13 ms·

Google’s rivals opt out of search engine auction, calling it ‘anti-competitive’

173 points by fourthark 7y ago

Theodores 7y ago
I don't care for companies that resell search results provided by another company. Bing! is okay, Yahoo, Ecosia and any of these other middlemen in the world of search I just don't have any incentive to use or reason to trust them. I am sure the work Ecosia does is commendable but reselling search engine results is not going to plant enough trees to save the planet. It might provide their founders with a comfortable salary plus an ego-boost for do-gooding but I might as well do my Christmas shopping from The Hunger Site (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Site) for the good it does.
- gibolt 7y ago
  If you want to make a service with positive environmental impact and positive financials, you have to start somewhere. The place you start is likely to be close to your expertise. In Ecosia's case, it could scale massively and they could replace the search stack with their own as the business grows. Until a carbon tax is implemented, most businesses trying to have a positive environmental impact will be hard pressed to find financial stability.
  - raws 7y ago
    Yeah, it should be mentioned when you select the default search engine. I fear the common consumer will default to Google for lack of better understanding of what the other options provide and those consumers are by far the great majority. At least a door is opened.
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      Especially if they're only going to present four options, they really should allow each company to list a small blurb to go under their title. It's likely Ecosia would vastly increase it's market share if given this option... and largely why I'm not surprised Google isn't offering such a blurb in the screenshot.
  - duskwuff 7y ago
    > The place you start is likely to be close to your expertise. What is their "expertise", though? Being an effective search engine requires expertise in search. If Ecosia is going to outsource that entirely to a third party, like Bing... what does that make them an expert at? Donating to charity?
- fourthark 7y ago
  This article also quoted DuckDuckGo and Qwant, which are search aggregators and not just pass-through. I agree, Ecosia isn't a compelling alternative. It's the same business model as Credo Wireless and various do-good credit cards. Good for them for speaking up though.
- guelo 7y ago
  That is pure ad-hominem. You are not engaging with the argument being made, you are attacking it solely based on who is making it.
- thekyle 7y ago
  If you want to plant trees you could always pass your savings from Bing rewards onto a direct charitable donation. I'm only a moderate Bing user but still get like $10/mo in rewards.
jrochkind1 7y ago
What is the alternative? There is a finite amount of screen space for listing alternative search engines. How do you choose what shows up there? (I'm not saying there couldn't be a better one than whoever pays most, I'm just not sure what it is, and none were suggested in this article). If you just put, say, a text-entry search box (or select menu with dozens+ of options?) there to choose any of unlimited number of alternatives (with none on screen to begin with), it will definitely result in even fewer users choosing something other than Google.
- guelo 7y ago
  There is not a finite amount of screen space there, scrolling lists exist.
  - jrochkind1 7y ago
    There is a finite amount of space for what shows up initially on the screen, and what shows up initially on the screen will have a HUGE advantage. (In the possibly small pond of ANYONE that changes the default). I suppose deciding that "AAAAAdvantage Searches" shows up on the initial screen, like the old yellow pages, would be one alternative to the highest bidder. Someone might consider that preferable.
    - guelo 7y ago
      The Firefox model is a good example. The initial short list of available search engines (7 slots instead of 4) is auctioned off but there's also a "Find more search engines" button with a list of 3,823 providers. This is not a problem that a UX designer would have a hard time with.
      - jrochkind1 7y ago
        Sure, that works. Do you think that would satisfy the OP? Why don't they suggest it in the article/their press releases?
      - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
GeekyBear 7y ago
As a bit of history, here's what happened to Microsoft when they refused to comply with the EU order to open up the protocols that Windows Server used to communicate with Windows clients as one of the enforced antitrust remedies. >The European Union's chief antitrust regulator fined Microsoft Corp. another $1.3 billion (899 million euros) today for what she said were business practices that "continued to stifle competition" after it was ordered to change four years ago. Today's fine, she said, was applied because Microsoft continued to thumb its nose at the EU for more than a year -- 488 days, Kroes said at one point -- by charging an "unreasonable price" to rivals that licensed Windows' communication protocols to make their own software work more smoothly with the U.S. software maker's server products. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2537525/eu-fines-microsoft-another--1-3b.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2537525/eu-fines-micro...
