EU launches antitrust probe into alleged Google abuses | Hacker News Reader

EU launches antitrust probe into alleged Google abuses

bbc.co.uk

18 pointsjkent23 comments

I think the basic question is whether "vertical search" (products, maps, ...) is a different product from generic web search. If that's the case, then Google is clearly using its dominating position in generic search to push forward its vertical search products.

If that's not the case, i.e., products search is so close to generic web search that a distinction doesn't make sense, then Google is not abusing its monopoly but just enhancing its product.

I remember a blog post from the creator of "sushikartan.se" complaining about Google Maps entries being displayed on a search for "sushi stockholm" above his own website. That caused him a major loss in traffic, and he quite convincingly argues that his own search results and reviews are much better than Google's, so Google was (at least in that case) not really working in the user's best interest.

http://www.tedvalentin.com/2010/05/google-content-producer.h...

I personally think its legitimate behaviour from Google. They are not pushing some entirely unrelated product of theirs (e.g. GMail) but really trying to enhance their product (not always successfully, see sushikartan example above). And I'd be very surprised if they manually modified rankings of competitors like ciao on purpose. But I think it's a valid question to raise.

Unfair promotion isn't the only form of anticompetitive behaviour.

The European Commission should be very careful in distinguishing between illegal activity and success as a good service that people overwhelmingly prefer. A company (just like an individual) should not be expected to sabotage itself by promoting competitors' products. It is only natural that a company supports and advertises its own offerings first and foremost, and any attempt to force it to do otherwise (given that the company has not acted illegally) is unethical. In a related article on the BBC site, the founder of Foundem (a firm that filed a complaint against Google) says "We just want a level playing field." The proper response to that would be: "Well, go out and create a compelling product that people want to use." Nothing in business (or in life) is on a perfectly level playing field; you have to work hard to create opportunities for yourself. Asking the government to hinder a competitor is morally questionable and certainly not a viable long-term strategy. An even bigger problem is asking the government to provide "level playing field[s]" that go beyond the existing anti-trust laws. I hope the EC will be prudent enough to punish Google if and only if clear law violations are found, and not because some competitor is unhappy with the Google's size and customer engagement.

Can a company become so large (and powerful), that it becomes (realistically) impossible to compete?

No, not for any real length of time - unless of course they are granted some privilege by the government.

I hope you're correct :)

From my understanding, this is one of the reasons that we have legal frameworks that discourage monopolies.

For example, it said, Foundem "duplicates 79% of its website content from other sites."

"We have consistently informed webmasters that our algorithms disadvantage duplicate sites," the firm said.

Search engines duplicate content by necessity, so this isn't really a very fair test when it's applied to Google's competitors (i.e. sites providing search for specific areas and industries).

It's entirely unreasonable to state 'these are the rules, we're simply sticking to them', when the rules have been set by the organisation in question.

No matter how much desire there is to project (and enforce) a healthy, non-stifling culture - when an organisation reaches a large size, the stake individuals are responsible for grows, and (some) people will act recklessly and aggressively to provide gains for the organisation in question.

When an organisation or company grows to a very large size, I think it can become analogous to a large pike in a small pond, consuming almost everything it can.

Our economic system isn't the pure system many people wish it was - it's not perfect. As much as I like the idea of a free-market, I think intervention is necessary.

Last time this was up, some people pointed out that the two companies didn't deserve high google rankings. That may or may not be the case.

The last complaint is correct however. Googles user requirements for its adservices prohibits webmasters from placing other contextual ads on the site. I wonder why nobody has complaind before (its not exactly a secret, it was written in the agreement).

I do think that Google search by definition "manipulates search results". A tautology? If it didn't, then there wouldn't be results.

Curious that legal threats and regulatory challenges came up in an interview discussion...

This confused me too. If I ran a website "ZoFreX's top 10 websites", and (for some reason) 80% of the internet populace used it, would I no longer be able to decide the order of the sites (or which sites appeared) myself? I don't understand why so many companies think Google is obligated to not manipulate the search results.

Google claim that their algorithms provide a 'fair' ranking system.

People use Google with an assumption that it's providing a realistic and balanced picture of the web. There's a degree of trust involved.

If Google chooses to manipulate results to provide commercial advantage to itself, then it's not meeting the assumptions of its users and can be accused of acting dishonestly.

ZoFreX's top 10 websites is at most going to affect the prosperity of 10 companies; Google is able to influence the success or failure of millions. When an organisation holds that much power, it has to act responsibly for the good of society. Government should help create conditions to ensure that companies have to act responsibly (so society can function well).

If ZoFreX's top 10 website list became a monopoly, you would have to abide by the rules for the monopolies. One of which is that you can't abuse your position to increase your market share in other industries.

For example, it would be against the rules to utilise ZoFreX's top 10 website list to display ZoFreX's skin cream website at the top of the list.

The key in this case is whether your other site that you are promoting is considered a different industry or market, and whether your monopoly in the top 10 lists market has unfairly influenced your position in another market.

There is probably a grey area if the list rankings were generated automatically in some way, but it could still be argued that knowledge of unpublished details of the list algorithms have given you a advantage, and unless you published full algorithm details you would probably be subject to accusations of fixing the list anyway. The rules are there to ensure that the markets remain competitive for others to do business in.

This is a very good explanation of what a monopoly is and why they need to abide to different rules. I think Google, like Microsoft before it, is getting pretty close to this situation, and we as a society need to look at them in this new light. In particular, we need to impose restrictions on what Google can legitimately do with all its power.

Thank you for this, very helpful explanation.

Well, if you take it out of context, sure.

On the other hand, questioning Google's ranking algorithm for its own services, whether they receive a boost or not, that's entirely legitimate.

And considering that Google is a nearly a monopoly in search, they should be more transparent in regards to the ranking they are doing: it's not like the index isn't overblown with crap already, making concerns over spammers pretty moot.

Framing the conversation in the context of ranking always bothered me, a search engine is a question answerer not a traffic pump. Google has different verticals to handle different query types, geographical, financial, etc. After sending a query you are presented with the results on the Google SERP from one or more of these verticals, that is the whole concept behind the ‘universal search box’.

Google’s obligation is to user experience not to to self-proclaimed ‘competitors’, it should provide answers not send users sifting through another set of results or to conduct searches elsewhere.

And what if in the future search engines evolves beyond the ranking of blue links will the EU force Google not to change anything? And what about personalized search?

This is all quite ridiculous.

A search engine is a question answerer and a traffic pump.

Traffic is a consequence of a question being answered, the EU here is investigating whether there should be another step for getting that answer which is mind-boggling.

Not another step; the possibility of an alternative step.

That's what the address bar is for, type the address of any 'alternative' and you'll get there. As a bonus you can also google the name of that 'alternative', click the link and you're there, and it won't cost you a thing.

Well, I think that's a slightly disingenuous response when you consider that most people discover new sites through a search engine - and Google is one of the most commonly used search engines on the planet :)

Search is only but one avenue for discovery, look at the rise of social and social media. Also they do have the right to an editorial process, you can't really expect Google to cripple their application so that a useless linkfarm can get preferable exposure because they are claiming to be a competitor.

I see what you're saying, but I think we'll have a to agree to disagree. I think maybe it's a difference of politics more than anything else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com