5 ms·

There is not a finite amount of screen space there, scrolling lists exist.

by guelo 7y ago

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
    The Firefox model is very close to what's being proposed here actually: This is the short list that ships by default, and you can pick whatever search engine you want after the initial setup anyways. I think it's reasonable for them to say they don't want to have 3,823 options on the initial setup screen for the phone, most people are just trying to get through it and don't want an extensive decision-making tree before they can write their first text message. The difference here is that Google owns Android and Google doesn't have to bid. In my book, this is the case-in-point demonstration why Android and Chrome are the two properties that Google must be forced to spin off. Letting one company own both the dominant platforms and the dominant services that run on those platforms is a very dangerous mix.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      > The difference here is that Google owns Android and Google doesn't have to bid. This is a nonsensical argument. What is the practical difference between Google bidding and Google automatically taking a place? If Google bids, that money goes to Google, so it's as if they didn't spend any money. In both cases, by Google taking a spot, Google loses revenue from the bidder who would have otherwise taken that spot.
      - solarkraft 7y ago
        That's kind of the point: Google should have to bid and the money spent shouldn' go back to Google. Such a thing would happen if Android was managed by a separate company.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        The money would go to Android, to sponsor android development. Would it suffice if Google broke down their financials enough so that it was clear that this money was invested in android, and not in, say, maps?
        ocdtrekkie 7y ago
        I'm not sure that would be enough, because Android development is still principally built around Google's proprietary services and integrations. A spun-off Android would presumably support the same feature set for Google Search and say, Ecosia, alike. Also, of course, Google can just lower their own existing Android spending line and inject it back into Search, to zero out any impact on them. Similar to how my local area likes to justify highway toll increases "we'll spend it on education!" but then stripping out education funding elsewhere to compensate, and using it for something else.
        xbmcuser 7y ago
        Google bought or built android to be the main mobile search engine. I understand for competitive reasons them being forced to give others a place in the search selection but why the hell should they take themselves out or even be forced to sell Android. Google auctioning the search placement is fuck you to the search engines complaining about its monopoly if they think it's get an advantage by being the default search they should be willing to pay something for being 1 of the selection.
  - cmiles74 7y ago
    It's not clear to me that Google needs to _earn money_ through this auction (one they enter free of charge, even!) Simply randomizing the list is better than always placing Google in the first screen of slots and then charging everyone else for a slot of their own.
- disordinary 7y ago
  I recall Microsoft would randomly show a preferred browser after their antitrust case? Google could randomly order the search engines.

There is not a finite amount of screen space there, scrolling lists exist.

by guelo 7y ago

There is not a finite amount of screen space there, scrolling lists exist.

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
  The Firefox model is very close to what's being proposed here actually: This is the short list that ships by default, and you can pick whatever search engine you want after the initial setup anyways. I think it's reasonable for them to say they don't want to have 3,823 options on the initial setup screen for the phone, most people are just trying to get through it and don't want an extensive decision-making tree before they can write their first text message. The difference here is that Google owns Android and Google doesn't have to bid. In my book, this is the case-in-point demonstration why Android and Chrome are the two properties that Google must be forced to spin off. Letting one company own both the dominant platforms and the dominant services that run on those platforms is a very dangerous mix.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > The difference here is that Google owns Android and Google doesn't have to bid. This is a nonsensical argument. What is the practical difference between Google bidding and Google automatically taking a place? If Google bids, that money goes to Google, so it's as if they didn't spend any money. In both cases, by Google taking a spot, Google loses revenue from the bidder who would have otherwise taken that spot.
    - solarkraft 7y ago
      That's kind of the point: Google should have to bid and the money spent shouldn' go back to Google. Such a thing would happen if Android was managed by a separate company.
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        The money would go to Android, to sponsor android development. Would it suffice if Google broke down their financials enough so that it was clear that this money was invested in android, and not in, say, maps?
        ocdtrekkie 7y ago
        I'm not sure that would be enough, because Android development is still principally built around Google's proprietary services and integrations. A spun-off Android would presumably support the same feature set for Google Search and say, Ecosia, alike. Also, of course, Google can just lower their own existing Android spending line and inject it back into Search, to zero out any impact on them. Similar to how my local area likes to justify highway toll increases "we'll spend it on education!" but then stripping out education funding elsewhere to compensate, and using it for something else.
        xbmcuser 7y ago
        Google bought or built android to be the main mobile search engine. I understand for competitive reasons them being forced to give others a place in the search selection but why the hell should they take themselves out or even be forced to sell Android. Google auctioning the search placement is fuck you to the search engines complaining about its monopoly if they think it's get an advantage by being the default search they should be willing to pay something for being 1 of the selection.
- cmiles74 7y ago
  It's not clear to me that Google needs to _earn money_ through this auction (one they enter free of charge, even!) Simply randomizing the list is better than always placing Google in the first screen of slots and then charging everyone else for a slot of their own.
disordinary 7y ago
I recall Microsoft would randomly show a preferred browser after their antitrust case? Google could randomly order the search engines.