Google Locks In Search Monopoly With $1 Billion To Carriers (bloomberg.com) 38
Google doled out more than $1 billion last year to U.S. mobile carriers to distribute its search engine, according to the landmark antitrust lawsuit from the Justice Department. From a report: The DOJ suit, filed Tuesday, details several methods Google uses to make its search the default service on browsers, smartphones and other devices. That includes deals with Apple and Android manufacturers such as Samsung Electronics. Google also cut hefty revenue sharing agreements with major mobile carriers to box out competing search engines and browsers, the Justice Department said. In exchange for placing Google search as the default on phones, carriers received a portion of search advertising revenue. "If a carrier or manufacturer does not renew its revenue sharing agreement with Google, the distributor loses out on revenue share not only for new mobile devices but also for the phones and tablets previously sold and in the hands of consumers," the Justice Department said in the suit. "This provision is punitive to the carrier or manufacturer and helps to ensure that carriers and manufacturers will not stray from Google."
Google search is WONDERFUL. (Score:2, Funny)
Microsoft Bing search is used by people to find Google search, I have read.
Re:Google search is WONDERFUL. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
I do not know, why they bother (Score:2, Insightful)
I dislike Google rather deeply for censoring politically-sensitive searches (yes, they do [projectveritas.com]), and would've loved to switch to an alternative, if there was an alternative.
But there is not. No one else comes close in grokking, what it is I had in mind... It is not always a perfect understanding, but it is on par with that of the mother of my children, which ought to tell you something...
Of all companies out there, Google can afford to be by the book legal and avoid even an appearance of any impropriety.
Re: (Score:2)
No one else comes close in grokking, what it is I had in mind...
Sounds to me like they have the most detailed profile of you of any search provider. Are you sure that this is a good thing?
Everyone gets different results now.
Re: (Score:2)
Using the proxy.pac mechanism, my browser is configured to connect to Google via Tor (I don't use it for everything, 'cause it slows things down), and I usually search in "private" mode. Google still understands my queries better than anyone else...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree with Google's politics, and some of their business and employment practices are a little shady, but if they were truly a search monopoly, they wouldn't have to spend $1 Billion dollars with mobile phone companies to convince them to make their search the default. They'd have those companies paying them for the privilege of including Google search on their phones, instead.
In reality, Google just has a better service, so they get the customers. If BlahBloo search came out which could better read
Re: I do not know, why they bother (Score:4, Insightful)
While their may not be any good alternatives that's not necessary for this trust to go forward. If the allegations are true and Google was penalizing mobile manufactures for the devices that were already in the wild, then this case may have some teeth. The real issue here is if taking away revenue sharing hurts the consumers and I don't think it does. If Google were removing the ability to use the search apps or engines from phones in the wild, then I think this would be an open and shut case, but taking away money from a contract violation doesn't really hurt anyone except the manufacturer. To note, Apple is the only manufacturer that did switch the default engines after the devices were sold and most of the consumers yelled bloody hell for that move so they reverted. This is going to be long and drawn out but get nowhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yes, it likely does! The "they" in my question meant "Google". I do not understand, why Google does these things — even if someone else (Microsoft?) paid carriers billions of dollars instead of Google, people would still be switching over by hand — with numerous little online tutorials and YouTube videos instructing them, how...
Re: (Score:2)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [mediabiasfactcheck.com]
In review, O’Keefe’s videos are edited in a way that makes them difficult to fact check. Often his information is debunked, but it is too late as the information has already been watched by thousands or more. In general, the narrative created by O’Keefe, whether edited or not is to portray liberals in a negative light.
Projectveritas is nothing more than alt-right propaganda and coordinated disinformation, and has had to pay out numerous settlements because of their intentional manipulation and false "reporting." If you cite them for anything, you are already a failure.
Re: I do not know, why they bother (Score:1)
Googleâ(TM)s ongoing efforts to stifle certain political discourse keeps them in the governmentâ(TM)s cross hairs.
