lady+gaga+the+cure [4] https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=lady+gaga+the+cure https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=lady+gaga+the+cure
  - DocTomoe 9y ago
    > Or Google can pass my flight status request right into flightstatus.com and return information... again, leaving that option open for any of their competitors. From a consumer perspective, that is a one more extra step for me to take I would rather not take. Technology should be about making my life easier, not worse. What I want is reliable data about when the flight will be departing, arriving and if or if not it is delayed, cancelled or on time. I do not want to choose from a myriad of options of websites I do not know how current they keep their data. From Google's perspective, now they have four thousand flight status websites, some more reliable than others, and each one will have a case to sue them that they do not get shown equally well. The same can be said about your music example. If I enter an artist / song title, I do want to hear that song, I do not want to choose between different services, some of which require signup (and the one I already signed up for might appear on page three of that SERP). When I wonder if it is going to rain later today, I want a yes/likely/unlikely/no answer, not a choice between different websites who may or may not have the data for me/my location and today, filled with gigabytes worth of ads and self-playing videos. Pruning worthless competitors (see: price-comparison websites which don't give you the cheapest option, but the option which gives them the most referal revenue) is not problematic, but the beauty in the eye of the customer.

IanCal 9y ago

Or they have to provide an interface for other services to hook into. If I build a better comparison shopping service, wouldn't it be good if that could end up at the top in the same format? > And think about how horrible this would be for voice interfaces: "hey google, where can I buy Doritos" "ok, let me redirect you to voice product search. Hi, I'm voice product search, please restate your question." Or how good it would be as your query goes through straight to a better product search engine than the one google has.