5 ms·

Except that Google does the exact same thing with Google Play Services on Android. Ask Skyhook. On top of that, Google keeps pushing organic SERP listings fur

by pkaler 13y ago

Except that Google does the exact same thing with Google Play Services on Android. Ask Skyhook. On top of that, Google keeps pushing organic SERP listings further and further down the page to push people to Google+. We actually live in much better times than the Microsoft monopoly days. Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook have asymmetric business models. Consumers benefit in the long run as they all battle each other. Apple doesn't have to monetize Maps so they can chip away at Google's ad revenue. Google doesn't have to monetize Android OS and devices so they can chip away at Apple's hardware/software revenue.

Doctor_Fegg 13y ago
Indeed. Google pushes Google Maps as an unchangeable default just as much as Apple does, just not on Android. iOS market share: 54% (or less, who you believe). Google Search market share: 67%. So when Google Search lets you replace Google Maps as the in-page default with Bing Maps/OpenStreetMap/whatever - you know, when you search for a city or zipcode - I'll start worrying about the iOS defaults.
- sdoering 13y ago
  Could you explain, what your argument does to the discussion? I mean, if on my desktop/laptop I am feed up with Google Maps in SERPs, I can use Bing or DDG or whatever. On iOS (and maybe on Android) not that much. Your argument should have been: Imagine a world, where on your desktop on Windows you can only use Bing Maps. Then your argument might have been valid.
  - Doctor_Fegg 13y ago
    It's about what you've "bought into". I can't imagine switching away from Google Search. I've tried Bing, I've tried DuckDuckGo. I can't get used to them; the presentation of the results, the stuff I expect to be ranked highly. It's not that they're worse, it's just that I can't rewire a habit of years of searching in Google every day. I wish I could. But I'm not particularly attached to either the iOS or Android ecosystem. I have an Android phone and an iPad. I could replace them with an iPhone and an Android tablet if I really wanted and I doubt I'd notice much difference. So when you say "if I am fed up with Google Maps I can use Bing", that's a switch you can make, good for you. I find it harder than you to make the search engine switch, and easier than you to make the smartphone switch. Is that so hard to understand?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- cromwellian 13y ago
  Please explain how that's technically going to work. You're talking about federating the huge Google search query volume out to third party sites, which have to respond typically in just a few dozen milliseconds, and have to work with Google Instant and Google Suggest without significantly adding to user interface delay. At best, you could stick an <IFRAME> in the page and point it at a user configured maps site, only you don't know if it is going to return a maps result. What if the query isn't for a location? Or what if the user's third party map supplier doesn't have the location? Then you get a big empty <IFRAME> with nothing in it, and a bad user experience. You'd also increase the perception that the Google search results are slow because it would take longer for the page to finish loading. Allowing pluggable providers on the client for launching URL intents makes sense, I don't think it makes as much sense for search engines to federate queries in this way, there are much more difficult performance and privacy issues with such a model. The Portal/Portlet model of "search" has been tried before and users didn't really like the experience.
  - Doctor_Fegg 13y ago
    It's not that hard. If Google still does the geocoding, then an iframe with a call to bing.com/maps/google?lat=1.2&lon=3.4 works fine.
    - cromwellian 13y ago
      That will display a map, but it won't display the local business listings which is part and parcel of Google's Knowledge-Graph driven maps listings. Also, the <IFRAME> will add non-trivial amounts of latency to the page display. When you type in something that generates a map these days, you get Knowledge Graph entries, Maps, Related places and people, and a bunch of other ancillary things. How can Google simultaneously iterate and evolve their search, and at the same time, provided a fixed API for federating this stuff? This is one of those things that works much better in theory than in practice. I'd rather Google federate social and login before messing with search answers.
    - Doctor_Fegg 13y ago
      Sure, but you're assuming that I want Google-like results. I don't. I don't really want Knowledge Graph-driven business listings. I just want a map which shows roads in different colours rather than all-white (and a host of other cartographic howlers) which Google doesn't currently offer me. But hearing "our way or the highway" coming from a Googler is making the argument for me to try DDG again, so thanks. :)
quadrangle 13y ago
Apple is accused of being criminal. So showing that Google does the same thing is a refutation? If Bank of America illegally forecloses on people, it's okay because Citibank does that too?
- nknighthb 13y ago
  Apple is not being accused of being criminal by anyone who understands antitrust law. The proof is the comparison to Microsoft, an entity that held a clear monopoly where Apple does not.
  - adventured 13y ago
    Modern anti-trust law is not about monopolies. You can nearly count the number of substantial monopoly cases in US history on one hand. However, take a look over the anti-trust cases just since 1994 (almost none of which have to do with monopolies): http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/index.html#page=page-1 http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/index.html#page=page-1
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      I can tell you haven't read the indictments. If you had, you'd notice a common theme that A) matches the Apple/Amazon books case you brought up earlier, and B) very much does not match the Maps case. The DOJ is concerned with suppression of competition on an industry level. Amazon/Apple arguably did so. Microsoft certainly did so. Two platforms in fierce competition, neither in a truly dominant market position, using their own Maps application, is not what the DOJ is going to worry about.
  - uid 13y ago
    Oh, the irony.
- netcan 13y ago
  "So showing that Google does the same thing is a refutation?" - genuinely interesting question. Do common law principle apply in some way here? IE, assuming there is no legal precedent, is the lack of litigation elsewhere relevant?