- solarkraft 7y ago
  This is amazing. Is the EU still on the same level of consumer protection? Because I see some pretty large problems with Apple's walled garden.
  - cthaeh 7y ago
    Hacker news, the media and politicians love Apple for the doing the same shit that Google does. So lets not forget Google is paying apple nearly 10 Billion a year to be its default search engine. The hypocrisy makes me sick.
no_wizard 7y ago
I can't say that I blame them. This is really an underhanded way of complying with the EU's judgement. whether you agree with the EU judgement or not, the fact is they were fined and found to be in violation, and have been tasked with creating a fair and equitable way for consumers to choose their search engine, and this reeks of rent seeking.
whalabi 7y ago
This is so absurdly disingenuous from Google. The (very good) idea is that Google Search should be competing fairly with the other search engines. It's not fair to make these other search engines, already the victims of anti-competitive behaviour, pay millions of dollars (or whatever) into Google's bank account to be listed, while Google pays nothing. It's like if Ford owned the roads and GM had to pay Ford for each car they sold.
- briffle 7y ago
  Isn't that exactly what Google has to do to be the default search provider for IOS?
  - close04 7y ago
    Why not ask Google to do exactly what MS was asked to do with the browsers for Windows: offer a spot on the choice screen for free, with Google search engine occupying a random position on the screen. I don't think any of the browser developers were asked to bid for a spot on the choice screen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu
    - outside1234 7y ago
      I don't understand the downvotes. We are clearly at the same point with Google Search that we were with Windows at that time.
      - jbob2000 7y ago
        The difference is that there were only a few browsers back then, it was easy to list them on a screen. There are tons of search engines out there, how do you decide which ones to show above the fold on a user’s tiny screen?
        close04 7y ago
        The browser choice screen included over time ~17 browsers. On the main page you had the main browsers, while the smaller ones ended up under a "More" button. And the "tiny screen" doesn't seem to be an issue when picking one of the dozens of languages during the phone's setup. Or any of the countless activities on a phone that overflow one screen. This particular list shouldn't be treated differently unless it's purely a money grab.
writepub 7y ago
I'm a huge critic of Google, but the demagoguery and double speak from the competition is tiring, not to mention disingenuous. Let's all note how none of the same entities peep a whimper at Apple, and default search options on iOS Safari! They excel at taking down an easy adversary who is a lot less iron gripped, and open about their platform. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO BE FEATURED ON GOOGLE's $0 CHARGED OS, FOR FREE! IT'S NOT GOOGLE'S JOB TO PROMOTE YOU
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
supergirl 7y ago
how about allow any search engine to apply for a slot for free and then list all in random order, including goole search. users can then type the name directly for the popular ones. or they pick random ones until they find one that is good. pretty sure google can find an even better way than this if they really want to be fair. anyway, as it is, they will get fined again, pretty sure about that, EU doesn't like getting off the hook through a technicality
- fosefx 7y ago
  Or a middle way. A "featured search engine" tab for those who are willing to pay for what is essentially advertisement and an "other" tab where everybody can apply for a random position.
tschellenbach 7y ago
This is crazy, Google spends billions on Android. They are not blocking you from installing other search engines (now that would be anti competitive). I think it's kinda crazy that the EU is forcing them to show other search engines to begin with. Only fair that those search engines pay a solid contribution to android development to be featured. Reminds me of the Microsoft/IE days. At the end of the day better products came along and replaced IE. Showing competitors doesn't solve anything in this case.
- whalabi 7y ago
  They're unfairly abusing their dominant market share (75%?) to harm competing search engines, which is not allowed in EU law. Nothing crazy about it.
  - Buraksr 7y ago
