8 ms·

The fact that it is newsworthy to say something like this seems to indicate that Google is at least a de-facto monopoly in the search sector. It seems hard to

The fact that it is newsworthy to say something like this seems to indicate that Google is at least a de-facto monopoly in the search sector. It seems hard to argue against that when folks cannot even agree if there are any viable alternatives at all.... This is a huge problem that is only getting worse. I don't really see any way to fix this outside of government trust-busting. (But I have little faith in the bumbling of modern politicians in Australia or anywhere else...) Personally, I use DuckDuckGo for searching and find the experience to be better than Google, but YMMV.

graeme 6y ago
How can google be a monopoly if it is that easy to switch away? The truth is competing search engines are at least 90% as good as google, and literally a click away. People don’t, and there is some browser default lock in, but it’s hardly like an electric grid, water or broadband monopoly. Or Standard Oil for that matter.
- mayankkaizen 6y ago
  Other options are available and are good enough BUT people aren't using those other options. I mean an average guy doesn't even know about DDG and some educated guys do know about Bing but don't bother to use it. In real world, Google is synonymous with search. I don't have the data available right now but I believe more than 70% Aussies are using Google. That is almost a monopoly.
  - filoleg 6y ago
    >Other options are available and are good enough BUT people aren't using those other option People choosing to not use other options that are easily available doesn't seem like something that should qualify Google as a monopoly that needs to be broken up (am not a lawyer, just a disclaimer). Like, what is Google supposed to do here? Make their own search engine worse, so that users are incentivized to switch? Show people ads, recommending them to use competing search engines? Mind you, I am not alleging that Google is not a monopoly or that it shouldn't be broken up. There could be other things that could qualify them for that, like bundling of Google Search as the default search engine with Chrome, semi-mandatory nature of Play Store on android just to be able to use google apps, etc. However, just the sheer fact alone that most people prefer to use Google search (when there are plenty of easily available alternatives out there that the general public isn't willing to look into) shouldn't be valid grounds for an anti-monopoly lawsuit.
    - viraptor 6y ago
      > what is Google supposed to do here? We've seen this with MS already. Install Chrome - get either a random search engine assigned, or a randomised-order choice box.
      - filoleg 6y ago
        Not arguing with you about this one, because I am trying to understand what you meant by "seen this with MS already" first. What did MS do? Asking because when you open the new Microsoft Edge browser, Bing is the default search engine.
        viraptor 6y ago
        I mean the browser antitrust case that forced IE alternatives years ago: https://www.news.com.au/technology/microsoft-windows-forced-to-offer-12-browsers-as-eu-antitrust-case-ends/news-story/6369c947f9e7585c0f4b54fc0735d565 https://www.news.com.au/technology/microsoft-windows-forced-... This could be applied to the default search engine in Chrome (since it's Google owned as well)
        filoleg 6y ago
        I read the article in your link with the ruling regarding IE. All Microsoft had to do as the result was to offer a default browser choice screen during the installation experience for Windows OS (with IE still being there), and only in select 27 EU countries + 3 Scandinavian countries. And on top of that, they don't have to do it anymore either, and MSFT is able to have (and actually does have) IE set as the default browser in EU again since late 2014 [0]. Which eventually transformed into Edge as the default browser, but you get the idea. 0.https://www.yahoo.com/news/weather/microsoft-no-longer-needs-remind-151402711.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/weather/microsoft-no-longer-needs...
- jlkuester7 6y ago
  I mean, on one hand I agree with you (I found it pretty easy to not use Google Search). But I think my point is that if this was true for everyone, then we would not really be newsworthy that the PM thinks people can use Bing instead.... One technical aspect to consider is the number of devices/applications where Google is the default search. Does Australia have a plan to force a different default if Google shuts off Search? How would that affect contracts that Google has with other companies (e.g. Apple) to make its Search default? Not everyone is technically literate enough to know how to change their browser's default search engine. Heck, some people don't know there are other ways to search the internet besides google.com....
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    I assume smartphone companies have an incentive to just switch, given that I don't think Apple et al want to leave their users without a search engine by default. They'll probably just switch over to Bing as well.
  - wpasc 6y ago
    I think newsworthiness is a poor proxy for relevance or legal standing.
- roenxi 6y ago
  I personally agree with you. I also note Google is better at search than the Australian PM - I'd rather not have the Australian parliament forming an opinion on the order of my search results. However, the monopoly argument would probably be that they are using their superior search engine to hinder competitors in other markets - eg, pushing Chrome/Gmail/Android.
  - webmobdev 6y ago
    > I'd rather not have the Australian parliament forming an opinion on the order of my search results. It's sad to hear such opinions about trusting "corporates more than democracy" ...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - seized 6y ago
      Given Australian parliaments opinion on encryption and environmental issues I think he's right to not trust them on this....
      - webmobdev 6y ago
        Then who should they trust? Once people start losing faith in democracy then it's a very slippery slope - everyone needs reminding that democracy isn't just voting, it's your right to speak, organise and protest for change.
