3 ms·

I'm on the fence on this. Google does have a dangerously powerful position in the market, though I tend to support letting the market sort those kinds of things

I'm on the fence on this. Google does have a dangerously powerful position in the market, though I tend to support letting the market sort those kinds of things out (when there aren't artificial barriers preventing competition, as in the Internet last mile market, which needs a lot better and smarter regulation). But, I'm not sure if this helps the consumer or not. On one hand, I use Duck Duck Go (for privacy reasons), and I've come to appreciate the seeming agnostic way in which DDG will pull results from all sorts of sources, with the goal being to provide the best experience. It isn't perfect, and sometimes it does confusing things. I just looked up "what's my IP" on DDG a few minutes ago, and it weirdly came back as a clickable thing that sent me to a map when I tried to copy paste the IP. I have no idea why I would want a freakin' map of my own IP address (I know where I am). Nonetheless, this looks a little like the DDG experience, where you get a variety of shopping options, or a variety of sources for information, and they're all first class citizens. And, so, Google isn't exactly a walled garden, but it has become a lot less likely to refer me somewhere else if they can monetize what I'm looking for in some way. On the final hand (I don't know how many hands I've laid out here, probably three or four, so far), these also kinda feel like ads. But, they're ads for companies that are arbitrarily chosen (by whom?). Google now has the power to select who to bless with the mighty Google hammer in these competitor spots. What will they do with that power? Will that actually make the consumer happier? I don't know how it'll play out. I assume this isn't going to happen on the US results pages, so I guess we'll have some A/B data to compare.

danmaz74 13y ago
Who they should display is specified in the settlement, as magicalist found out: http://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/google_commitments http://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/google_commitments (in Annex 1 - Selection And Ranking Of Rival Link) The solution isn't perfect and I'm not a Google basher, but I'm glad about this. Even more important than the actual provisions of the settlement is the fact that Google - like any other big company - should know that they need to be careful how they use their dominant position in one market to try to capture a different market.
mattmanser 13y ago
In the EU google owns search, lock, stock and barrel. If you aren't on google, if you aren't buying their traffic or aren't on top of their results, you almost aren't operating in the EU. Google essentially now owns the high street in every town and city across the EU. It's not that the consumers have no choice, it's that the companies have no choice. And then Google were doing the equivalent of putting up their own stores IN FRONT OF existing stores. They'd just set their store up in front of competitors. And the competitors can't complain as google can, with a click of their fingers, make their store just disappear off into the Himalayas. If there's ever a clear shut and closed case of exploitation of a monopoly and the need for government intervention, this was it. And I don't think it goes far enough. Can any of us estimate how much damage MS did with IE and Embrace Extend Extinguish? Millions, Billions or Trillions? Would the internet technologies be 1, 2 or 5 years ahead? How much more would businesses have been productive if MS hadn't done so much damage to other software companies using their monopoly for a few billion profit? If it's even 1% more productive, we are talking trillions. That's where we are right now with Google. At least this time the reaction seems to have been much faster.

danmaz74 13y ago

Who they should display is specified in the settlement, as magicalist found out: http://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/google_commitments http://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/google_commitments (in Annex 1 - Selection And Ranking Of Rival Link) The solution isn't perfect and I'm not a Google basher, but I'm glad about this. Even more important than the actual provisions of the settlement is the fact that Google - like any other big company - should know that they need to be careful how they use their dominant position in one market to try to capture a different market.

mattmanser 13y ago

In the EU google owns search, lock, stock and barrel. If you aren't on google, if you aren't buying their traffic or aren't on top of their results, you almost aren't operating in the EU. Google essentially now owns the high street in every town and city across the EU. It's not that the consumers have no choice, it's that the companies have no choice. And then Google were doing the equivalent of putting up their own stores IN FRONT OF existing stores. They'd just set their store up in front of competitors. And the competitors can't complain as google can, with a click of their fingers, make their store just disappear off into the Himalayas. If there's ever a clear shut and closed case of exploitation of a monopoly and the need for government intervention, this was it. And I don't think it goes far enough. Can any of us estimate how much damage MS did with IE and Embrace Extend Extinguish? Millions, Billions or Trillions? Would the internet technologies be 1, 2 or 5 years ahead? How much more would businesses have been productive if MS hadn't done so much damage to other software companies using their monopoly for a few billion profit? If it's even 1% more productive, we are talking trillions. That's where we are right now with Google. At least this time the reaction seems to have been much faster.