    I do see tschellenbach's point. Way back when google seemingly bought android to be more able to compete in search [0], and now it has been good business for them even back in 2010 android showed real promise in terms of profit [1]. So Google spends a lot of time and man hours building the most popular OS. And I can relate to google in some weird way, for not really wanting to put competitors as default options. Now as tschellenbach says, > "Google spends billions on Android. They are not blocking you from installing other search engines" if they did that, they would get a clear anti-trust violation I hope. Reading up on some history we see this quote from Wikipedia [2](The best source): "Compared to the European Decision against Microsoft, the DOJ case is focused less on interoperability and more on predatory strategies and market barriers to entry." If history is good president, and if Android has interoperability with other search engines and there are not predatory strategies then it should be fine right? I think the word harm, as whalabi uses it, is too ambiguous here, having a better product 'Harms' your competitor in some way, but we wouldn't file anti-trust for this reason. The question is more like "is google behaving in a predatory manner using android". Looking at the US case, I would be tempted to say no, after all IE/Edge are defaults on windows, and this is fine so long as those two aforementioned conditions are maintained. But defaults are powerful, powerful things. Bing has come a long way almost solely because of the power of defaults [3], so maybe it should be more regulated in this regard. 0- https://www.cnet.com/news/google-buys-android/ https://www.cnet.com/news/google-buys-android/ 1- https://venturebeat.com/2010/10/27/google-exec-android-was-best-deal-ever/ https://venturebeat.com/2010/10/27/google-exec-android-was-b... 2- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... 3- https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-q4-2018-bing-search-business-revenue-grows/ https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-q4-2018-bing-search-busine...
dahdum 7y ago
Ecosia is just a thin wrapper around Bing that allocates revenue towards climate crisis. It’s a noble cause but essentially a middleman, I don’t see why they should be given equal standing to Google/Bing for free.
- Buraksr 7y ago
  I disagree with a lot of what google is doing. It's unfair that google seems to have a free spot and do not have to compete in the bidding here [0]. IANAL, so I wonder if this really fulfils what Google is trying to achieve legally. They are giving users more choice but they are effectively using their market position (Android) to get more google search usage seemingly unfairly so I would think this would lead to more anti-trust issues for them. That said, I agree with dahdum, I don't see why any of these providers should get any help in a competitive bid. If Ecosia sees value in being here there is a price to be paid, I would be surprised if they didn't pay for all the advertising they have done. -0 "Search providers are required to apply for inclusion through a bidding process to become one of three alternative choices to Google Search" - from Article
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    The spot isn't really free. The spot has the same value as the spots they are auctioning. By not auctioning it off, Google pays an opportunity cost for the spot. Not that this even matters practically. I really don't understand people's obsession with this aspect of it. Google makes so much money from its search that there is no way that any potential cost to them from having to bid for this spot would have any real competitive impact on the search market. For default search on iOS, Google already pays Apple more per year than the EU fined Google on this issue.
bubble_talk 7y ago
Yes, you can have a scroll bar - but where do you set the minimum threshold for qualification? If I slap a search box in front of CommonCrawl, have I now created a search engine?
bobbyi_settv 7y ago
Why can't/ don't phone makers like Samsung set the search engine on their Android phones to whatever they want (whoever pays them the most) which would make the Android default irrelevant? Is leaving the default alone part of the conditions they have to comply with to ship Google's apps?
ToFab123 7y ago
What would happen if every search engine out there each put in a bid of 0 (zero) dollars?
MikeGale 7y ago
As a user I want the option of choosing for myself. (Whatever I want.) From that potential designs should be obvious.
buboard 7y ago
The fair choice is a text box: enter your search engine url. If you don’t know what it is, google it. The purpose of the legislation should be to make users aware of their options, not to let google prefill it for them. Users bear much of the responsibility for creating monopolies and have a duty to be educated about the market, if they wish to keep having a free market. This would create an incentive for search engines to spend the money on ad campaigns for brand awareness instead of bidding for google. Win win for the market