        themacguffinman 6y ago
        Nothing makes me lose faith in democracy faster than when eligible voters uncritically defend government as better than "corporates" because who else should we trust? This only reminds me that democracy isn't about trusting the government, it's about holding the government to account and refusing to give them unearned trust when they do stupid shit like this.
- monadic3 6y ago
  > The truth is competing search engines are at least 90% as good as google, and literally a click away. They're also 90% as bad; they aren't so much competitors as wholesale clones.
- stubish 6y ago
  When people feel no need to click away, they don't, and stick with the default, and thus Google has a monopoly. A monopoly doesn't mean lock in or that consumers can't switch. A monopoly means domination or near total control of a market. And if Google leaves the Australian search market for others, someone else will probably end up with that monopoly depending on what Chrome's search, Android's search and iPhone search does.
chr1 6y ago
That's not really a good indicator of monopoly. If the roles of Bing and Google were reversed here, the story would have been even more newsworthy.
- jlkuester7 6y ago
  When is the last time you saw someone (who was not using a Microsoft browser) use Bing search? I am not saying there are no Bing fans at all, but I have never met one.... Not sure I understand how it would be a big deal if the PM suggested that Aussies could live without Bing....
  - chr1 6y ago
    I am not saying that many people use Bing. I am saying that this kind of intervention would be a big story either way, because there would be people rightfully complaining that the government actions supports monopolists position.
  - d7ryerh 6y ago
    I use Bing myself. Most of my searches are just hard urls or reddit+topic and Bing doesn't poison my results with amp links that don't retain my setting to use the browser and not the app. If you hate amp links like me then Bing is great.
LatteLazy 6y ago
Google being so good no one can replace them is good. If Google abused that position so no one could replace them because they're no longer the best but still big, that's a problem. We're not there yet
- rsstack 6y ago
  Google Search is so good because it has access to exclusive data it collected in an immaterial way (not through search queries or crawling). Anyone can write a search engine, no one can write a search engine that's based on Google data. And no one can collect data similar to Google data, because this "Google has better quality so we have to use them" argument is also being used in a dozen other verticals.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    They're free to do what Google did: spend billions on eb crawlers, offer extensive free services like Gmail and chrome and build their own datasets. Plus, it doesn't really matter: it's not a problem for someone to offer a good service. It's a problem for them to offer a bad one and then force it on people because they're big.
    - rsstack 6y ago
      Yeah, that's pretty much how monopolies (anti-competitive companies) work: you could replicate the entire Google ecosystem, but without doing all of that you can't compete with any segment of Google. It is not reasonable to require of any competitor in the search engine field to offer their own ad network, mail service, cloud service, cloud computing service, enterprise offering. This is illegal, as hopefully the anti-trust lawsuit will show. It's a smart business practice, but once you cross a certain threshold it is regulated by the government because it is no longer good for society.
      - LatteLazy 6y ago
        I agree about barriers to entry helping Google maintain their monopoly. We disagree about whether monopolies themselves are illegal as you say. From the wiki page laying out the US law in this (feel free to correct me if Aussie law differs?): >The courts have interpreted this to mean that monopoly is not unlawful per se, but only if acquired through prohibited conduct. >When enterprises are not under public ownership, and where regulation does not foreclose the application of antitrust law, two requirements must be shown for the offense of monopolization. First, the alleged monopolist must possess sufficient power in an accurately defined market for its products or services. Second, the monopolist must have used its power in a prohibited way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law I don't think Google meets the second requirement. I believe we agree it meets the first?
pmontra 6y ago
I've been using DDG for the last few months. It's okish but sometimes I feel like I don't see the results I expect to find, I google them on Google (do you see what I'm doing? there is a reason for that after all) and I find them. This is even more true for technical searches in my job (web development, mostly backend.) Google finds the answer, DDG less often so.
- sammorrowdrums 6y ago
  but the !g does make it easy to get Google results when needed.
  - lights0123 6y ago
    Which would be unavailable if Google didn't provide search in your area.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- kiwidrew 6y ago
  I use DDG as my default search engine, and find that the results are usually pretty decent. But there's no question that Google has a larger and more comprehensive index, especially for more obscure "long tail" queries. So I still fall back to a Google search (it's easy -- just add '!g' to your DDG query and resubmit) about 10% of the time. It wouldn't be the end of the world if I wasn't able (or willing) to use Google.
  - pmontra 6y ago
    I didn't know about !g. I'm using Firefox with the old style separated URL and search fields. I click the search field and the Google button on the menu that opens under the search string. However !g is useful when I tweak ed the search string in the DDG page.
- webmobdev 6y ago

graeme 6y ago

How can google be a monopoly if it is that easy to switch away? The truth is competing search engines are at least 90% as good as google, and literally a click away. People don’t, and there is some browser default lock in, but it’s hardly like an electric grid, water or broadband monopoly. Or Standard Oil for that matter.

