Google Accused of "Cooking" Search Results and Charging MSFT Too Much 285
A reader writes "Google is being scrutinized by the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee for supposedly 'cooking' their search results. In an independent study comparing search results for products, Google Shopping consistently ranked 3rd. Eric Scmidt denied these accusations at a Senate hearing Wednesday." On top of all that, Microsoft is alleging that Google overcharges them as much as fifty-fold for advertising prices as compared to other buyers.
Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. But google doesn't have a monopoly in search.
Google has a higher percentage of the search market than Microsoft has of the OS market; Slashdot constantly tells me that Microsoft is a monopoly. Doesn't that mean that Google has a monopoly?
Re: (Score:2)
Not technically true, unless you're looking at Microsoft as a percent of the TOTAL OS market and not just Desktop OS, which would be a bit. Even years later, MS still has a tighter grip on the Desktop OS market than Google does on search. Google commands 65% of US search vs Microsoft's 79% of Desktop OS. Back when it was under scrutiny, I do believe Microsoft had well above 90%.
At any rate, as others will point out, Microsoft's problems stemmed less from having a monopoly and more with the manner in whic
Re: (Score:2)
Zero, if you exclude the Chinese-language market (which is presumably of little interest to US regulators). Google's market share is somewhere around 10x all their main English-language competitors combined.
Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues (Score:5, Insightful)
So... Uh... Google currently outstrips all other tech companies in PAC contributions (money raised from employees for the purposes of lobbying). I suspect they've been in the "big boy leagues" for a while now.
What you call optimize, they call cooking? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd hate to say this, but company $A having an algorithm that might be tuned however they damn well please does not constitute cooking... unless, there is a master defined algorithm that every search provider must follow. Yes... I can see the goose-stepping algorithm enforcement brigades now.
Now, are we going to start with the "In Soviet America Jokes", or are we going to just define the algorithm Führer and get over with it?
Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your definition of cooking is not the only, or even most, reasonable one. Sure, a search company can devise whatever algorithm it wants, but I think people have come, rightly or wrongly, to expect a baseline of impartiality in results from Google. If we define "cooking" against that expectation, it could include any tweaking that biases for or against certain pages because of Google's other interests. Ranking their own services higher in the results than where they would appear if a single algorithm were applied across the board would then be "cooking."
The question of what to do about this is a separate one. I might, for example, decide that the best course of action is to publicize Google's actions so that users of their search will be aware of this bias. There's no need to leap from pointing the practice out to legislating a master algorithm.
Re: (Score:2)
Ranking their own services higher in the results than where they would appear if a single algorithm were applied across the board would then be "cooking."
I think microsoft usually refers to that practice as "compatibility"
Re: (Score:3)
If I type something like "pizza hut in manchester" in Bing, I get a link to Bing Maps as the second item. If I type in something that has images like "london" I see a link to Bing's Image Search in the top 5-6 results. Searching for something video related puts Bing Video Search at #1 which aggregates from YouTube and others. This is no different to what Google are doing.
If Google are going to get regulated for favouring their own services for things like this, so should the other search engines.
Re:No. this is not accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
Search is completely impossible to not have a bias. If it did so, it wouldn't be a search, it'd be a table of contents and also completely useless as a search. If they rank their own shit higher, well, that's their choice.
Of course there's no purely objective search. But if Company A builds into their algorithm that their own pages will always appear among the first five results, for example, it seems perfectly sensible for a Company B to point that fact out and say "We never do that. We rank all pages on the basis of a formula that does not consider who provides a particular web page," it would be a selling point for at least some consumers.
Re:No. this is not accurate (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course there's no purely objective search. But if Company A builds into their algorithm that their own pages will always appear among the first five results, for example, it seems perfectly sensible for a Company B to point that fact out and say "We never do that. We rank all pages on the basis of a formula that does not consider who provides a particular web page," it would be a selling point for at least some consumers.
Right. Selling point. Competition in the open market of search engines. What we're talking about here is the fact that the government is taking legal action against Google for whatever it is they might be doing.
Re:No. this is not accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
That is neither relevant nor interesting. A more interesting question is whether the bias is deliberate and targeted or not.