173 points by fourthark 7y ago

I don't care for companies that resell search results provided by another company. Bing! is okay, Yahoo, Ecosia and any of these other middlemen in the world of search I just don't have any incentive to use or reason to trust them. I am sure the work Ecosia does is commendable but reselling search engine results is not going to plant enough trees to save the planet. It might provide their founders with a comfortable salary plus an ego-boost for do-gooding but I might as well do my Christmas shopping from The Hunger Site (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Site) for the good it does.

gibolt 7y ago
If you want to make a service with positive environmental impact and positive financials, you have to start somewhere. The place you start is likely to be close to your expertise. In Ecosia's case, it could scale massively and they could replace the search stack with their own as the business grows. Until a carbon tax is implemented, most businesses trying to have a positive environmental impact will be hard pressed to find financial stability.
- raws 7y ago
  Yeah, it should be mentioned when you select the default search engine. I fear the common consumer will default to Google for lack of better understanding of what the other options provide and those consumers are by far the great majority. At least a door is opened.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    Especially if they're only going to present four options, they really should allow each company to list a small blurb to go under their title. It's likely Ecosia would vastly increase it's market share if given this option... and largely why I'm not surprised Google isn't offering such a blurb in the screenshot.
- duskwuff 7y ago
  > The place you start is likely to be close to your expertise. What is their "expertise", though? Being an effective search engine requires expertise in search. If Ecosia is going to outsource that entirely to a third party, like Bing... what does that make them an expert at? Donating to charity?
fourthark 7y ago
This article also quoted DuckDuckGo and Qwant, which are search aggregators and not just pass-through. I agree, Ecosia isn't a compelling alternative. It's the same business model as Credo Wireless and various do-good credit cards. Good for them for speaking up though.
guelo 7y ago
That is pure ad-hominem. You are not engaging with the argument being made, you are attacking it solely based on who is making it.
thekyle 7y ago
If you want to plant trees you could always pass your savings from Bing rewards onto a direct charitable donation. I'm only a moderate Bing user but still get like $10/mo in rewards.

jrochkind1 7y ago

What is the alternative? There is a finite amount of screen space for listing alternative search engines. How do you choose what shows up there? (I'm not saying there couldn't be a better one than whoever pays most, I'm just not sure what it is, and none were suggested in this article). If you just put, say, a text-entry search box (or select menu with dozens+ of options?) there to choose any of unlimited number of alternatives (with none on screen to begin with), it will definitely result in even fewer users choosing something other than Google.

guelo 7y ago
There is not a finite amount of screen space there, scrolling lists exist.
- jrochkind1 7y ago
  There is a finite amount of space for what shows up initially on the screen, and what shows up initially on the screen will have a HUGE advantage. (In the possibly small pond of ANYONE that changes the default). I suppose deciding that "AAAAAdvantage Searches" shows up on the initial screen, like the old yellow pages, would be one alternative to the highest bidder. Someone might consider that preferable.
  - guelo 7y ago
    The Firefox model is a good example. The initial short list of available search engines (7 slots instead of 4) is auctioned off but there's also a "Find more search engines" button with a list of 3,823 providers. This is not a problem that a UX designer would have a hard time with.
    - jrochkind1 7y ago
      Sure, that works. Do you think that would satisfy the OP? Why don't they suggest it in the article/their press releases?
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago

GeekyBear 7y ago

As a bit of history, here's what happened to Microsoft when they refused to comply with the EU order to open up the protocols that Windows Server used to communicate with Windows clients as one of the enforced antitrust remedies. >The European Union's chief antitrust regulator fined Microsoft Corp. another $1.3 billion (899 million euros) today for what she said were business practices that "continued to stifle competition" after it was ordered to change four years ago. Today's fine, she said, was applied because Microsoft continued to thumb its nose at the EU for more than a year -- 488 days, Kroes said at one point -- by charging an "unreasonable price" to rivals that licensed Windows' communication protocols to make their own software work more smoothly with the U.S. software maker's server products. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2537525/eu-fines-microsoft-another--1-3b.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2537525/eu-fines-micro...

