5 ms·

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 fa

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.
        whalabi 7y ago
        It's also a barrier of entry to non profit search engines
        close04 7y ago
        It's a barrier for any search engine and Google knows it. Google is the only participant who doesn't have to pay and they're leveraging their 90% of the market share (about the same IE had 15 years ago) to squeeze the others. My question still stands and (downvotes and the "small screen" non-issue aside) nobody is able to explain why Google should get a different treatment from Microsoft given the similar position.
- numbsafari 7y ago
  The difference is that Apple doesn't have its own search engine getting a free slot. If Google handed administration of the auction over to an independent third party, who would accept all of the paid-in fees from the winners, thus bearing the same cost as everyone else, then it would be a lot harder to make a case against this arrangement.
lallysingh 7y ago
Indeed. I was pretty off-put by the auction. Rather un-googley.
- jsnell 7y ago
  :-D Indeed, it's great that they've never tried building their entire business model on auctioning off the ad spots in search results. It's much more fair to everyone to just allow anyone to apply for a spot for each keyword for free, and then choose randomly from that set.
whalabi 7y ago
It occurs to me that this is like supermarkets charging companies to put products on their shelves, then also launching their own brands and competing with them on their own shelves. I think it's easy to see how customers are harmed by this, their choice becomes the supermarket brand or whoever shelled out the most for shelf space. So Google search is an android home brand? (Also why isn't the supermarket thing deemed anti-competitive?)
summerlight 7y ago
What is your proposal? I don't see not much other options: 1) Excludes Google from Android/Chrome's default search engine options. This clearly doesn't make sense for Google and I don't think there's an easy way to enforce this. 2) Lists all every search engine that exists on the planet. This still doesn't answer the question who should be placed on the top of the list. 3) Break google up into Android/Chrome and the rest. This is not even an option for EU since their jurisdiction doesn't reach to Google. Maybe Google can say something like, "all of the profits from this auction will go back to the society!", which practically doesn't make any differences to them since the profit from this auction will likely be a minute fraction compared to the Google's yearly revenues.
- whalabi 7y ago
  Do what they did on Windows, pick the 4 or 5 most popular. (In that case it was browsers) I know, I know, what about the less popular search engines? Well. It's better than Google takes all, and customers get easier access to 5 search engines instead of 1. (Yes they can already choose others. Almost no one bothers) Maybe they could rotate the last 2 choices between a field of say, 20. Thing is, if no one's heard of the option, I doubt they'll choose it, so there's not much point offering beyond say, 5 choices. I'm guessing though.
  - dpq 7y ago
    In this case, Ecosia would still rant about it. They would only change their complaint text from "what about non-profit oriented search engines like us?" to "what about search engines nobody has ever heard about like us?". Interestingly enough, they use Bing API for actually producing SERPs, so basically this is a PR stunt for not getting free access to a marketing method that is irrelevant to user experience. While their claimed goal of promoting afforestation is rational/noble, I consider their argumentation in this case to be disingenuous.
- tareqak 7y ago
  1) Excluding Google from the Android/Chrome’s options is possible: just remove it from that list. 2) DuckDuckGo has a list of search providers using their !bang query. It’s not exhaustive, but adding one to the list is a form submission to DuckDuckGo. 3) A break up is not necessary: the EU can charge Google increasing fines and significantly hamper Google’s European operations. I think 1) and 2) together could work: the browser could have no list of search engines but could download a list of search engines from a known good URL when it run for the first time. The owners of the known good URL could be a consortium of search engine providers. There are definitely flaws with this approach, and it gives the user an extra choice, but giving the user this extra choice is the point.

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.
      - whalabi 7y ago
        It's also a barrier of entry to non profit search engines
        close04 7y ago
        It's a barrier for any search engine and Google knows it. Google is the only participant who doesn't have to pay and they're leveraging their 90% of the market share (about the same IE had 15 years ago) to squeeze the others. My question still stands and (downvotes and the "small screen" non-issue aside) nobody is able to explain why Google should get a different treatment from Microsoft given the similar position.
numbsafari 7y ago
The difference is that Apple doesn't have its own search engine getting a free slot. If Google handed administration of the auction over to an independent third party, who would accept all of the paid-in fees from the winners, thus bearing the same cost as everyone else, then it would be a lot harder to make a case against this arrangement.

lallysingh 7y ago

Indeed. I was pretty off-put by the auction. Rather un-googley.

jsnell 7y ago
:-D Indeed, it's great that they've never tried building their entire business model on auctioning off the ad spots in search results. It's much more fair to everyone to just allow anyone to apply for a spot for each keyword for free, and then choose randomly from that set.

whalabi 7y ago

It occurs to me that this is like supermarkets charging companies to put products on their shelves, then also launching their own brands and competing with them on their own shelves. I think it's easy to see how customers are harmed by this, their choice becomes the supermarket brand or whoever shelled out the most for shelf space. So Google search is an android home brand? (Also why isn't the supermarket thing deemed anti-competitive?)

summerlight 7y ago

What is your proposal? I don't see not much other options: 1) Excludes Google from Android/Chrome's default search engine options. This clearly doesn't make sense for Google and I don't think there's an easy way to enforce this. 2) Lists all every search engine that exists on the planet. This still doesn't answer the question who should be placed on the top of the list. 3) Break google up into Android/Chrome and the rest. This is not even an option for EU since their jurisdiction doesn't reach to Google. Maybe Google can say something like, "all of the profits from this auction will go back to the society!", which practically doesn't make any differences to them since the profit from this auction will likely be a minute fraction compared to the Google's yearly revenues.

whalabi 7y ago
Do what they did on Windows, pick the 4 or 5 most popular. (In that case it was browsers) I know, I know, what about the less popular search engines? Well. It's better than Google takes all, and customers get easier access to 5 search engines instead of 1. (Yes they can already choose others. Almost no one bothers) Maybe they could rotate the last 2 choices between a field of say, 20. Thing is, if no one's heard of the option, I doubt they'll choose it, so there's not much point offering beyond say, 5 choices. I'm guessing though.
- dpq 7y ago
  In this case, Ecosia would still rant about it. They would only change their complaint text from "what about non-profit oriented search engines like us?" to "what about search engines nobody has ever heard about like us?". Interestingly enough, they use Bing API for actually producing SERPs, so basically this is a PR stunt for not getting free access to a marketing method that is irrelevant to user experience. While their claimed goal of promoting afforestation is rational/noble, I consider their argumentation in this case to be disingenuous.
tareqak 7y ago
1) Excluding Google from the Android/Chrome’s options is possible: just remove it from that list. 2) DuckDuckGo has a list of search providers using their !bang query. It’s not exhaustive, but adding one to the list is a form submission to DuckDuckGo. 3) A break up is not necessary: the EU can charge Google increasing fines and significantly hamper Google’s European operations. I think 1) and 2) together could work: the browser could have no list of search engines but could download a list of search engines from a known good URL when it run for the first time. The owners of the known good URL could be a consortium of search engine providers. There are definitely flaws with this approach, and it gives the user an extra choice, but giving the user this extra choice is the point.