Here's a target practice analogy: When you shoot darts at a target, you won't get all darts in the bullseye. You might even find that your darts land more often in the lower half of the board. That's bias, and it's not deliberate.
Now suppose that a champion throws some darts, and his darts all land in the upper left corner of the board. That's bias too, but it's clearly deliberate and targeted. If moreover there's money riding on the game, and the champion was expected to win, then there's a case for cheating.
In both cases, it's completely impossible to not have bias, ie to hit the bullseye every single time always.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how that would be a selling point for the consumers whatsoever. A single result being in a different place has no real negative impact on the consumer: If the consumer is actually looking for that result then it's a convenience, and if not then it is so utterly trivial to ignore it and go on to the next one that complaining about it is frivolous.
Re: (Score:2)
If they rank their own shit higher, well, that's their choice.
While pretending that their ranking is based on automation and mathematical formulas only and is not biased? I don't think so pal.
That's monopolistic behaviour, is illegal and is no different to MS fucking over the competition.
Wake up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This might be a play to get the Google code published under senate orders, so their competition can use/abuse it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cooking? (Score:3, Informative)
Oh come on. I remember Microsoft's Bing doing some toasting> of their own on Google/a. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The Google chairman was on a hot seat (Score:5, Informative)
He failed to explain why Google results always came 3rd on product comparisons though.
The entire interview can be watched here [senate.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand. What product comparisons? Based on what criteria? As far as I can tell, most of those studies were purely subjective assessments of what constituted good. Because if there was an objective assessment of search quality across an entire set of searches.... well, someone could build a better Google right and crush Google I'm its core area: search. But they don't.
I smell bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
I smell cooked bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm searching for a product and it appears in the text ads, I'll click the ad. I make a point of clicking the ad if I'm looking for something on the Apple or MS website!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He failed to explain why Google results always came 3rd on product comparisons though.
The entire interview can be watched here [senate.gov].
Watching the section of the video you're referring to, he specifically answers that the reason they are third is because Google does a VERY good job at finding the ACTUAL product, versus (yet another) product comparison website. He states that if you were to use those other product comparison sites to find the same product, you will find they rank the product results (what website the product is ACTUALLY sold at) in their own method. Basically, Google does the best job, but doesn't make it the first link.
Sa
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to see how Google's results compared to Amazon and other sites where you could actually buy the products. It sounds like when people search for a product Google is trying to find a place to actually buy the product.
Antitrust? (Score:2)
FTA:
If true, the Microsoft allegations could be used to help the FTC build a case showing that Google abused its power as the owner of the world’s most popular search engine, violating the Sherman Act and other antitrust laws, said Andre Barlow, an antitrust lawyer at Doyle, Barlow & Mazard PLLC in Washington.
So if you're the most popular at something, you are suddenly held to higher standards?
I'm kind of confused here. Google may be the most popular advertiser right now but they're not the only one and certainly not the only successful one. How do they violate antitrust laws for charging various people/companies different rates? Couldn't Microsoft just as easily advertise elsewhere if they didn't like the pricing scheme? Sure it might not be as effective, but I'm not sure I like the idea that being "the bes
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have the feeling that Google has a >95% market share in advertising. Microsoft has (had) such kind of market share in desktop computer operating systems. That's a big difference.
As long as Google is not abusing search engine market share to muscle in on advertising market share or so, they can't be accused of leveraging a monopoly to gain advantage in another market, like MS did with the IE browser.
In how far they are allowed to exclude certain customers from their advertising offers, I have no
Re: (Score:3)
But that's exactly what they are accused of. The bickering is over Google ranking its subsidiaries higher than competing services, essentially using their market position as a search engine to gain an edge in other markets.
Think MS and IE. Do you think anyone would use that stinker if it wasn't bundled with the most used OS on the planet?
Re: (Score:2)
But that's exactly what they are accused of. The bickering is over Google ranking its subsidiaries higher than competing services, essentially using their market position as a search engine to gain an edge in other markets.
Do they have a monopoly in search? Their market share is big, many people will argue that they have a monopoly of course, but do they really? When does one qualify for monopoly status?
Think MS and IE. Do you think anyone would use that stinker if it wasn't bundled with the most used OS on the planet?
