Some Google Search Rivals Lose Footing on Android System (wsj.com) 21
A system Google set up to promote competition on Android has left some smaller search engines having trouble gaining traction, fueling rivals' complaints about the tech giant's compliance with a European Union antitrust decision ahead of potential U.S. charges. From a report: Since March, Alphabet-owned Google has been showing people in Europe who set up new mobile devices running the company's Android operating system what it calls a "choice screen," a list of rival search engines that they can select as the device's default. The system is part of Google's compliance with a 2018 decision that found the company used Android's dominance to strong-arm phone makers into pre-installing its search engine. But some small search engines that are relatively popular in Europe failed to win spots in large European countries in the latest round of auctions to appear on the choice screen, according to people familiar with the results. The results, which cover the fourth quarter of the year, are set to be announced on Monday.
DuckDuckGo, maker of a U.S.-based search engine that doesn't collect data about its users, lost the auction in all but four small European countries, the people said. Berlin-based Ecosia, which donates most of its profit to planting trees, also didn't win a slot in any large European country, the people added. The major winners of the auctions -- which offer three spots in each of 31 countries to outside search engines -- include Microsoft's Bing, as well as a handful of other small search engines, the people said. Google doesn't participate in the auctions but is offered automatically as a choice in every country along with the auction winners. The elimination of some smaller search engines gives fodder to Google rivals who have complained that the company has crafted its compliance with the EU's antitrust decisions in ways that don't fundamentally change the competitive landscape.
DuckDuckGo, maker of a U.S.-based search engine that doesn't collect data about its users, lost the auction in all but four small European countries, the people said. Berlin-based Ecosia, which donates most of its profit to planting trees, also didn't win a slot in any large European country, the people added. The major winners of the auctions -- which offer three spots in each of 31 countries to outside search engines -- include Microsoft's Bing, as well as a handful of other small search engines, the people said. Google doesn't participate in the auctions but is offered automatically as a choice in every country along with the auction winners. The elimination of some smaller search engines gives fodder to Google rivals who have complained that the company has crafted its compliance with the EU's antitrust decisions in ways that don't fundamentally change the competitive landscape.
Sounds interesting. Shame I can't read the article (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does a site full of people who support open source software tolerate paywalled shit!
Re: (Score:3)
Because (a) Open source/free software doesn't mean free-as-in-beer, and (b) if you need a way around the paywall just paste the URL into Google and follow the link from there to read without the paywall, or read its cached version
meta noarchive (Score:4, Interesting)
or read its cached version
Lately I've seen NYT and other subscription news sites send <meta name="robots" content="index,follow,noarchive"> in their articles specifically to plug paywall avoidance through Google Cache.
Re: (Score:2)
Cache is a fallback option, and not needed for the NYT. Follow the link, it sees the referrer is Google.
Re: Sounds interesting. Shame I can't read the art (Score:1)
Let us read how Google is screwing its competitors. Using Google.
No wonder why Google is in the position they are today.
â"
Sent from my Android
Re: (Score:2)
and (b) if you need a way around the paywall
Is that like saying an alternative to Linux is to simply pirate Windows?
Some of us still stand on principles.
Re: (Score:2)
Pay for the article and read it. Don't pay for the article and read it. Or don't pay for the article and don't read it.
Choose to stand for your principles however you like, but all three above alternatives are better than your proposed solution of pretending an interesting and relevant article doesn't exist.
I'm missing the problem (Score:2)
If I want to search for something on Android I start the DuckDuckGo app. My browser is also set up to use DuckDuckGo.
Caveats: I have an older level of Android and I use the "keyboard", not a voice interface.
(oh, and I can't access the article either)
Re: (Score:2)
If I want to search for something on Android I start the DuckDuckGo app.
You what? LOL. Hey everyone this guy uses an App to search! It's like he doesn't know about the search bar at the top of the screen! LOL.
I get what you're saying, but 99.9% of other phone users don't. And DuckDuckGo isn't worried about those people who download the app. They are worried about everyone else.
The Integration Problem (Score:2)
When ever something becomes tightly integrated, with a system, it naturally will block off competitors. IE Embedded in Windows 98 killed Netscape, Google Search with Android... While you may be able to change defaults, the integration is never quite as good. So you are better off sticking with the original. It isn't fair for the people wanted to compete, integrating services so tightly is a cruel act of self interest. But it works.
Re: (Score:3)
Let those losers propose what should be done... (Score:2)
...search engine that doesn't collect data about its users, lost the auction in all but four small European countries,..
What's wrong with this?
Isn't this capitalism working as intended?
Re: (Score:2)
Not being able to read the paywalled article - and I see no reason to start searching for the details - I don't know the terms of the auction. The word "auction" implies Microsoft and the other "winners" paid to be presented in that screen.
Re: (Score:2)
They do. There are a finite number slots that can fit on the screen, they are auctioned off.
What is a fairer way to decide who gets to show here? Would you prefer a random hat draw?
I am quite sure that no method is going to result in Google losing much share because most people will always select them, as they are the best.
Re: (Score:2)
Unrestrained capitalism was the original problem. That said, I'm not sure we should have a situation where anyone can create a search engine and force its inclusion into Android either. I think DuckDuckGo should really consider what they're asking here, if Google is forced to include everyone here then DDG is going to be one of dozens and won't see anyone add them then either.
Non-paywall article (Score:3)
"Oh no!" ... "Anyway ..." (Score:2)
Why should they?
Google - We don't see the problem... (Score:2)
Google is out to kill all competition on its platform. They are fighting a losing war on IOS what with Apple's increased emphasis on security.
Their business is your data and your life.
Guard it carefully people.
Facebook and friends are waiting for the unwary.
limited selection == unfair? (Score:2)
It seems the argument is:
* There are a limited number of slots.
* There are an unlimited number of "search engines"
* Thus, not all "search engines" can be shown
* Thus, this is unfair to someone
This is insightful reporting. Of course, the article is in WSJ, so of course it will be a hit piece on Google. I mean, the auction is an example of the Free Market so the WSJ should love it, except that it's beneficial to Google so the WSJ hates it. Stay classy, WSJ.
FIRST thing after turning on a new phone (Score:1)