by pkaler 13y ago

Doctor_Fegg 13y ago

Indeed. Google pushes Google Maps as an unchangeable default just as much as Apple does, just not on Android. iOS market share: 54% (or less, who you believe). Google Search market share: 67%. So when Google Search lets you replace Google Maps as the in-page default with Bing Maps/OpenStreetMap/whatever - you know, when you search for a city or zipcode - I'll start worrying about the iOS defaults.

sdoering 13y ago
Could you explain, what your argument does to the discussion? I mean, if on my desktop/laptop I am feed up with Google Maps in SERPs, I can use Bing or DDG or whatever. On iOS (and maybe on Android) not that much. Your argument should have been: Imagine a world, where on your desktop on Windows you can only use Bing Maps. Then your argument might have been valid.
- Doctor_Fegg 13y ago
  It's about what you've "bought into". I can't imagine switching away from Google Search. I've tried Bing, I've tried DuckDuckGo. I can't get used to them; the presentation of the results, the stuff I expect to be ranked highly. It's not that they're worse, it's just that I can't rewire a habit of years of searching in Google every day. I wish I could. But I'm not particularly attached to either the iOS or Android ecosystem. I have an Android phone and an iPad. I could replace them with an iPhone and an Android tablet if I really wanted and I doubt I'd notice much difference. So when you say "if I am fed up with Google Maps I can use Bing", that's a switch you can make, good for you. I find it harder than you to make the search engine switch, and easier than you to make the smartphone switch. Is that so hard to understand?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
cromwellian 13y ago
Please explain how that's technically going to work. You're talking about federating the huge Google search query volume out to third party sites, which have to respond typically in just a few dozen milliseconds, and have to work with Google Instant and Google Suggest without significantly adding to user interface delay. At best, you could stick an <IFRAME> in the page and point it at a user configured maps site, only you don't know if it is going to return a maps result. What if the query isn't for a location? Or what if the user's third party map supplier doesn't have the location? Then you get a big empty <IFRAME> with nothing in it, and a bad user experience. You'd also increase the perception that the Google search results are slow because it would take longer for the page to finish loading. Allowing pluggable providers on the client for launching URL intents makes sense, I don't think it makes as much sense for search engines to federate queries in this way, there are much more difficult performance and privacy issues with such a model. The Portal/Portlet model of "search" has been tried before and users didn't really like the experience.
- Doctor_Fegg 13y ago
  It's not that hard. If Google still does the geocoding, then an iframe with a call to bing.com/maps/google?lat=1.2&lon=3.4 works fine.
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    That will display a map, but it won't display the local business listings which is part and parcel of Google's Knowledge-Graph driven maps listings. Also, the <IFRAME> will add non-trivial amounts of latency to the page display. When you type in something that generates a map these days, you get Knowledge Graph entries, Maps, Related places and people, and a bunch of other ancillary things. How can Google simultaneously iterate and evolve their search, and at the same time, provided a fixed API for federating this stuff? This is one of those things that works much better in theory than in practice. I'd rather Google federate social and login before messing with search answers.
  - Doctor_Fegg 13y ago
    Sure, but you're assuming that I want Google-like results. I don't. I don't really want Knowledge Graph-driven business listings. I just want a map which shows roads in different colours rather than all-white (and a host of other cartographic howlers) which Google doesn't currently offer me. But hearing "our way or the highway" coming from a Googler is making the argument for me to try DDG again, so thanks. :)

quadrangle 13y ago

Apple is accused of being criminal. So showing that Google does the same thing is a refutation? If Bank of America illegally forecloses on people, it's okay because Citibank does that too?

nknighthb 13y ago
Apple is not being accused of being criminal by anyone who understands antitrust law. The proof is the comparison to Microsoft, an entity that held a clear monopoly where Apple does not.
- adventured 13y ago
  Modern anti-trust law is not about monopolies. You can nearly count the number of substantial monopoly cases in US history on one hand. However, take a look over the anti-trust cases just since 1994 (almost none of which have to do with monopolies): http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/index.html#page=page-1 http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/index.html#page=page-1
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    I can tell you haven't read the indictments. If you had, you'd notice a common theme that A) matches the Apple/Amazon books case you brought up earlier, and B) very much does not match the Maps case. The DOJ is concerned with suppression of competition on an industry level. Amazon/Apple arguably did so. Microsoft certainly did so. Two platforms in fierce competition, neither in a truly dominant market position, using their own Maps application, is not what the DOJ is going to worry about.
- uid 13y ago
  Oh, the irony.
netcan 13y ago
"So showing that Google does the same thing is a refutation?" - genuinely interesting question. Do common law principle apply in some way here? IE, assuming there is no legal precedent, is the lack of litigation elsewhere relevant?