It was gaining quickly on Netscape before it was bundled already. At the time IE was considered by most to be the better browser, and as such it was gaining market share. Fair enough: let the better browser win. And then indeed MS started to bundle it in Windows. Including calling it an integral component that can not be separ
Re: (Score:2)
But that's exactly what they are accused of. The bickering is over Google ranking its subsidiaries higher than competing services, essentially using their market position as a search engine to gain an edge in other markets.
Think MS and IE. Do you think anyone would use that stinker if it wasn't bundled with the most used OS on the planet?
The difference that when IE is bundled with the operating system and you don't like it, it's difficult, time consuming, and possibly expensive to choose a new operating system. Alternatives in the general desktop market to Windows are either expensive (Apple) or difficult (*nix) for average users (especially before more friendly distros like Ubuntu).
Alternatives to Google's products are plentiful, easy to find, and largely free. Bing, Yahoo, Ask, etc. All you have to do is redirect your browser. You can
Re: (Score:3)
And you could even use IE to download them all, from Opera to Safari to Mozilla to whatever. Still, IE took the market. See a pattern?
Face it, giving a company that holds a sizable share of a market (and has market dominance, as Google undoubtedly has in the search engine market, at least outside of China) can push its products more easily down the user's throat.
Oh yes, they could redirect their searches to Bing, Ask, whatever. Here's something to ponder: They don't even KNOW that those exist. Just like the
Pot meet Kettle, Black? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see Bing advertising Google nor Microsoft advertising Linux. It took many, many years and literally millions of dollars in fines for them to simply remove Windows Media Center from EU versions of Windows.
I think Google has explained before how part of their algorithm works - if the site is faster, it's higher ranked. Since Google -> Google crawling is probably in the sub 10ms delay range, it will be higher ranked.
Google does not have a monopoly, get over it already.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I don't see Bing advertising Google nor Microsoft advertising Linux.
Search for "Linux" on Bing and if your eyes are open then you will see the advertisements on the right hand side for Linux stuff.
The key thing is to have your eyes open. If they are still shut, you wont see them.
Search for "Google" on Bing and if your eyes are open then you will see the advertisement on the right hand side for google.com
The key thing is to have your eyes open. If they are still shut, you wont see them.
The choice is yours. You can either open your eyes, or remain a jackass ignorant
Re: (Score:2)
That's because MS appear to have removed their adverts. Apple still seems to advertise on Google fine.
If MS wants to get all butthurt that's their problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Google does not have a monopoly, get over it already.
Ha ha ha! You made a funny!
Schmidt before Congress. (Score:4, Interesting)
I watched the whole committee session. Schmidt did reasonably well. Susan Creighton, a lawyer from Wilson Sonsini speaking for Google, not so much.
The chart showing Google Shopping almost always in the #3 position in organic results was interesting, and weird. I look forward to seeing more details on that in the SEO blogs.
Schmidt had a painful time replying to questions about Google's active encouragement of offshore pharmacy ads. [projo.com] He refused to say much. Part of the plea deal is that Google can't deny in public statements what they admitted in writing in their plea bargain. (If they do, the plea bargain is off and DOJ takes them to court on criminal charges.) So Schmidt can't claim Google did nothing wrong. He could have been more apologetic, though.
Susan Creighton had a rough time. Google pays Apple $100 million a year or so to be the default search engine on the iPhone. She was asked about that, and tried hard to evade answering the question, which was put to her several times before a grudging admission that Google paid Apple for that. That's a real antitrust issue - buying your way into a new market when you're #1 in a related market doesn't go over well.
Next the Senate is examing The Rolling Stones (Score:2)
Group had monopoly on popular music and controlled the musical preferences of millions of people alleged George Michaels - The Stones cooked their musical influences and gave preference to R&B whined Rick Astley and Wham. Today the Senate interviewed Keith Richards who failed to explain why drum machines didn't feature more prominently in his music. Expect new laws to be passed to protect [insert music production company name here] from unfair market monopolies by popular musicians. (don't worry about t
Not to piss on anyone's parade... (Score:2)
Tiniest violin (Score:2)
Maybe Google is recovering all of the money lost due to crashes, corrupted files, and all the other nonsense we had to put up with because you paid hardware manufacturers not to put anythig else on their computers.
