4 ms·

Taking the example of say hotels, here is what happens: https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=hotels%20in%20cambridge https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q

Taking the example of say hotels, here is what happens: https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=hotels%20in%20cambridge https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=hotels%20in%20cambri... A sort of booking widget appears, taking up the space of the first 4 results. Instead of web pages we are presented with google place entries (another google project), and a dates widget at top, which when you fill it in leads to a nice list of google place results, so they are channelling users through other web properties they control. This might seem superficially appealing to customers (personally I think it is great design, but used for evil ends), but it means that google controls that entire space, because people generally click on the first few results, and clicks after that diminish very very rapidly. So at some point when they start charging for google place entries or booking via google wallet or whatever, they can mint a huge amount of money purely because of the dominant search position they enjoy. They can also drive out of business anyone who wants to compete in that space, or force them to pay a toll to google - in fact I see they're already doing this as adverts for booking.com appear on google place bookings. Once we are used to them inserting non-organic results at the top of every search, they can start to charge for those results, and for everything associated with them. They will then have completed their transformation from a company organising the world's information to a company controlling and charging for the world's information. As to maps, I think we need to clearly delineate between search results and mapping results. People would be fine I think if google offered a small option to go to google maps when you do an address search, but if they take over half the page with a google map on these results, it is legitimate to ask whether they are leveraging their dominant position in one domain to enforce dominance in another (classic monopolist behaviour). This wouldn't be a problem if Google did not have 70-90% of the market share for search (depending on your country) - that is a near monopoly position. So Google are abusing their dominant position in search to promote their other properties, and to control which websites appear first in many domains (shopping, images, hotels, shops etc), and they are also in de facto control of the web due to their position in search, which is not good for anyone, least of all google.

mike_hearn 12y ago
The counter argument Google uses is that booking.com and friends have no inherent right to exist. They either provide a service that people want or they don't. Hotel booking is a commodity business: other than reviews and the like there's a limited amount of value that can be added. If they add enough value people will go there directly. If all they do is provide a few calendar widgets and a billing backend then maybe Google can do that more effectively by inlining it into the results page. > People would be fine I think if google offered a small option to go to google maps when you do an address search, but if they take over half the page with a google map on these results, it is legitimate to ask whether they are leveraging their dominant position Wait so the outcome of a legal case depends on how many pixels the feature takes up? I don't see any rational basis in law for that. Why should a map not be large? If someone came along that did mapping much better than Google did, people could just go to that site directly, right? I remember a time before "universal search" when maps did not appear in Google web search at all. Yet Google Maps was still a popular service. So was Google Earth which had to be downloaded.
- grey-area 12y ago
  They either provide a service that people want or they don't. If google uses their dominant search position to make sure that only google place links are ever seen and clicked, others might have trouble providing any service at all which does not go through google. There are obvious problems with that, and we even see problems today with companies who are penalised by google and cannot reach customers. There is a tension here because some of Google's moves are actually good for consumers (say displaying maps), and not many people like using things like booking.com anyway (who are as you point out just more middlemen), but I think there is a legal case against monopolistic behaviour, and Google is getting very close to the kind of behaviour which has been punished in the past. The bit I find interesting here is that countries no longer really have enough power to fully control corporations which are becoming truly supranational - this century we might find corporations become more powerful than even the most powerful countries. That puts us in an interesting position if say Google decides to take over a market or exclude certain users for monetary gain - who is going to stop them?
  - guyzero 12y ago
    If google uses their dominant search position to make sure that only google place links are ever seen and clicked, others might have trouble providing any service at all which does not go through google. But Google isn't a gatekeeper. You can go to hotels.com or booking.com or kayak.com or any site you choose as easily as you go to Google search or Google Maps. In what way does Google stop consumers from using competitive services? Is simply having a more popular brand inherently anti-competitive?
    - grey-area 12y ago
      Is simply having a more popular brand inherently anti-competitive? No, having a very popular brand (>80% of market say), and then using that brand to kill competitors in another market is anti-competitive. Google are not a gate-keeper for consumers, but they are for many kinds of business who want to be found on the net - they have no option but to try to reach the top of google in their domain, or in the case of this sort of move, actually pay for a presence in google results (because probably 90% of users don't look below this widget taking up most of their page).
q7 12y ago
Could you provide a screenshot? It looks differently on my screen (probably because I'm in another country).
- katbyte 12y ago
  here are some for .uk.co https://imgur.com/VbqeP8N,uebU6xm https://imgur.com/VbqeP8N,uebU6xm and here is .ca for comparison https://imgur.com/IfsJhbR,uLDPIL4 https://imgur.com/IfsJhbR,uLDPIL4 canada west coast incognito vs regular chrome (with adblock and more)
- grey-area 12y ago
  http://imgur.com/WDHDj05 http://imgur.com/WDHDj05 The content you see must vary per region/user, but this is what I see in the UK.
katbyte 12y ago
> when they start charging If they start charging. Theres nothing that i know of that suggests they will? That aside, google displaying non-organic results like that is one of the reasons i use google. Like if i google "sunset vancouver" the first result is a box displaying exactly what i'm searching for. What's next, the sunset websites taking google to court due it leveraging its search monopoly?
- grey-area 12y ago
  If they start charging. Theres nothing that i know of that suggests they will? http://imgur.com/hG4w4gm http://imgur.com/hG4w4gm Note the ways to book on that link - via paid ads. They're already making money from obscuring organic search results and promoting their own content instead. They might choose to charge for adverts, for bookings, or for place entries, or for all three, but the end result is the same. I doubt the EU will come up with a sensible solution, but there is definitely a problem here because Google is using its dominant position in one market to enter others (the above is just an example, there are lots of domains where they do this).