mayankkaizen 6y ago
Other options are available and are good enough BUT people aren't using those other options. I mean an average guy doesn't even know about DDG and some educated guys do know about Bing but don't bother to use it. In real world, Google is synonymous with search. I don't have the data available right now but I believe more than 70% Aussies are using Google. That is almost a monopoly.
- filoleg 6y ago
  >Other options are available and are good enough BUT people aren't using those other option People choosing to not use other options that are easily available doesn't seem like something that should qualify Google as a monopoly that needs to be broken up (am not a lawyer, just a disclaimer). Like, what is Google supposed to do here? Make their own search engine worse, so that users are incentivized to switch? Show people ads, recommending them to use competing search engines? Mind you, I am not alleging that Google is not a monopoly or that it shouldn't be broken up. There could be other things that could qualify them for that, like bundling of Google Search as the default search engine with Chrome, semi-mandatory nature of Play Store on android just to be able to use google apps, etc. However, just the sheer fact alone that most people prefer to use Google search (when there are plenty of easily available alternatives out there that the general public isn't willing to look into) shouldn't be valid grounds for an anti-monopoly lawsuit.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    > what is Google supposed to do here? We've seen this with MS already. Install Chrome - get either a random search engine assigned, or a randomised-order choice box.
    - filoleg 6y ago
      Not arguing with you about this one, because I am trying to understand what you meant by "seen this with MS already" first. What did MS do? Asking because when you open the new Microsoft Edge browser, Bing is the default search engine.
      - viraptor 6y ago
        I mean the browser antitrust case that forced IE alternatives years ago: https://www.news.com.au/technology/microsoft-windows-forced-to-offer-12-browsers-as-eu-antitrust-case-ends/news-story/6369c947f9e7585c0f4b54fc0735d565 https://www.news.com.au/technology/microsoft-windows-forced-... This could be applied to the default search engine in Chrome (since it's Google owned as well)
        filoleg 6y ago
        I read the article in your link with the ruling regarding IE. All Microsoft had to do as the result was to offer a default browser choice screen during the installation experience for Windows OS (with IE still being there), and only in select 27 EU countries + 3 Scandinavian countries. And on top of that, they don't have to do it anymore either, and MSFT is able to have (and actually does have) IE set as the default browser in EU again since late 2014 [0]. Which eventually transformed into Edge as the default browser, but you get the idea. 0.https://www.yahoo.com/news/weather/microsoft-no-longer-needs-remind-151402711.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/weather/microsoft-no-longer-needs...
jlkuester7 6y ago
I mean, on one hand I agree with you (I found it pretty easy to not use Google Search). But I think my point is that if this was true for everyone, then we would not really be newsworthy that the PM thinks people can use Bing instead.... One technical aspect to consider is the number of devices/applications where Google is the default search. Does Australia have a plan to force a different default if Google shuts off Search? How would that affect contracts that Google has with other companies (e.g. Apple) to make its Search default? Not everyone is technically literate enough to know how to change their browser's default search engine. Heck, some people don't know there are other ways to search the internet besides google.com....
- Barrin92 6y ago
  I assume smartphone companies have an incentive to just switch, given that I don't think Apple et al want to leave their users without a search engine by default. They'll probably just switch over to Bing as well.
- wpasc 6y ago
  I think newsworthiness is a poor proxy for relevance or legal standing.
roenxi 6y ago
I personally agree with you. I also note Google is better at search than the Australian PM - I'd rather not have the Australian parliament forming an opinion on the order of my search results. However, the monopoly argument would probably be that they are using their superior search engine to hinder competitors in other markets - eg, pushing Chrome/Gmail/Android.
- webmobdev 6y ago
  > I'd rather not have the Australian parliament forming an opinion on the order of my search results. It's sad to hear such opinions about trusting "corporates more than democracy" ...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - seized 6y ago
    Given Australian parliaments opinion on encryption and environmental issues I think he's right to not trust them on this....
    - webmobdev 6y ago
      Then who should they trust? Once people start losing faith in democracy then it's a very slippery slope - everyone needs reminding that democracy isn't just voting, it's your right to speak, organise and protest for change.
      - themacguffinman 6y ago
        Nothing makes me lose faith in democracy faster than when eligible voters uncritically defend government as better than "corporates" because who else should we trust? This only reminds me that democracy isn't about trusting the government, it's about holding the government to account and refusing to give them unearned trust when they do stupid shit like this.
monadic3 6y ago
> The truth is competing search engines are at least 90% as good as google, and literally a click away. They're also 90% as bad; they aren't so much competitors as wholesale clones.
stubish 6y ago
When people feel no need to click away, they don't, and stick with the default, and thus Google has a monopoly. A monopoly doesn't mean lock in or that consumers can't switch. A monopoly means domination or near total control of a market. And if Google leaves the Australian search market for others, someone else will probably end up with that monopoly depending on what Chrome's search, Android's search and iPhone search does.