solarkraft 7y ago
This is amazing. Is the EU still on the same level of consumer protection? Because I see some pretty large problems with Apple's walled garden.
- cthaeh 7y ago
  Hacker news, the media and politicians love Apple for the doing the same shit that Google does. So lets not forget Google is paying apple nearly 10 Billion a year to be its default search engine. The hypocrisy makes me sick.

no_wizard 7y ago

I can't say that I blame them. This is really an underhanded way of complying with the EU's judgement. whether you agree with the EU judgement or not, the fact is they were fined and found to be in violation, and have been tasked with creating a fair and equitable way for consumers to choose their search engine, and this reeks of rent seeking.

whalabi 7y ago

This is so absurdly disingenuous from Google. The (very good) idea is that Google Search should be competing fairly with the other search engines. It's not fair to make these other search engines, already the victims of anti-competitive behaviour, pay millions of dollars (or whatever) into Google's bank account to be listed, while Google pays nothing. It's like if Ford owned the roads and GM had to pay Ford for each car they sold.

briffle 7y ago
Isn't that exactly what Google has to do to be the default search provider for IOS?
- close04 7y ago
  Why not ask Google to do exactly what MS was asked to do with the browsers for Windows: offer a spot on the choice screen for free, with Google search engine occupying a random position on the screen. I don't think any of the browser developers were asked to bid for a spot on the choice screen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu
  - outside1234 7y ago
    I don't understand the downvotes. We are clearly at the same point with Google Search that we were with Windows at that time.
    - jbob2000 7y ago
      The difference is that there were only a few browsers back then, it was easy to list them on a screen. There are tons of search engines out there, how do you decide which ones to show above the fold on a user’s tiny screen?
      - close04 7y ago
        The browser choice screen included over time ~17 browsers. On the main page you had the main browsers, while the smaller ones ended up under a "More" button. And the "tiny screen" doesn't seem to be an issue when picking one of the dozens of languages during the phone's setup. Or any of the countless activities on a phone that overflow one screen. This particular list shouldn't be treated differently unless it's purely a money grab.

writepub 7y ago

I'm a huge critic of Google, but the demagoguery and double speak from the competition is tiring, not to mention disingenuous. Let's all note how none of the same entities peep a whimper at Apple, and default search options on iOS Safari! They excel at taking down an easy adversary who is a lot less iron gripped, and open about their platform. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO BE FEATURED ON GOOGLE's $0 CHARGED OS, FOR FREE! IT'S NOT GOOGLE'S JOB TO PROMOTE YOU

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

supergirl 7y ago

how about allow any search engine to apply for a slot for free and then list all in random order, including goole search. users can then type the name directly for the popular ones. or they pick random ones until they find one that is good. pretty sure google can find an even better way than this if they really want to be fair. anyway, as it is, they will get fined again, pretty sure about that, EU doesn't like getting off the hook through a technicality

fosefx 7y ago
Or a middle way. A "featured search engine" tab for those who are willing to pay for what is essentially advertisement and an "other" tab where everybody can apply for a random position.

tschellenbach 7y ago

This is crazy, Google spends billions on Android. They are not blocking you from installing other search engines (now that would be anti competitive). I think it's kinda crazy that the EU is forcing them to show other search engines to begin with. Only fair that those search engines pay a solid contribution to android development to be featured. Reminds me of the Microsoft/IE days. At the end of the day better products came along and replaced IE. Showing competitors doesn't solve anything in this case.