mike_hearn 12y ago

The counter argument Google uses is that booking.com and friends have no inherent right to exist. They either provide a service that people want or they don't. Hotel booking is a commodity business: other than reviews and the like there's a limited amount of value that can be added. If they add enough value people will go there directly. If all they do is provide a few calendar widgets and a billing backend then maybe Google can do that more effectively by inlining it into the results page. > People would be fine I think if google offered a small option to go to google maps when you do an address search, but if they take over half the page with a google map on these results, it is legitimate to ask whether they are leveraging their dominant position Wait so the outcome of a legal case depends on how many pixels the feature takes up? I don't see any rational basis in law for that. Why should a map not be large? If someone came along that did mapping much better than Google did, people could just go to that site directly, right? I remember a time before "universal search" when maps did not appear in Google web search at all. Yet Google Maps was still a popular service. So was Google Earth which had to be downloaded.

grey-area 12y ago
They either provide a service that people want or they don't. If google uses their dominant search position to make sure that only google place links are ever seen and clicked, others might have trouble providing any service at all which does not go through google. There are obvious problems with that, and we even see problems today with companies who are penalised by google and cannot reach customers. There is a tension here because some of Google's moves are actually good for consumers (say displaying maps), and not many people like using things like booking.com anyway (who are as you point out just more middlemen), but I think there is a legal case against monopolistic behaviour, and Google is getting very close to the kind of behaviour which has been punished in the past. The bit I find interesting here is that countries no longer really have enough power to fully control corporations which are becoming truly supranational - this century we might find corporations become more powerful than even the most powerful countries. That puts us in an interesting position if say Google decides to take over a market or exclude certain users for monetary gain - who is going to stop them?
- guyzero 12y ago
  If google uses their dominant search position to make sure that only google place links are ever seen and clicked, others might have trouble providing any service at all which does not go through google. But Google isn't a gatekeeper. You can go to hotels.com or booking.com or kayak.com or any site you choose as easily as you go to Google search or Google Maps. In what way does Google stop consumers from using competitive services? Is simply having a more popular brand inherently anti-competitive?
  - grey-area 12y ago
    Is simply having a more popular brand inherently anti-competitive? No, having a very popular brand (>80% of market say), and then using that brand to kill competitors in another market is anti-competitive. Google are not a gate-keeper for consumers, but they are for many kinds of business who want to be found on the net - they have no option but to try to reach the top of google in their domain, or in the case of this sort of move, actually pay for a presence in google results (because probably 90% of users don't look below this widget taking up most of their page).

q7 12y ago

Could you provide a screenshot? It looks differently on my screen (probably because I'm in another country).

katbyte 12y ago
here are some for .uk.co https://imgur.com/VbqeP8N,uebU6xm https://imgur.com/VbqeP8N,uebU6xm and here is .ca for comparison https://imgur.com/IfsJhbR,uLDPIL4 https://imgur.com/IfsJhbR,uLDPIL4 canada west coast incognito vs regular chrome (with adblock and more)
grey-area 12y ago
http://imgur.com/WDHDj05 http://imgur.com/WDHDj05 The content you see must vary per region/user, but this is what I see in the UK.

katbyte 12y ago

> when they start charging If they start charging. Theres nothing that i know of that suggests they will? That aside, google displaying non-organic results like that is one of the reasons i use google. Like if i google "sunset vancouver" the first result is a box displaying exactly what i'm searching for. What's next, the sunset websites taking google to court due it leveraging its search monopoly?

grey-area 12y ago
If they start charging. Theres nothing that i know of that suggests they will? http://imgur.com/hG4w4gm http://imgur.com/hG4w4gm Note the ways to book on that link - via paid ads. They're already making money from obscuring organic search results and promoting their own content instead. They might choose to charge for adverts, for bookings, or for place entries, or for all three, but the end result is the same. I doubt the EU will come up with a sensible solution, but there is definitely a problem here because Google is using its dominant position in one market to enter others (the above is just an example, there are lots of domains where they do this).