Every time I click and Vista doesn't do anything, I use google to find something entertaining to watch until Vista responds. Using FireFox. With NoScript.
I wish they would give it to me, but as long as they are taking it from you when my government couldn't, I'm perfectly fine with that. I use
Context (Score:5, Funny)
Google was accused of cheating a client today.
Those bastards!
The client in question was none other than Microsoft.
Those magnificent bastards!
Can Slashdot get any worse? (Score:2)
This most be one of the worst stories I have seen, and it is only fitting that it comes now that the founder has left.
Those sentences don't even make any sense in the sequence they are given. The links are pointless. And the name is Schmidt, for Pete's sake.
Poll: When is big too big.... (Score:2)
When would be about the right time to do an AT&T on Google and split is up into baby google's?
1 year, 5 year, 10 years, never?
For the record (Score:2)
I always center click MS adv. when I see them. I like to send MS money to the Pages I visit. Maybe like me a lot of people is doing the same thing.
advertising prices? (Score:4, Insightful)
On top of all that, Microsoft is alleging that Google overcharges them as much as fifty-fold for advertising prices as compared to other buyers.
That's fine. I allege that Microsoft is overcharging me as much as fifty-fold for a Windows license as compared to OEMs. A class action suit against Microsoft by all non-corporate windows users ought to be worth approximately sixty bajillion dollars.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You know this certainly adds a new dimension to the phrase, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
The point is that when the USA is a continually devolving government that stands out by how often they trounce the rights and freedoms of the people they are corruptly guarding, well it certainly begs the question: when are they going to crumble from their own weight and stupidity?
Nobody shed a tear for the dinosaurs. Nobody will shed a tear for humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all dinosaurs became extinct , some adapted . The Ostrich , for example.
So, it's possible we don't become extinct , but simply adapt.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Google bla bla bla (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the ostrich does not bury it's head in the sand during times of trouble.
When threatened, Ostriches run away, but they can cause serious injury and death with kicks from their powerful legs. Their legs can only kick forward. Contrary to popular belief, Ostriches do not bury their heads in sand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really think the next economic meltdown will cause the extinction of the human race (© 2001 Discovery Networks ), or am I missing something?
No , its just wishful thinking that it will lead to the extinction of Fatus Amercanus Nausiosum
Re: (Score:2)
Pffft. The bones of Raptor Jesus were placed by God to test our faith!
Re:Google bla bla bla (Score:5, Informative)
It does. The accepted meaning of the phrase had changed in common usage, and this new meaning is not in any way inconsistent or erroneous. If anything, it is more literal and less an of an idiom, as a given line of reasoning indeed requires a certain question to be asked at some point. Take into account that the original meaning came from Latin, and was a very bad translation to begin with.
http://begthequestion.info/ [begthequestion.info]
"To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question." (e.g. "It begs the question, why is he so dumb?") This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the phrase to refer to a literal question. Sadly, the error has grown more and more common with time, such that even journalists, advertisers, and major mass media entities have fallen prey to "BTQ Abuse."
While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular, it cannot be denied that logic and philosophy stand to lose an important conceptual label should the meaning of BTQ become diluted to the point that we must constantly distinguish between the traditional usage and the erroneous "modern" usage. This is why we fight."
As has been said before, there are many ways to say "this is a question which needs to be asked". It is not necessary to take a definition of a logical fallacy and repurpose it so that its original useage is diluted.
I not surprised to see this on other sites, but on slashdot, where many people are coders who live by the knowledge of precise definition of terms, I am.
Re:Why Is It The Government's Business?? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know or care if these accusations about Google are true.
I think the more important question is why should the government care about how Google is running their search results. They are the dominant search engine, but there are other competitors in this space and other alternatives.
Yet another example of government pushing its nose into something it doesn't understand in the name of the public good.
Several reasons.
If it results in false advertising, there can be a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act by a competitor or the FTC. unlikely in this kind of case, but Google has been investigated in the past for making money off of that kind of thing, and the same agency is doing the investigation here.