Geeez, what do they expect will happen when, in addition to the above, they create structural barriers to fair competition?
Google seems to bending over backwards to tape a âoekick meâ sign on their own back!
Re: (Score:1)
DuckDuckGo[.com]
Good: use their own web crawler and 400 other sources [no google] but youtube is used.
Good: has a "infinite" scroll with page numbering
Good: no tracking
Annoying: simple single line and does not deal with quotes or command such as AND or OR or NOT
StartPage[.com]
Good: They proxy google
Good: have a "advanced mode" like google
Good: no tracking
Annoying: only allow 20 answers per page
These are the only 2
...but didn't choose to (Score:2)
...Of all companies out there, Google can afford to be by the book legal and avoid even an appearance of any impropriety.
You mean, of all companies out there, Google could have afforded to be by the book legal.
Re: (Score:2)
I dislike Google rather deeply for censoring politically-sensitive searches (yes, they do [projectveritas.com])
I read your link and nothing says they are censoring politically-sensitive searches. The only thing close was that they "[delete] all controversial content" on Youtube.
and would've loved to switch to an alternative, if there was an alternative. But there is not.
What's wrong with Bing or DuckDuckGo?
No one else comes close in grokking, what it is I had in mind... It is not always a perfect understanding, but it is on par with that of the mother of my children, which ought to tell you something...
Grokking? It's just a search engine, it looks up keywords. I rarely use google because DDG is good enough for 99% of searches. What is your excuse?
Re: (Score:2)
Missed this one, didn't you? About applying different rules to Trump and others on the Right, while leaving the Left be:
Who said the rules were different? Hate and disinformation shouldn't be spread no matter who says it. Just because one guy is deeply invested in those two things doesn't mean the rules are different.
What's wrong with Bing or DuckDuckGo?
Too many irrelevant results, that's what's wrong.
I've used DuckDuckGo for quite some time and found that Google rarely provides better results.
It's just a search engine, it looks up keywords
That's what Yahoo! and AltaVista were doing in mid-90ies...
Search engines still do that, they just alter ranking and augment results based on user feedback. They aren't magic.
Re: (Score:2)
Timed during the election... totally coincidental. (Score:3)
From 2018....
In a House Judiciary Committee hearing today, Google CEO Sundar Pichai was asked to explain why a Google image search for "idiot" turned up pictures of Donald Trump ... and whether that was a case of intentional bias.
Given how anti-regulation our current Administration is, and how soft the Republicans went on Microsoft at the end of their anti-trust case, and how silly the Tik-Tok situation ended up, I can very easily believe that this is just tiny-fisted pettiness.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason everybody uses Google, and no it's not because it's "preinstalled by carriers". Mobile phones are one small part of search engine use.
which leaves the curious question: why, then, did they have to bribe telecom companies with a billion dollars to make their search engine the default?
Behavior which is very explicitly illegal. As well as wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
> bribe telecom companies...
If it's not unlawful to enter into a business contract, it's not "illegal" nor a bribe.
> Behavior which is very explicitly illegal.
I'm sure you think your rental agreement for your apartment is illegal and that thing you signed allows you to "bribe" your landlord to let you stay.
Maybe you think at the store they should give you the food for free because otherwise you're "bribing them" to give you something.
You couldn't be further from reality.
A contract between two parties
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since you apparently don't know anything about the Sherman Antitrust Act-- the law-- nor the body of law that follows, I am not sure why you are commenting.
You refereed to something as a bribe that clearly isn't one, so I don't think anyone wants your legal advice.
bribe verb: bribe; 3rd person present: bribes; past tense: bribed; past participle: bribed; gerund or present participle: bribing. persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.
Restraint of trade is illegal (per the Sherman Antitrust Act, the law you seem to be unaware of.) Paying money for an activity in restraint of trade is... a bribe.
Now I know... (Score:2)
That's it! I'm switching to Bing! (Score:2)
said no one ever
Google Phone (Score:1)
Carriers (Score:1)