7 ms·

What would be a viable way for Google to fix this that doesn't hurt users? Sure, have Google Chrome installs start with "What do you want as your default searc

by lkbm 12y ago

What would be a viable way for Google to fix this that doesn't hurt users? Sure, have Google Chrome installs start with "What do you want as your default search provider?" But can you do that with Android? How much will it affect Google Now to have it be connecting to a different search provider, and what does that mean? If I enter "1+1", or "weather", or "call Bob" or "navigate home", should it go to my search provider, or to Google Now? (I know the first two currently go to GWS anyway, but why should they?) And if integration of services like shopping on GWS are a problem, does that mean they should be removing the "Shopping" tab and make it just another result? That would suck. (For me, as a user.) I dunno, maybe long-term it allows for more competition and innovation, but short term I don't see solutions that aren't "make your product worse". Even allowing me to choose plug-in search tabs from other services seems iffy.

whyenot 12y ago
> What would be a viable way for Google to fix this that doesn't hurt users? If they are prioritizing Google Shopping results, as is alleged, stop doing that or otherwise biasing search results to favor Google products.
- tajen 12y ago
  This raises a very difficult question: Given the results are personnalized and the algorithm a secret, how can we bring proof? Same question for many companies who can hide behind the absence of measurable data, because they keep it secret.
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    There is a decent likelihood the EU court will mandate Google to provide the court this information. With any luck, some of it will end up public, though Google will probably try to leave the EU as a whole before they'd give up their search formula.
declan 12y ago
>What would be a viable way for Google to fix this that doesn't hurt users? Assuming that any of Google's business practices needs to be "fixed" (a claim that's debatable and has been rejected by U.S. FedGov), you've put your finger on the difference between the U.S. and Euro regulatory approaches. The European approach is more inclined to protect competitors that complain about a rival -- in this case Yelp, Microsoft, etc. are doing that. Note protecting competitors from rivals is not the same as protecting competition; in fact, having bureaucrats cripple some firms and favor others can reduce competition and injects politics and lobbying and who-golfs-with-the-commissioner into the process. It also can lead to bizarre results like the lack of a reasonably viable way to "fix" things. The U.S. approach toward dominant firm behavior (well, since the 1970s) has been different. It focuses on intervening when there's consumer harm, or at least tries to. If consumers are not harmed, the logic goes, there is likely no reason for the Feds to intervene. This is why the FTC did not proceed with its case against Google. U.S. law also emphasizes economic analysis, which stands a better chance of grounding the analysis in marketplace reality. A colleague and I wrote about the different EU vs. US antitrust approaches here: http://news.cnet.com/Intel-probe-highlights-EU-U.S.-regulation-tussle/2100-1028_3-5228930.html http://news.cnet.com/Intel-probe-highlights-EU-U.S.-regulati... Note Microsoft enlisted U.S. politicians in its attempt to fend off broad EU antitrust actions; here's my article from 2004: http://news.cnet.com/U.S.-politicos-fire-at-EUs-Microsoft-ruling/2100-1012_3-5178914.html http://news.cnet.com/U.S.-politicos-fire-at-EUs-Microsoft-ru... Google doesn't seem to have the same depth of congressional outreach, especially among Rs predisposed to be skeptical of antitrust actions.
- ocdtrekkie 12y ago
  The US's view of Google is inadmissible. Several high positioned White House staff members in tech positions are Googlers, and Google has a massive amount of cash invested in the US Congress as well. Google is at the White House for meetings on a weekly basis. The US Congress' letter to the EU Parliament asking them not to break up Google: Entirely signed by representatives paid by Google.
  - ryanlol 12y ago
    I also heard that google is testing out mind control using chemtrails.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> What would be a viable way for Google to fix this that doesn't hurt users? Its hard to even evaluate the accuracy of the objections, much less propose something that would resolve them, without the actual text of the Statement of Objections rather than news articles and even the original EU press release [0] and fact sheet [1] on the SO. But, in any case, but for their anticompetitive effect, actions which violate competition laws often benefit users in terms of interaction with the product. The whole point of competition laws is to prevent that short-term benefit from being the source of monopolization which leads both to stagnation and monopoly rents, which harm consumers over the long term. [0] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4780_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4780_en.htm [1] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4781_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4781_en.htm
ocdtrekkie 12y ago
Android is very simple: Google needs to be banned from mandating OEMs install the whole Google Apps package. Leave it on OEMs to decide what browser, search, etc. apps to package on their devices. The market, and consumers, will decide what works. The Open Handset Alliance is a blatant example of an illegal trust. A large group of supposed competitors agreeing not to compete.
- Oletros 12y ago
  Do you really believe the things you write? How the heck is OHA an illegal trust?
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    The OHA is basically an agreement between almost every major manufacturer in the industry to not compete on software, which is the majority of the industry's featureset. Additionally, while OEMs actively advertise against iPhone, none of them have ever made ads against each other. The OHA is, at it's core, an agreement of a whole industry to not compete with Google or each other.
    - Oletros 12y ago
      No it is impossible that you believe that nonsense
      - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        I recognize your name. I've surely encountered your brand of fanboyism on HN before.
        Oletros 12y ago
        Please, don't project your personality on others
        prapam2 12y ago
        Your trolling has ruined this thread of a lively debate.
TheDong 12y ago
You can currently change your google now provider. Firefox Beta, when installed now, registers an intent for search, and when you next do a google-now swipe-up, it'll ask you to pick between google now and firefox beta. Google already has the solution for android of letting apps register intents, even for core things like maps or search or (hell) even the homescreen. Google's solution of letting other apps register intents to handle things and prompt the user, while having default apps made by them that fulfill those intents, seems to be the best compromise on usability and extensibility.