chr1 6y ago

That's not really a good indicator of monopoly. If the roles of Bing and Google were reversed here, the story would have been even more newsworthy.

jlkuester7 6y ago
When is the last time you saw someone (who was not using a Microsoft browser) use Bing search? I am not saying there are no Bing fans at all, but I have never met one.... Not sure I understand how it would be a big deal if the PM suggested that Aussies could live without Bing....
- chr1 6y ago
  I am not saying that many people use Bing. I am saying that this kind of intervention would be a big story either way, because there would be people rightfully complaining that the government actions supports monopolists position.
- d7ryerh 6y ago
  I use Bing myself. Most of my searches are just hard urls or reddit+topic and Bing doesn't poison my results with amp links that don't retain my setting to use the browser and not the app. If you hate amp links like me then Bing is great.

LatteLazy 6y ago

Google being so good no one can replace them is good. If Google abused that position so no one could replace them because they're no longer the best but still big, that's a problem. We're not there yet

rsstack 6y ago
Google Search is so good because it has access to exclusive data it collected in an immaterial way (not through search queries or crawling). Anyone can write a search engine, no one can write a search engine that's based on Google data. And no one can collect data similar to Google data, because this "Google has better quality so we have to use them" argument is also being used in a dozen other verticals.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  They're free to do what Google did: spend billions on eb crawlers, offer extensive free services like Gmail and chrome and build their own datasets. Plus, it doesn't really matter: it's not a problem for someone to offer a good service. It's a problem for them to offer a bad one and then force it on people because they're big.
  - rsstack 6y ago
    Yeah, that's pretty much how monopolies (anti-competitive companies) work: you could replicate the entire Google ecosystem, but without doing all of that you can't compete with any segment of Google. It is not reasonable to require of any competitor in the search engine field to offer their own ad network, mail service, cloud service, cloud computing service, enterprise offering. This is illegal, as hopefully the anti-trust lawsuit will show. It's a smart business practice, but once you cross a certain threshold it is regulated by the government because it is no longer good for society.
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      I agree about barriers to entry helping Google maintain their monopoly. We disagree about whether monopolies themselves are illegal as you say. From the wiki page laying out the US law in this (feel free to correct me if Aussie law differs?): >The courts have interpreted this to mean that monopoly is not unlawful per se, but only if acquired through prohibited conduct. >When enterprises are not under public ownership, and where regulation does not foreclose the application of antitrust law, two requirements must be shown for the offense of monopolization. First, the alleged monopolist must possess sufficient power in an accurately defined market for its products or services. Second, the monopolist must have used its power in a prohibited way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law I don't think Google meets the second requirement. I believe we agree it meets the first?

pmontra 6y ago

I've been using DDG for the last few months. It's okish but sometimes I feel like I don't see the results I expect to find, I google them on Google (do you see what I'm doing? there is a reason for that after all) and I find them. This is even more true for technical searches in my job (web development, mostly backend.) Google finds the answer, DDG less often so.

sammorrowdrums 6y ago
but the !g does make it easy to get Google results when needed.
- lights0123 6y ago
  Which would be unavailable if Google didn't provide search in your area.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
kiwidrew 6y ago
I use DDG as my default search engine, and find that the results are usually pretty decent. But there's no question that Google has a larger and more comprehensive index, especially for more obscure "long tail" queries. So I still fall back to a Google search (it's easy -- just add '!g' to your DDG query and resubmit) about 10% of the time. It wouldn't be the end of the world if I wasn't able (or willing) to use Google.
- pmontra 6y ago
  I didn't know about !g. I'm using Firefox with the old style separated URL and search fields. I click the search field and the Google button on the menu that opens under the search string. However !g is useful when I tweak ed the search string in the DDG page.
webmobdev 6y ago