3 ms·

It's not a straw-man when people are actually making that argument. (Rent seeking is a quote from this thread, not something I made up). The proposed model is

by jsnell 7y ago

It's not a straw-man when people are actually making that argument. (Rent seeking is a quote from this thread, not something I made up). The proposed model is obviously better for search engine competition than what iOS and Firefox do. In those models, there is no user choice: the platform holder takes the highest bid, which based on empirical evidence will be Google. It's way easier for the alternative search engines to get a foot in the door when there are multiple slots up for sale. (And if Android were split out from Google, they'd go with the iOS model of selling just the default rather than the one where users choose from a list, since it's more profitable and has a simpler setup flow.) The most common idea being floated in this thread right now is that Google should be part of the bidding and all the proceeds from the auction should be donated to some third party. How is that supposed to increase competition? We know that Google will win one of those spots. From the point of view of search engine. All that proposal will do is bleed Google for a few billions of dollars a year, it will not make it any more nor less likely for users to choose to use alternative search engines. So no, I don't think that the main worry on people's minds in this thread is the competitiveness of alternative search engines. There seems to be no interest in making it easier for those search engines to gain market share and thus economies of scale. It's all about seeing some punishment be meted out. (I think there are valid criticisms to be made of the auction format though; seems like it could be made more efficient and fair with some simple changes.)

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Isn't bleeding Google of a few billion an important component, if this plan also bleeds all their competitors of a few billion? I mean, all of their competitors have a lot less money than them, so the fact that Google also gets placement for free is what makes this uniquely comical. If we're trying to break up the search monopoly, Google should be paying other search engines to be in it's setup flow, so the money is going to the companies that need it.
- jsnell 7y ago
  No, I don't think it's important. Users have value to search engines. Every user who chooses a non-Google option from the dialog will immediately cause Google to make less money, and the selected competitor to make more. (Because all the competitors will be bidding less than Google makes per user, and bidding less than they themselves make per user). So I think saying that the competitors will be bleeding billions of dollars is just not true. Unless they totally misjudge their bids, they should still be in a better position than they are now. (But I'll happily volunteer to be the third party getting those billions of dollars a year. Sounds like a pretty sweet gig!) > If we're trying to break up the search monopoly, Google should be paying other search engines to be in it's setup flow, so the money is going to the companies that need it. Sounds great, I'll happily volunteer for that too! But more seriously, that sounds like a rather bizarre plan to me. Is it part of any kind of established anti-trust doctrine? The most competitive alternative (Bing) is owned by a trillion dollar company, controlling one of the biggest operating systems and the biggest browsers. You'd seriously have Google pay Microsoft to make Bing better? The next one on the list is owned by a mere $250 billion company, so obviously there's no question at all about Verizon needing some handouts. But what's the next step after that? Google should perhaps give Apple some free money so that they can make iOS more competitive? It's too bad for Google they shut down G+, if they'd waited just a bit longer they could have gotten Facebook to chip in some money to fund its development.
kerkeslager 7y ago
If by "bleeding Google of a few billions" you mean "forcing Google to pay the same cost their competitors do instead of using their position to avoid that cost", then yes. Paying for in-demand services isn't punishment, it's one of the fundamentals of capitalism.

by jsnell 7y ago

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

Isn't bleeding Google of a few billion an important component, if this plan also bleeds all their competitors of a few billion? I mean, all of their competitors have a lot less money than them, so the fact that Google also gets placement for free is what makes this uniquely comical. If we're trying to break up the search monopoly, Google should be paying other search engines to be in it's setup flow, so the money is going to the companies that need it.

jsnell 7y ago
No, I don't think it's important. Users have value to search engines. Every user who chooses a non-Google option from the dialog will immediately cause Google to make less money, and the selected competitor to make more. (Because all the competitors will be bidding less than Google makes per user, and bidding less than they themselves make per user). So I think saying that the competitors will be bleeding billions of dollars is just not true. Unless they totally misjudge their bids, they should still be in a better position than they are now. (But I'll happily volunteer to be the third party getting those billions of dollars a year. Sounds like a pretty sweet gig!) > If we're trying to break up the search monopoly, Google should be paying other search engines to be in it's setup flow, so the money is going to the companies that need it. Sounds great, I'll happily volunteer for that too! But more seriously, that sounds like a rather bizarre plan to me. Is it part of any kind of established anti-trust doctrine? The most competitive alternative (Bing) is owned by a trillion dollar company, controlling one of the biggest operating systems and the biggest browsers. You'd seriously have Google pay Microsoft to make Bing better? The next one on the list is owned by a mere $250 billion company, so obviously there's no question at all about Verizon needing some handouts. But what's the next step after that? Google should perhaps give Apple some free money so that they can make iOS more competitive? It's too bad for Google they shut down G+, if they'd waited just a bit longer they could have gotten Facebook to chip in some money to fund its development.

kerkeslager 7y ago

If by "bleeding Google of a few billions" you mean "forcing Google to pay the same cost their competitors do instead of using their position to avoid that cost", then yes. Paying for in-demand services isn't punishment, it's one of the fundamentals of capitalism.