by lkbm 12y ago

whyenot 12y ago

> What would be a viable way for Google to fix this that doesn't hurt users? If they are prioritizing Google Shopping results, as is alleged, stop doing that or otherwise biasing search results to favor Google products.

tajen 12y ago
This raises a very difficult question: Given the results are personnalized and the algorithm a secret, how can we bring proof? Same question for many companies who can hide behind the absence of measurable data, because they keep it secret.
- ocdtrekkie 12y ago
  There is a decent likelihood the EU court will mandate Google to provide the court this information. With any luck, some of it will end up public, though Google will probably try to leave the EU as a whole before they'd give up their search formula.

declan 12y ago

>What would be a viable way for Google to fix this that doesn't hurt users? Assuming that any of Google's business practices needs to be "fixed" (a claim that's debatable and has been rejected by U.S. FedGov), you've put your finger on the difference between the U.S. and Euro regulatory approaches. The European approach is more inclined to protect competitors that complain about a rival -- in this case Yelp, Microsoft, etc. are doing that. Note protecting competitors from rivals is not the same as protecting competition; in fact, having bureaucrats cripple some firms and favor others can reduce competition and injects politics and lobbying and who-golfs-with-the-commissioner into the process. It also can lead to bizarre results like the lack of a reasonably viable way to "fix" things. The U.S. approach toward dominant firm behavior (well, since the 1970s) has been different. It focuses on intervening when there's consumer harm, or at least tries to. If consumers are not harmed, the logic goes, there is likely no reason for the Feds to intervene. This is why the FTC did not proceed with its case against Google. U.S. law also emphasizes economic analysis, which stands a better chance of grounding the analysis in marketplace reality. A colleague and I wrote about the different EU vs. US antitrust approaches here: http://news.cnet.com/Intel-probe-highlights-EU-U.S.-regulation-tussle/2100-1028_3-5228930.html http://news.cnet.com/Intel-probe-highlights-EU-U.S.-regulati... Note Microsoft enlisted U.S. politicians in its attempt to fend off broad EU antitrust actions; here's my article from 2004: http://news.cnet.com/U.S.-politicos-fire-at-EUs-Microsoft-ruling/2100-1012_3-5178914.html http://news.cnet.com/U.S.-politicos-fire-at-EUs-Microsoft-ru... Google doesn't seem to have the same depth of congressional outreach, especially among Rs predisposed to be skeptical of antitrust actions.

ocdtrekkie 12y ago
The US's view of Google is inadmissible. Several high positioned White House staff members in tech positions are Googlers, and Google has a massive amount of cash invested in the US Congress as well. Google is at the White House for meetings on a weekly basis. The US Congress' letter to the EU Parliament asking them not to break up Google: Entirely signed by representatives paid by Google.
- ryanlol 12y ago
  I also heard that google is testing out mind control using chemtrails.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> What would be a viable way for Google to fix this that doesn't hurt users? Its hard to even evaluate the accuracy of the objections, much less propose something that would resolve them, without the actual text of the Statement of Objections rather than news articles and even the original EU press release [0] and fact sheet [1] on the SO. But, in any case, but for their anticompetitive effect, actions which violate competition laws often benefit users in terms of interaction with the product. The whole point of competition laws is to prevent that short-term benefit from being the source of monopolization which leads both to stagnation and monopoly rents, which harm consumers over the long term. [0] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4780_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4780_en.htm [1] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4781_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4781_en.htm

ocdtrekkie 12y ago

Android is very simple: Google needs to be banned from mandating OEMs install the whole Google Apps package. Leave it on OEMs to decide what browser, search, etc. apps to package on their devices. The market, and consumers, will decide what works. The Open Handset Alliance is a blatant example of an illegal trust. A large group of supposed competitors agreeing not to compete.

Oletros 12y ago
Do you really believe the things you write? How the heck is OHA an illegal trust?
- ocdtrekkie 12y ago
  The OHA is basically an agreement between almost every major manufacturer in the industry to not compete on software, which is the majority of the industry's featureset. Additionally, while OEMs actively advertise against iPhone, none of them have ever made ads against each other. The OHA is, at it's core, an agreement of a whole industry to not compete with Google or each other.
  - Oletros 12y ago
    No it is impossible that you believe that nonsense
    - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
      I recognize your name. I've surely encountered your brand of fanboyism on HN before.
      - Oletros 12y ago
        Please, don't project your personality on others
      - prapam2 12y ago
        Your trolling has ruined this thread of a lively debate.

TheDong 12y ago

You can currently change your google now provider. Firefox Beta, when installed now, registers an intent for search, and when you next do a google-now swipe-up, it'll ask you to pick between google now and firefox beta. Google already has the solution for android of letting apps register intents, even for core things like maps or search or (hell) even the homescreen. Google's solution of letting other apps register intents to handle things and prompt the user, while having default apps made by them that fulfill those intents, seems to be the best compromise on usability and extensibility.