5 ms·

Many of those people who want to break up Google are not looking at it from the user perspective, but as a company running some website. As a site owner you ha

Many of those people who want to break up Google are not looking at it from the user perspective, but as a company running some website. As a site owner you have the problem that people searching for you are using Google and your site will only come up below adds for your competitor. Even when searching for your company name. Thus unless you pay a "Google Tax" (paying for ads) many people won't find you. In some cases even Google themselves will add features to compete with your service (flight booking is a relatively recent example) If splitting up will solve that is questionable to me, though. The search has to be financed and unless we make it some base service paid by tax or similar they need a revenue service and ads is the only which seems to be working. From a "civil rights" perspective to me it is also clear that Google has too much influence and power. But still fail to see a good way to regulate that.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
I completely agree that there are many problematic aspects of Google's dominant market position. So let's not call for a breakup to fix something a breakup can't fix and for reasons that are so obiously bad that they can be used to discredit more serious criticism of Google's dominance.
- calcifer 7y ago
  > something a breakup can't fix Really? Breaking up the search unit and the ads unit into separate companies would solve that problem, no?
  - johannes1234321 7y ago
    The question is whether there is a sustainable business for doing search, but not ads. An option might be that the search provider can license the search results to different companies putting their individual ads on topmofnthe results. Then different sites could compete for the the best dispaly and usability. Similar to the way elictricity grids are split from providers or railway tracks are split from train operators in many European countries. Issue of course is that with electrical grids and rail networks are a "solved" issue with little innovation. In the search market there is still lots of room for improvement and constant need to adapt to spamers.
  - TJSomething 7y ago
    I suspect that advertising and selling marketing data are the only ways to make search profitable.
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    Why would it? An independent search company offering advertising slots to independent ad networks would still benefit from posting as many ads as users will tolerate.
    - Drdrdrq 7y ago
      Yes, but it would make it easier for competing ad services to enter their search, and competing search engines to serve their ads (the latter is already possible).
      - scarface74 7y ago
        You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t root for ad agencies....
  - mattmanser 7y ago
    They pay for search with ads and is necessary for them to operate. They still need to make money. I think the common suggestion is that they're not allowed to continue to own the content providers like maps or YouTube or shopping. Other suggestions include stopping them competing with other aggregators like hotel ratings (TripAdvisor, etc.), shopping, flight finders, review services (yelp, etc.). The 2nd one is a bit trickier because in some ways, it's valuable to users, but extremely easy for Google to essentially become the landlord of the internet and easily engage in extreme rent seeking behaviour.
  - bnjms 7y ago
    No. How would it? How would the search unit moonitize itself? So far add is the only way and it’s a perfect fit. Something is wrong with this whole thing. I think it’s that the media companies are realizing they are losing power and influence and are trying to organize their power again. We’d be better off splitting infrastructure companies from media companies and preventing any attempts at vertical integration there. And blocking acquisitions by google.
BlueTemplar 7y ago
The same way that Standard Oil and "Ma" Bell were? Now, one issue here is that Google the search engine cannot be "just split". The least good, but easy way, is probably to nationalize it (since it's akin to basic infrastructure at this point.) A better, but harder way, is to figure out how it can be decentralized...
- axython 7y ago
  Nationalize it? In which country? US? How do you think that will be accepted by basicly any other country out there?
  - BlueTemplar 7y ago
    They will start to seriously consider their own alternatives, which they should have done a long time ago ? (Especially after Snowden revelations, which showed that the US government basically could do whatever it wanted with Google.)
- scarface74 7y ago
  What do you think will happen when politicians control a search engine? Would you also want to nationalize the press?
  - sampo 7y ago
    BBC is perhaps the most famous state owned media corporation. What happens because the British politicians control the BBC?
    - scarface74 7y ago
      I don’t know. But I do know that NPR and PBS have at times been targets of conservatives because of the little funding they get from the government. I’m sure there would be just as much consternation from Democrats if the situation was reversed. It also encourages giving “both sides” equal weight whether they deserve it or not.
- 7y ago
dreamcompiler 7y ago
You just described a Protection Racket. I think your description is apt. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket
- ttoinou 7y ago
  "A protection racket is a scheme whereby a group provides protection to businesses or other groups through violence " Where is the violence in Google's behavior ? They offer a private service, and their good spaces are of high values that companies are ready to pay for to maintain their own market dominance. If we should break up Google, then we should also breakup Basecamp (company behind the original author's tweet)
