I suppose deciding that "AAAAAdvantage Searches" shows up on the initial screen, like the old yellow pages, would be one alternative to the highest bidder. Someone might consider that preferable.
This is not a problem that a UX designer would have a hard time with.
The difference here is that Google owns Android and Google doesn't have to bid. In my book, this is the case-in-point demonstration why Android and Chrome are the two properties that Google must be forced to spin off. Letting one company own both the dominant platforms and the dominant services that run on those platforms is a very dangerous mix.
This is a nonsensical argument. What is the practical difference between Google bidding and Google automatically taking a place? If Google bids, that money goes to Google, so it's as if they didn't spend any money. In both cases, by Google taking a spot, Google loses revenue from the bidder who would have otherwise taken that spot.
Such a thing would happen if Android was managed by a separate company.
Also, of course, Google can just lower their own existing Android spending line and inject it back into Search, to zero out any impact on them. Similar to how my local area likes to justify highway toll increases "we'll spend it on education!" but then stripping out education funding elsewhere to compensate, and using it for something else.
This is already the case. Unlike with iOS, Google's apps do not have access to any more APIs than other developers' apps. One could argue that the APIs themselves are prioritized and developed according to the needs of Google's apps far more than the needs of other developers' apps, which I agree is potentially problematic, but without a particular consumer-harming example, it would be impossible to build an antitrust case on that. For example, I might like it if Amazon's App Store could have automatic app upgrade permission on my non-Amazon devices (requiring some API changes in Android to make this secure for app stores not installed on the system partition), but Amazon would have a tough time demonstrating enough consumer harm for the government to take action.
Something like Google's fake consortium from back in the day could have more impact, too. If Android was managed by something akin to the Open Handset Alliance, where significant hardware platform partners had a say in how Android was developed and monetized, it's likely you'd see a really healthy ecosystem of support for it, not controlled by a single entity.
No, wait... That can't be right. According to this thread that's immoral rent-seeking, and Apple would never do that. Those reports must be lies, and Apple has just randomly selected Google to be the default search engine on iOS. It's kind of amazing that Google has gotten lucky in that random selection so many years in a row, but such is life.
Actually, the argument is not that it's rent-seeking, it's that it's anti-competitive. It's not anti-competitive when Apple does it, because Apple doesn't have an equivalent search offering that automatically wins the bidding process. Nice straw man argument, though.
The proposed model is obviously better for search engine competition than what iOS and Firefox do. In those models, there is no user choice: the platform holder takes the highest bid, which based on empirical evidence will be Google. It's way easier for the alternative search engines to get a foot in the door when there are multiple slots up for sale.
(And if Android were split out from Google, they'd go with the iOS model of selling just the default rather than the one where users choose from a list, since it's more profitable and has a simpler setup flow.)
The most common idea being floated in this thread right now is that Google should be part of the bidding and all the proceeds from the auction should be donated to some third party. How is that supposed to increase competition? We know that Google will win one of those spots. From the point of view of search engine. All that proposal will do is bleed Google for a few billions of dollars a year, it will not make it any more nor less likely for users to choose to use alternative search engines.
So no, I don't think that the main worry on people's minds in this thread is the competitiveness of alternative search engines. There seems to be no interest in making it easier for those search engines to gain market share and thus economies of scale. It's all about seeing some punishment be meted out.
(I think there are valid criticisms to be made of the auction format though; seems like it could be made more efficient and fair with some simple changes.)
If we're trying to break up the search monopoly, Google should be paying other search engines to be in it's setup flow, so the money is going to the companies that need it.
So I think saying that the competitors will be bleeding billions of dollars is just not true. Unless they totally misjudge their bids, they should still be in a better position than they are now.
(But I'll happily volunteer to be the third party getting those billions of dollars a year. Sounds like a pretty sweet gig!)
> If we're trying to break up the search monopoly, Google should be paying other search engines to be in it's setup flow, so the money is going to the companies that need it.
Sounds great, I'll happily volunteer for that too!
But more seriously, that sounds like a rather bizarre plan to me. Is it part of any kind of established anti-trust doctrine?
The most competitive alternative (Bing) is owned by a trillion dollar company, controlling one of the biggest operating systems and the biggest browsers. You'd seriously have Google pay Microsoft to make Bing better?
The next one on the list is owned by a mere $250 billion company, so obviously there's no question at all about Verizon needing some handouts.
But what's the next step after that? Google should perhaps give Apple some free money so that they can make iOS more competitive? It's too bad for Google they shut down G+, if they'd waited just a bit longer they could have gotten Facebook to chip in some money to fund its development.
Paying for in-demand services isn't punishment, it's one of the fundamentals of capitalism.