8 ms·

Long story short, Google is using its search dominance to provide unfair advantage to other Google and Alphabet products. This is primarily done through feature

Long story short, Google is using its search dominance to provide unfair advantage to other Google and Alphabet products. This is primarily done through features or "snippets" competitors cannot earn or even pay for. Many of the details are not yet public. The individual investigations (some being conducted by states) are said to focus on multiple issues, but the one with the most discussion and evidence centers on the issue I described. For example, google a flight you may take regularly, or just "LAX to JFK". Your first result after ads will probably be a Google widget. Can sites like Kayak or Expedia get that widget? No. Can they compete with Google showing real-time prices right in the SERP? No. It's the definition of anti-competitive behavior. Google originally argued they don't advantage their own products. They've since admitted they do. Meanwhile they company is moving into more and more verticles and squeezing others out using its search engine as the weapon. The vast majority of qualified traffic comes from search engines, and for my sites it's more like 95-97% Google. Many have argued the 90% market share figure is too low, because Yahoo and Microsoft include their internal searches to sound better. If Google decides to create a search widget competing with some function of my site, even if Google's version is really shitty, my business suffers badly. This isn't theoretical. Go Google "speed test." Your first result is a Google widget they added to search results. Ookla IMO has a much better product. But Google's widget is first for basically everyone who searches for a speed test. The M-Lab/Google test caps out for me well short of my real bandwidth. But I guarantee Ookla's traffic took a beating when Google decided to insert their own product at the top. Unfortunately, Google has a lot of lawyers, and it's also reported that Barr is trying to rush this thing forward to provide a win for Trump. The actual career lawyers are arguing they can build a solid case, but they need more time. My fear is we'll see this thing rushed through and the changes will be cosmetic. And I do think Google's actions are a real problem. The most recent testimony before congress was pretty shocking. Facebook and Alphabet execs were basically admitting to anti-competitive behavior.

visarga 6y ago
"LAX to JFK" - at the top, after 3 ads, I see links to Expedia, Orbitz, Kayak, Travelocity and Skyscanner. Then comes the flights widget. Then Expedia direct link, another widget - this time a COVID alert for how many flights are still operating this route - quite useful and well placed. After that many more direct links. I don't see anything wrong. It's a good response page. If they didn't provide the widget the page would be worse, I would have to dig through all the links and filter the noise to find information. There's an assumption that people come to Google in order to find websites. No, they come for information. They can get information in many ways. People are not there just to provide sales to organically ranked sites. In a few years voice interfaces will probably replace text for search. In a voice interface, you have to provide the answer directly in plain language, not a link to a website. What would the displaced websites do, sue for monopolistic practices again?
- JimDabell 6y ago
  Here is a screenshot I just took for that query on mobile: https://imgur.com/gallery/zmudRmH https://imgur.com/gallery/zmudRmH The entire screen is filled with the Google Flights widget. There are no ads from competitors or organic results visible on the screen at all unless you scroll down.
  - wbl 6y ago
    For the longest time to competition was a click away. Now its a drag away. Google is providing the information you likely want, and your can still type in or use a bookmark to go to your favorite travel site.
    - username90 6y ago
      Problem is that Google can easily bulldoze their way into any market just by creating their own service and then putting at the top as a widget. They did that with flights as you can see here and they were sued for it 8 years ago already, although I think that case is still active. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2502509/expedia--tripadvisor-file-antitrust-complaints-against-google-in-europe.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2502509/expedia--tripa...
      - visarga 6y ago
        On the other hand I don't think it's OK to put limits on their creativity and efforts to improve user experience. If they want to make a topic specific widget, why not? If you type 123+321 it will say 444 first, then display search results. That's how it should be, they don't have to protect the "123+321" keyword market.
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  Ah, you replied just as I did! I too share this sentiment that people are going to Google not to search for a plethora of websites, but for answers. You can still certainly look at websites if you want and Google does not bury them or delist, but the widget is very useful and probably answers a high amount of the incoming queries.
nl 6y ago
While this is a commonly understood argument on HN, this doesn't appear to be the Federal Government's argument at all. Instead, they are arguing that Google should be forced to share user data with rivals (like Bing). This might surprise many in the tech community - even those who are sympathetic to the idea that big tech is too big (because it seems a terrible idea). However, it appears to be a fairly common lobbying point. Notably in Australia a similar argument against Google in the news field is seen where news organisations don't get access to audience preferences for advertising. TL;DR: The government appears to be looking to force Google to share personal data with other companies which is likely to be the opposite of what many consumers want.
- Covzire 6y ago
  I wonder if sharing "user data" with Bing would even make it more useful. It seems like the biggest problem with Bing and all other search engines is they are still >22 years behind Google in their search algos.
  - nl 6y ago
    This antitrust action isn't about improving Bing's search, it's about improving Bing's advertising business.
    - Covzire 6y ago
      If you ask me, they're highly correlated.
      - nl 6y ago
        Yes, one way to a more profitable search business would be the normal way - make search better etc so you get more traffic. The other is to get additional sources of data so your ads are more valuable even with the same amount of traffic.
darkwizard42 6y ago
I see where you are coming from, but...I don't see how its the responsibility of a search engine to provide fair and unbiased access to the web's ability to answer your query. Ex. speed test - Google's responsibility is to the customer who wants to most likely conduct a speed test. Displaying an in-result widget that does so completes the query that the user requires. The line is certainly drawn if you searched "in-home IoT device" and Google showed its own Nest/Home products at the top even above ad space without paying for it, but the example you provided doesn't really break it for me. Google doesn't prevent you from finding Ookla, doesn't bury it or delist it, doesn't stop you from going direct to the site... I don't see how that is going to hold up in court. There are competitors to Google that can offer a user a search experience that gives them lots of choice on how to answer their query, Google is just choosing (and customer's are probably responding to it as well) a better way to answer the query. Posing this as a hypothetical argument, I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
m0zg 6y ago
> Barr is trying to rush to provide a win That seems implausible. Under the best of circumstances this is going to take half a decade. Wheels of justice turn slowly.
- sdenton4 6y ago
  Alas, political wins come from starting things. We lowly engineers win by finishing things.