In addition, there's antitrust law. Merely having other competitors in the space doesn't mean that a company isn't violating antitrust law. The concern of antitrust law is protecting against anticompetitive use of a firm's market power in a way which reduces competition--in simple terms, doing this takes away from the total benefit that society obtains from the marketplace, because it results in the firm with market power artificially raising prices, meaning that the company demands more and produces less while people pay more for products the company would have been willing to produce for less had it not manipulated the marketplace--effectively, people lose the benefit that reflects the difference between the old price and the new price, and fewer people buy because it costs more, and the company doesn't gain as much as the consumers lose. So it's generally a net loss when a firm abuses market power.
Antitrust law doesn't always protect against monopolies, because it doesn't prevent people from using economies of scale or integrating their supply chain. It does, however, sometimes result in regulation even in markets that are or seem to be oligopolies.
Re:Why Is It The Government's Business?? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't antitrust. If you are using Google's services, then you have a choice immediately and obviously accessible; direct your browser to a different website. The Microsoft antitrust suits were more about them bundling IE with their OS, which forces the user to use it, even if it's only to download another browser. This activity, combined with the fact that it was incredibly difficult (some would say impossible) to purchase a PC at the time without a Windows(tm) license attached to it meant that they were leveraging their OS dominance to push their other software, which is how they got in trouble. If Google wants to link to Google services at the top of their search results, so be it. If Google wants to charge Microsoft one hundred million dollars for a single-line advertisement... hell, if Google wants to tell MSFT to go fly a kite, then so be it.
Last I checked, businesses were still able to define their own prices (in most cases), and to sell (or not sell) their products and services to whomever they want to.
Why should Google let MSFT advertise in the first place? This would be akin to a television station selling advertising space to a different television station.
Microsoft got slapped on the wrist for being a bully, and is now trying to be a tattletale and get the other kids in trouble.
--
"Sit them in the corner, mommy, they won't let me break their toys!"
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that you often times see advertisements for cable on satellite and advertisements for satellite on cable. Not to mention advertisements for shows on a different channel.
The reason why they should be forced to sell the ads at a fair rate is because advertising is heavily dependent upon audience, if you control 60% of the advertising space, then you have a significant advantage over the competition as you can place ads in places where others can't place them, and you have a much bigger pool of
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that you often times see advertisements for cable on satellite and advertisements for satellite on cable. Not to mention advertisements for shows on a different channel.
The reason why they should be forced to sell the ads at a fair rate is because advertising is heavily dependent upon audience, if you control 60% of the advertising space, then you have a significant advantage over the competition as you can place ads in places where others can't place them, and you have a much bigger pool of places to put ads where they're more likely to be seen by somebody interested in the service.
If the allegations prove to be true, this would pretty much necessitate Google be broken up or in some way be required to reduce it's influence on the market. Considering that Google still gets nearly all of its revenue from the ad business, I think it's something they should be very worried about.
Advertising is sold by the network, not by the telecom provider. Comcast has absolutely no control over what ads a given station can display, so they have absolutely no way of filtering out ads for satellite services. You see ads for shows on other channels (rarely, but they do appear), yes, but do you ever see ads for the news broadcast on other channels? Primetime shows are very different from one another, and generally people are going to watch what people are going to watch. If ABC refuses to display ad
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that you often times see advertisements for cable on satellite and advertisements for satellite on cable. Not to mention advertisements for shows on a different channel.
And if you type "windows phone" or "operating system" or the like into Google web search then you get ads for Microsoft. So it's clear that they're not charging so much that they're preventing the competition from buying advertising.
Ad space is a finite commodity. Google is allowed to bid on it as much as anyone else. If they want the same keywords as Microsoft, Microsoft will have to outbid them. There is no functional difference between that and what Google is accused of doing, assuming that is not the ex
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the majority of the time the satellite ads you see are injected at the network level, not at the cableco's local level. And cable ads are injected at the local affiliate level and not at the satellite co level. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
The Microsoft antitrust suits were more about them bundling IE with their OS
Please, before repeating Microsoft's lies for them again, get the facts [justice.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
If there are alleged violations of the law, then it should be investigated by the appropriate enforcement agency. That is never the US Senate. The members of Congressional committees are neither qualified nor competent to perform investigations. Congressional hearings almost invariably interfere with proper investigation and enforcement. I am convinced that that is intentional.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what they're planning to do. Congressional hearings are precisely the ones you want if the most likely fix involves changes to the laws. You can't really do that with the courts or regulatory agencies. And it may turn out that Google's behavior is technically legal, but nonetheless unacceptable.
