8 ms·

That would be lovely, however that probably won't happen. Seeing google might get sued for that.

venomsnake 11y ago
Why? They are a private company, they can do whatever they want on their site (also known as the iOS censorship apologist argument)
- vidarh 11y ago
  They make up a big enough proportion of the search market that whether or not they'd ultimately prevail, a move like that would tie them up in anti-trust battles for the next decade.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    But search is only metadata. Metadata is not important ...
  - ascagnel_ 11y ago
    They can choose to not deliver "enhanced" search results -- showtimes, links to buy tickets, links to IMDB/RT/etc., that appear outside of the "native" search results. As long as they don't mess around with the native search results, they'll be safer from an anti-trust perspective.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      Doesn't matter - it'd still be "trivial" to put together a sufficiently complicated case to have it survive dismissal attempts and drag it out for years. The point is they're not just at risk of losing an anti-trust battle, but simply of having their execs embroiled in it for years.
- zamalek 11y ago
  I think it would be possibly anti-competitive. However, Google already attempts to reward original content so if they could do it algorithmically to everyone (hence not disrupting the competitive marketplace) I think they'd be able to claim "oops."
  - tomjen3 11y ago
    They could just choose to reward rankings to the original movie, which means Hollywood will have to make movies that are not just reboots or sequels.
  - bmelton 11y ago
    Until someone subpoenas their emails and sees a discussion in which the act is deliberate, during which case it's anti-competitive. "Oops" only works when there's no proof, and it's hard to hvae an absence of proof in something that would take so much orchestration.
- NicoJuicy 11y ago
  They won't do that, they aren't MPAA, Comcast, NewsCorp or Hollywood ;-)
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  Why is this modded down? Apple fans don't like swipes at Apple?
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  Because they very much have to toe the line of being "neutral" in their search results as to not enable all the sanctions/remedies that other search engine competitors (like Bing) to have merit. Were they to overtly use their position to "punish" the content companies in this way, they would be jumped on by regulators everywhere for abusing a monopoly power.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Torrent sites downgrade, as searching for torrents were exactly that. Punishing arbitrary sites for no good reason.
    - Spivak 11y ago
      The sad reality is that torrent sites don't have large legal teams nor the public favor to win over judges and juries. In the mind of the public and lawmakers, they are punishing the "bad people". Any search provider will be able to continue this practice with impunity as long as they don't target people with real money.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  They can and should be able to, but ever so often a government starts thinking that "oh, it's big enough that we should remind it we're bigger and claim it's a 'utility' or something". This kind of thing makes that argument easier.
- glomph 11y ago
  The real reason is that they fight very hard to seem like a neutral search agency. They wouldn't want to jepordise that for a squabble with hollywood.
- sirseal 11y ago
  They are actually a public company as you can buy stock in them.
- wmeredith 11y ago
  They are a monopoly. iOS is not.

Why? They are a private company, they can do whatever they want on their site (also known as the iOS censorship apologist argument)

vidarh 11y ago
They make up a big enough proportion of the search market that whether or not they'd ultimately prevail, a move like that would tie them up in anti-trust battles for the next decade.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  But search is only metadata. Metadata is not important ...
- ascagnel_ 11y ago
  They can choose to not deliver "enhanced" search results -- showtimes, links to buy tickets, links to IMDB/RT/etc., that appear outside of the "native" search results. As long as they don't mess around with the native search results, they'll be safer from an anti-trust perspective.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    Doesn't matter - it'd still be "trivial" to put together a sufficiently complicated case to have it survive dismissal attempts and drag it out for years. The point is they're not just at risk of losing an anti-trust battle, but simply of having their execs embroiled in it for years.
zamalek 11y ago
I think it would be possibly anti-competitive. However, Google already attempts to reward original content so if they could do it algorithmically to everyone (hence not disrupting the competitive marketplace) I think they'd be able to claim "oops."
- tomjen3 11y ago
  They could just choose to reward rankings to the original movie, which means Hollywood will have to make movies that are not just reboots or sequels.
- bmelton 11y ago
  Until someone subpoenas their emails and sees a discussion in which the act is deliberate, during which case it's anti-competitive. "Oops" only works when there's no proof, and it's hard to hvae an absence of proof in something that would take so much orchestration.
NicoJuicy 11y ago
They won't do that, they aren't MPAA, Comcast, NewsCorp or Hollywood ;-)
tosseraccount 11y ago
Why is this modded down? Apple fans don't like swipes at Apple?
ChuckMcM 11y ago
Because they very much have to toe the line of being "neutral" in their search results as to not enable all the sanctions/remedies that other search engine competitors (like Bing) to have merit. Were they to overtly use their position to "punish" the content companies in this way, they would be jumped on by regulators everywhere for abusing a monopoly power.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Torrent sites downgrade, as searching for torrents were exactly that. Punishing arbitrary sites for no good reason.
  - Spivak 11y ago
    The sad reality is that torrent sites don't have large legal teams nor the public favor to win over judges and juries. In the mind of the public and lawmakers, they are punishing the "bad people". Any search provider will be able to continue this practice with impunity as long as they don't target people with real money.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
They can and should be able to, but ever so often a government starts thinking that "oh, it's big enough that we should remind it we're bigger and claim it's a 'utility' or something". This kind of thing makes that argument easier.
glomph 11y ago
The real reason is that they fight very hard to seem like a neutral search agency. They wouldn't want to jepordise that for a squabble with hollywood.
sirseal 11y ago
They are actually a public company as you can buy stock in them.
wmeredith 11y ago
They are a monopoly. iOS is not.