visarga 6y ago

"LAX to JFK" - at the top, after 3 ads, I see links to Expedia, Orbitz, Kayak, Travelocity and Skyscanner. Then comes the flights widget. Then Expedia direct link, another widget - this time a COVID alert for how many flights are still operating this route - quite useful and well placed. After that many more direct links. I don't see anything wrong. It's a good response page. If they didn't provide the widget the page would be worse, I would have to dig through all the links and filter the noise to find information. There's an assumption that people come to Google in order to find websites. No, they come for information. They can get information in many ways. People are not there just to provide sales to organically ranked sites. In a few years voice interfaces will probably replace text for search. In a voice interface, you have to provide the answer directly in plain language, not a link to a website. What would the displaced websites do, sue for monopolistic practices again?

JimDabell 6y ago
Here is a screenshot I just took for that query on mobile: https://imgur.com/gallery/zmudRmH https://imgur.com/gallery/zmudRmH The entire screen is filled with the Google Flights widget. There are no ads from competitors or organic results visible on the screen at all unless you scroll down.
- wbl 6y ago
  For the longest time to competition was a click away. Now its a drag away. Google is providing the information you likely want, and your can still type in or use a bookmark to go to your favorite travel site.
  - username90 6y ago
    Problem is that Google can easily bulldoze their way into any market just by creating their own service and then putting at the top as a widget. They did that with flights as you can see here and they were sued for it 8 years ago already, although I think that case is still active. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2502509/expedia--tripadvisor-file-antitrust-complaints-against-google-in-europe.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2502509/expedia--tripa...
    - visarga 6y ago
      On the other hand I don't think it's OK to put limits on their creativity and efforts to improve user experience. If they want to make a topic specific widget, why not? If you type 123+321 it will say 444 first, then display search results. That's how it should be, they don't have to protect the "123+321" keyword market.
darkwizard42 6y ago
Ah, you replied just as I did! I too share this sentiment that people are going to Google not to search for a plethora of websites, but for answers. You can still certainly look at websites if you want and Google does not bury them or delist, but the widget is very useful and probably answers a high amount of the incoming queries.

nl 6y ago

While this is a commonly understood argument on HN, this doesn't appear to be the Federal Government's argument at all. Instead, they are arguing that Google should be forced to share user data with rivals (like Bing). This might surprise many in the tech community - even those who are sympathetic to the idea that big tech is too big (because it seems a terrible idea). However, it appears to be a fairly common lobbying point. Notably in Australia a similar argument against Google in the news field is seen where news organisations don't get access to audience preferences for advertising. TL;DR: The government appears to be looking to force Google to share personal data with other companies which is likely to be the opposite of what many consumers want.

Covzire 6y ago
I wonder if sharing "user data" with Bing would even make it more useful. It seems like the biggest problem with Bing and all other search engines is they are still >22 years behind Google in their search algos.
- nl 6y ago
  This antitrust action isn't about improving Bing's search, it's about improving Bing's advertising business.
  - Covzire 6y ago
    If you ask me, they're highly correlated.
    - nl 6y ago
      Yes, one way to a more profitable search business would be the normal way - make search better etc so you get more traffic. The other is to get additional sources of data so your ads are more valuable even with the same amount of traffic.

darkwizard42 6y ago

I see where you are coming from, but...I don't see how its the responsibility of a search engine to provide fair and unbiased access to the web's ability to answer your query. Ex. speed test - Google's responsibility is to the customer who wants to most likely conduct a speed test. Displaying an in-result widget that does so completes the query that the user requires. The line is certainly drawn if you searched "in-home IoT device" and Google showed its own Nest/Home products at the top even above ad space without paying for it, but the example you provided doesn't really break it for me. Google doesn't prevent you from finding Ookla, doesn't bury it or delist it, doesn't stop you from going direct to the site... I don't see how that is going to hold up in court. There are competitors to Google that can offer a user a search experience that gives them lots of choice on how to answer their query, Google is just choosing (and customer's are probably responding to it as well) a better way to answer the query. Posing this as a hypothetical argument, I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

m0zg 6y ago

> Barr is trying to rush to provide a win That seems implausible. Under the best of circumstances this is going to take half a decade. Wheels of justice turn slowly.

sdenton4 6y ago
Alas, political wins come from starting things. We lowly engineers win by finishing things.