Or at least you're not supposed to be able to, but SCOTUS tends to forget that it's supposed to declare things as constitutional or not, and in some cases weigh in on the interpretation of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what they're planning to do. Congressional hearings are precisely the ones you want if the most likely fix involves changes to the laws. You can't really do that with the courts or regulatory agencies. And it may turn out that Google's behavior is technically legal, but nonetheless unacceptable.
Or at least you're not supposed to be able to, but SCOTUS tends to forget that it's supposed to declare things as constitutional or not, and in some cases weigh in on the interpretation of the law.
Not necessarily true for antitrust. Antitrust law is almost entirely judge-made law, by design; Congress wanted it that way because it figured any attempt to legislate it would be bad--too hard to write the law to correctly apply antitrust theory to all cases, and each case would be different. So they just wrote a law prohibiting "restraint of trade," and theoretically every contract is in restraint of trade, but the DOJ and other agencies can only use it to go after people who engage in behavior which sh
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you familiar with the antitrust laws in this country? The laws don't include any details. This is pretty much the entirety of the statute prohibiting monopolies:
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [and listing penalties]" (Sherman Act Section 2)
In other words, 'monopolies bad, you federal c
Re: (Score:2)
The FTC is investigating. The Senate is window-dressing.
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why Is It The Government's Business?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's antitrust law in a nutshell..
Charging more than the competitiors? Must have a monopoly.
Charging less than the competitors? Must be unfairly undercutting them.
Charging the same as your competitors? Must be part of a cartel.
It's written very vaguely so whoever is successful yet unpopular can be prosecuted
Re:Why Is It The Government's Business?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's services aren't free. Gmail, Google Docs, Picasa, all the other "services" you're referring to aren't their services. Google sells advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, just shut the fuck up.
If you run for Senate, I will vote for you. (He's right, but you'd be funnier in the Congressional Record.)
Re:Why Is It The Government's Business?? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are not the customer, you are the product.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you for some reason under the impression that saying something over and over again without any reasoning behind it will somehow make it true? The Big Lie only works when no one is around to correct you.
Let's try another business where the customers do not pay for the product: The public library. [...]
The public library is paid for by taxes and is a perfect example of a service which works best in that way. There is no "customer" there is just a citizen who has the right to read because the public have decided to pay for and create this service. Analysing this in terms of a business just doesn't work and will lead to inverted goals which will be completely wrong.
What's wrong with the claim that "you" are Google's product is that actually it's your attention which is Google's product. Google maintai
Re:Why Is It The Government's Business?? (Score:5, Informative)
You are confusing their product with their customers. You, who use their free services, are not Google's customer. You are their product. They use their free search engine and other services to entice you into viewing pages. Otherwise, they could care less about you. Their customers are the ones who buy ad space on those pages that you view. Check out their prices; they are far from free.
They collect information about you (the product) and your actual or inferred buying habits to attempt to make their ad placements more relevant, so they can charge their customers even higher prices for them.
Re: (Score:3)
'Entice' might be a bit pejorative, but as you describe it, what possible law could Google have run afoul of? Even MS whining about being overcharged means SFA in this framework; the customer value is purely subjective. Kleenex, for example, should expect a different 'eyeball' rate than an obscure Scotch.
If MS get charged lots for queries like 'what is the shittiest OS', they might have a case. If they get charged a lot for eyeballs on 'viable mobile OS', well they are the obscure Scotch.
Re: (Score:2)
So you mean google does care [incompetech.com] about me?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for one thing, Google violated Clayton when it bought out it's next closest rival in its advertising business. And the competition was severely hurt as a result. I'm a bit shocked that nobody had the wherewithal to do something about it at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you missed this [ftc.gov]. The FTC approved it, so you can stop trolling.