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    Looking through the Wikipedia link I determined that Google is probably more likely running an extortion racket https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion
heliodor 7y ago
> many people won't find you Before: few people find you After: more people find you Google is providing a "low" quality service but they do help. The before and after makes it clear. But it's easy to forget how things were and just complain.
- thenewnewguy 7y ago
  Counterpoint: Google has become the "default" way many people browse the web. Because of Google many web users don't memorize or bookmark TLDs for websites, they just use Google to find it. As a result, it could be argued that Google is taking users away from your site by proxy of this.
  - ttoinou 7y ago
    It has become the default and so popular because they were good. I hope users will change their behavior if they realize there are better alternative than Google
  - akamaozu 7y ago
    Google helps with discovery of your site on their engine, so now it's your God-given right to get traffic from them because that's how people use the Internet now?
- afiori 7y ago
  Before: more people find your competition when searching for you After: less people find your competition when searching for you The issue is that coupling search and ads violates the expectation of "First result = Best result". Especially when A direct 100% fit can be replaced by a competitor (or even a parasite (in legal terms)) targeting your users.
  - ttoinou 7y ago
    No it's pretty clear what are ads or not on Google. "Best" definition changes for all Search engine and it's very very subjective, changing from person to person and situation to situation If a company is ready to pay to be displayed first, then so be it
crdoconnor 7y ago
The search index should really be nationalised and treated like a public utility that can't favour one engine over another. At this point only nation states can really compete on building a search index - it requires titanic amounts of computing and electrical power. Whereas duck duck go proves that a search engine can operate successfully as a startup.
- JoshTriplett 7y ago
  "The search index"? Leaving aside any other problems that would cause, that sounds like a recipe for locking in specific formats and technologies forever, and preventing any further innovation. A search index is not simply a function from search string to results. Treating it as such would oversimplify the potential value or future innovation of a search engine. A search index includes the data and metadata of all the pages indexed, plus derived data in various forms ranging from data structures to trained neural networks, plus sufficiently fast access to the data to make it possible to generate new such data structures or train new networks. And all that while continuing to index new pages as fast as possible. A search index used internally by one company can change formats and technologies as long as the products using it have updated accordingly, and can provide many different facets of information. A search index used by multiple entities (likely competing entities) can't easily co-evolve with the search engines using it, can't easily change formats or technologies, can't easily discard older ones (and thus needs far more resources if it innovates), and has a much more difficult time providing previously unanticipated information. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a good way to support innovation on the scale of a production search index without requiring billion-dollar infrastructure, but separating the search index from a search engine would substantially increase the complexity and expense of both, and seems quite likely to curtail innovation.
- lazyjones 7y ago
  > building a search index - it requires titanic amounts of computing and electrical power. That's because it's being done in an extremely wasteful way that isn't really necessary. Proper regulation could enforce a better interface between websites and search engines than stupidly and repeatedly crawling bloated web pages and throwing away almost all their contents. Google has used its computing resources to stay ahead in this game and has no motivation to fix this waste of time and energy. All they've done lately is to suggest using sitemaps for dynamic web sites so their crawlers don't get stuck there forever.
at-fates-hands 7y ago
>> unless we make it some base service paid by tax or similar they need a revenue service and ads is the only which seems to be working. Are you seriously saying a company worth north of $300 BILLION needs ads on their search engine to generate revenue?
- 1_player 7y ago
  Are you forgetting that it's worth $300 billion because it's an ad company, and they serve ads on the worlds most used search engine?
dragonwriter 7y ago
> If splitting up will solve that is questionable to me, though It obviously won't; splitting search from ads as businesses wouldn't change that people aren't willing to pay for search and the way that free search, like most other free online services, is funded is ads. It just means that the vendor you pay for ads won't be the search engine provider directly but the ad network the search engine provider relies on, just as is the case for many other online services.
scarface74 7y ago
Then don’t depend on Google. Everyone is depending on Google. Create an “unfair advantage”. For instance, Josh Doody, the author of “Fearless Negotiation”, has been interviewed on six or seven podcasts that I follow. How many companies have gotten popular by advertising on podcasts? If your entire business model is based on search results, you are bound to be disappointed. You are just one algorithm change from being made irrelevant.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago

I completely agree that there are many problematic aspects of Google's dominant market position. So let's not call for a breakup to fix something a breakup can't fix and for reasons that are so obiously bad that they can be used to discredit more serious criticism of Google's dominance.

calcifer 7y ago
> something a breakup can't fix Really? Breaking up the search unit and the ads unit into separate companies would solve that problem, no?
- johannes1234321 7y ago
  The question is whether there is a sustainable business for doing search, but not ads. An option might be that the search provider can license the search results to different companies putting their individual ads on topmofnthe results. Then different sites could compete for the the best dispaly and usability. Similar to the way elictricity grids are split from providers or railway tracks are split from train operators in many European countries. Issue of course is that with electrical grids and rail networks are a "solved" issue with little innovation. In the search market there is still lots of room for improvement and constant need to adapt to spamers.
- TJSomething 7y ago
  I suspect that advertising and selling marketing data are the only ways to make search profitable.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  Why would it? An independent search company offering advertising slots to independent ad networks would still benefit from posting as many ads as users will tolerate.
  - Drdrdrq 7y ago
    Yes, but it would make it easier for competing ad services to enter their search, and competing search engines to serve their ads (the latter is already possible).
    - scarface74 7y ago
      You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t root for ad agencies....
- mattmanser 7y ago
  They pay for search with ads and is necessary for them to operate. They still need to make money. I think the common suggestion is that they're not allowed to continue to own the content providers like maps or YouTube or shopping. Other suggestions include stopping them competing with other aggregators like hotel ratings (TripAdvisor, etc.), shopping, flight finders, review services (yelp, etc.). The 2nd one is a bit trickier because in some ways, it's valuable to users, but extremely easy for Google to essentially become the landlord of the internet and easily engage in extreme rent seeking behaviour.
- bnjms 7y ago
  No. How would it? How would the search unit moonitize itself? So far add is the only way and it’s a perfect fit. Something is wrong with this whole thing. I think it’s that the media companies are realizing they are losing power and influence and are trying to organize their power again. We’d be better off splitting infrastructure companies from media companies and preventing any attempts at vertical integration there. And blocking acquisitions by google.

BlueTemplar 7y ago

The same way that Standard Oil and "Ma" Bell were? Now, one issue here is that Google the search engine cannot be "just split". The least good, but easy way, is probably to nationalize it (since it's akin to basic infrastructure at this point.) A better, but harder way, is to figure out how it can be decentralized...

axython 7y ago
Nationalize it? In which country? US? How do you think that will be accepted by basicly any other country out there?
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  They will start to seriously consider their own alternatives, which they should have done a long time ago ? (Especially after Snowden revelations, which showed that the US government basically could do whatever it wanted with Google.)
scarface74 7y ago
What do you think will happen when politicians control a search engine? Would you also want to nationalize the press?
- sampo 7y ago
  BBC is perhaps the most famous state owned media corporation. What happens because the British politicians control the BBC?
  - scarface74 7y ago
    I don’t know. But I do know that NPR and PBS have at times been targets of conservatives because of the little funding they get from the government. I’m sure there would be just as much consternation from Democrats if the situation was reversed. It also encourages giving “both sides” equal weight whether they deserve it or not.
7y ago

dreamcompiler 7y ago

You just described a Protection Racket. I think your description is apt. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

ttoinou 7y ago
"A protection racket is a scheme whereby a group provides protection to businesses or other groups through violence " Where is the violence in Google's behavior ? They offer a private service, and their good spaces are of high values that companies are ready to pay for to maintain their own market dominance. If we should break up Google, then we should also breakup Basecamp (company behind the original author's tweet)
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  Looking through the Wikipedia link I determined that Google is probably more likely running an extortion racket https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

heliodor 7y ago

> many people won't find you Before: few people find you After: more people find you Google is providing a "low" quality service but they do help. The before and after makes it clear. But it's easy to forget how things were and just complain.