whalabi 7y ago
They're unfairly abusing their dominant market share (75%?) to harm competing search engines, which is not allowed in EU law. Nothing crazy about it.
- Buraksr 7y ago
  I do see tschellenbach's point. Way back when google seemingly bought android to be more able to compete in search [0], and now it has been good business for them even back in 2010 android showed real promise in terms of profit [1]. So Google spends a lot of time and man hours building the most popular OS. And I can relate to google in some weird way, for not really wanting to put competitors as default options. Now as tschellenbach says, > "Google spends billions on Android. They are not blocking you from installing other search engines" if they did that, they would get a clear anti-trust violation I hope. Reading up on some history we see this quote from Wikipedia [2](The best source): "Compared to the European Decision against Microsoft, the DOJ case is focused less on interoperability and more on predatory strategies and market barriers to entry." If history is good president, and if Android has interoperability with other search engines and there are not predatory strategies then it should be fine right? I think the word harm, as whalabi uses it, is too ambiguous here, having a better product 'Harms' your competitor in some way, but we wouldn't file anti-trust for this reason. The question is more like "is google behaving in a predatory manner using android". Looking at the US case, I would be tempted to say no, after all IE/Edge are defaults on windows, and this is fine so long as those two aforementioned conditions are maintained. But defaults are powerful, powerful things. Bing has come a long way almost solely because of the power of defaults [3], so maybe it should be more regulated in this regard. 0- https://www.cnet.com/news/google-buys-android/ https://www.cnet.com/news/google-buys-android/ 1- https://venturebeat.com/2010/10/27/google-exec-android-was-best-deal-ever/ https://venturebeat.com/2010/10/27/google-exec-android-was-b... 2- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... 3- https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-q4-2018-bing-search-business-revenue-grows/ https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-q4-2018-bing-search-busine...

dahdum 7y ago

Ecosia is just a thin wrapper around Bing that allocates revenue towards climate crisis. It’s a noble cause but essentially a middleman, I don’t see why they should be given equal standing to Google/Bing for free.

Buraksr 7y ago
I disagree with a lot of what google is doing. It's unfair that google seems to have a free spot and do not have to compete in the bidding here [0]. IANAL, so I wonder if this really fulfils what Google is trying to achieve legally. They are giving users more choice but they are effectively using their market position (Android) to get more google search usage seemingly unfairly so I would think this would lead to more anti-trust issues for them. That said, I agree with dahdum, I don't see why any of these providers should get any help in a competitive bid. If Ecosia sees value in being here there is a price to be paid, I would be surprised if they didn't pay for all the advertising they have done. -0 "Search providers are required to apply for inclusion through a bidding process to become one of three alternative choices to Google Search" - from Article
- shkkmo 7y ago
  The spot isn't really free. The spot has the same value as the spots they are auctioning. By not auctioning it off, Google pays an opportunity cost for the spot. Not that this even matters practically. I really don't understand people's obsession with this aspect of it. Google makes so much money from its search that there is no way that any potential cost to them from having to bid for this spot would have any real competitive impact on the search market. For default search on iOS, Google already pays Apple more per year than the EU fined Google on this issue.

bubble_talk 7y ago

Yes, you can have a scroll bar - but where do you set the minimum threshold for qualification? If I slap a search box in front of CommonCrawl, have I now created a search engine?

bobbyi_settv 7y ago

Why can't/ don't phone makers like Samsung set the search engine on their Android phones to whatever they want (whoever pays them the most) which would make the Android default irrelevant? Is leaving the default alone part of the conditions they have to comply with to ship Google's apps?

ToFab123 7y ago

What would happen if every search engine out there each put in a bid of 0 (zero) dollars?

MikeGale 7y ago

As a user I want the option of choosing for myself. (Whatever I want.) From that potential designs should be obvious.

buboard 7y ago

The fair choice is a text box: enter your search engine url. If you don’t know what it is, google it. The purpose of the legislation should be to make users aware of their options, not to let google prefill it for them. Users bear much of the responsibility for creating monopolies and have a duty to be educated about the market, if they wish to keep having a free market. This would create an incentive for search engines to spend the money on ad campaigns for brand awareness instead of bidding for google. Win win for the market