This is the Government's Business because .. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Microsoft's chief Washington lobbyist has been convening regular meetings attended by the company's outside consultants that have become known by some beltway insiders as "screw Google" meetings
Microsoft is trying to harm Google in the regulatory, legal, and litigation arenas because they're having problems with Google in the competitive marketplace." link [dailyfinance.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... And here I thought it was going to be something along the lines of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason" ; maybe with a healthy dose of IDFLY (I Don't F'ing Like You) fee.
Personally, I would charge Microsoft even more than Google has... "sorry, you're our competition; If you want to advertise with us, you'll need to pay the 'We don't like you' fee, the 'Microsoft sucks' fee, and a 'huh, thought you were the big boys' fee... for administrative purposes."
This is not anti-MSFT
Re: (Score:2)
Things normally work that way, except when you're a monopoly in a certain area (hence why it didn't e.g. work back in 90s when Microsoft told OEMs that they'll be buying Windows licenses for all PCs they sell, or else they won't be selling any). Whether Google is a monopoly in online advertising or not is a different question.
Re: (Score:2)
How much more is Full Retail then OEM, vs One of the many other MS licensing agreement choices (Like Select and Open)..
Yeah.. Hi Pot, quit yelling at the kettle..
Re: (Score:2)
So, let me see if i understand you properly...
You're saying Google shouldn't be allowed to market its own products on its own web pages, hosted by its own servers?
Or are you just objecting to them dropping a link at the top of the page to the Google version of whatever product or service you happen to have searched for?
If you have an issue with using Google products, then... well... don't.
Problem solved, and I didn't even hit you with a surcharge. Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:3)
I think what he objects to is Google "cooking" the results to rank its own subsidiaries higher than competitor. It's actually quite similar to the MS antitrust case, where they have been accused of using their market position to corner the browser market.
Re: (Score:3)
I see a big difference in that Microsoft went out of their way to make sure that Netscape was not included whatsoever and went so far as to prohibit OEMs from adding it, whereas search results for Google's competitors appear in the search results in such a way that anyone who is actually looking for them can easily find them. It is, naturally, not Google's responsibility to give their competition free advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice to see that your tax money is not squandered on petty bickering leading to pointless laws that eventually just end up being circumvented.
Erh... waitasec...
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they did. After haggling for a decade, and when that didn't work so well, struggling and wiggling in an attempt to get out of the fines and not have to pay it, they even tried to whine at their big uncle, but it seems Uncle Sam didn't want to wage was with the EU over something like a Browser crisis.
So, essentially, I'd expect a decade to pass before Google has to rise its rear and change their algo. Which will have been changed a thousand times by then, and the war starts over.
Job security for lawyers
Re: (Score:2)
"I havent used Macintosh's extensively, but when I have, it seemed like a reasonable alternative"
Re: (Score:2)
The game changes its rules when a monopoly is in the play and it can be used to muscle into other markets with an unfair advantage. They could take over any online market they want to and there's very little anyone could do about it. Shoes, clothing, jewelry, you name it. People will search for those things and the first result takes them to a Google subsidiary.
Is that what you envision for free enterprise and free market?
Re: (Score:2)
And here's where the capitalist ideal world has to bow to the reality: People are EFFIN' STUPID. They're NOT the perfectly informed consumer that makes a perfect decision and gives the best offer his prize in form of his purchase. People are gullible sheeple that are easily tricked into believing that they're getting a good deal while they're essentially being bullshitted by marketing, and even easier to trick that there is no alternative if what they know kinda-sorta-maybe does what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
And here's where the capitalist ideal world has to bow to the reality: People are EFFIN' STUPID. They're NOT the perfectly informed consumer that makes a perfect decision and gives the best offer his prize in form of his purchase. People are gullible sheeple that are easily tricked into believing that they're getting a good deal while they're essentially being bullshitted by marketing, and even easier to trick that there is no alternative if what they know kinda-sorta-maybe does what they want.
"Perfect market" is a myth perpetuated by the haves.
It's an expecially powerful myth when the haves manage to convince the have-nots that the haves themselves believe in it.
Re: (Score:2)
The main difference between Communism and Capitalism is that the Communist bullshit is easier to debunk. Aside of that, same bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Moths are chatty bastards. :-)
Re: (Score:2)