thenewnewguy 7y ago
Counterpoint: Google has become the "default" way many people browse the web. Because of Google many web users don't memorize or bookmark TLDs for websites, they just use Google to find it. As a result, it could be argued that Google is taking users away from your site by proxy of this.
- ttoinou 7y ago
  It has become the default and so popular because they were good. I hope users will change their behavior if they realize there are better alternative than Google
- akamaozu 7y ago
  Google helps with discovery of your site on their engine, so now it's your God-given right to get traffic from them because that's how people use the Internet now?
afiori 7y ago
Before: more people find your competition when searching for you After: less people find your competition when searching for you The issue is that coupling search and ads violates the expectation of "First result = Best result". Especially when A direct 100% fit can be replaced by a competitor (or even a parasite (in legal terms)) targeting your users.
- ttoinou 7y ago
  No it's pretty clear what are ads or not on Google. "Best" definition changes for all Search engine and it's very very subjective, changing from person to person and situation to situation If a company is ready to pay to be displayed first, then so be it

crdoconnor 7y ago

The search index should really be nationalised and treated like a public utility that can't favour one engine over another. At this point only nation states can really compete on building a search index - it requires titanic amounts of computing and electrical power. Whereas duck duck go proves that a search engine can operate successfully as a startup.

JoshTriplett 7y ago
"The search index"? Leaving aside any other problems that would cause, that sounds like a recipe for locking in specific formats and technologies forever, and preventing any further innovation. A search index is not simply a function from search string to results. Treating it as such would oversimplify the potential value or future innovation of a search engine. A search index includes the data and metadata of all the pages indexed, plus derived data in various forms ranging from data structures to trained neural networks, plus sufficiently fast access to the data to make it possible to generate new such data structures or train new networks. And all that while continuing to index new pages as fast as possible. A search index used internally by one company can change formats and technologies as long as the products using it have updated accordingly, and can provide many different facets of information. A search index used by multiple entities (likely competing entities) can't easily co-evolve with the search engines using it, can't easily change formats or technologies, can't easily discard older ones (and thus needs far more resources if it innovates), and has a much more difficult time providing previously unanticipated information. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a good way to support innovation on the scale of a production search index without requiring billion-dollar infrastructure, but separating the search index from a search engine would substantially increase the complexity and expense of both, and seems quite likely to curtail innovation.
lazyjones 7y ago
> building a search index - it requires titanic amounts of computing and electrical power. That's because it's being done in an extremely wasteful way that isn't really necessary. Proper regulation could enforce a better interface between websites and search engines than stupidly and repeatedly crawling bloated web pages and throwing away almost all their contents. Google has used its computing resources to stay ahead in this game and has no motivation to fix this waste of time and energy. All they've done lately is to suggest using sitemaps for dynamic web sites so their crawlers don't get stuck there forever.

at-fates-hands 7y ago

>> unless we make it some base service paid by tax or similar they need a revenue service and ads is the only which seems to be working. Are you seriously saying a company worth north of $300 BILLION needs ads on their search engine to generate revenue?

1_player 7y ago
Are you forgetting that it's worth $300 billion because it's an ad company, and they serve ads on the worlds most used search engine?

dragonwriter 7y ago

> If splitting up will solve that is questionable to me, though It obviously won't; splitting search from ads as businesses wouldn't change that people aren't willing to pay for search and the way that free search, like most other free online services, is funded is ads. It just means that the vendor you pay for ads won't be the search engine provider directly but the ad network the search engine provider relies on, just as is the case for many other online services.

scarface74 7y ago

Then don’t depend on Google. Everyone is depending on Google. Create an “unfair advantage”. For instance, Josh Doody, the author of “Fearless Negotiation”, has been interviewed on six or seven podcasts that I follow. How many companies have gotten popular by advertising on podcasts? If your entire business model is based on search results, you are bound to be disappointed. You are just one algorithm change from being made irrelevant.