[mrunkel]

I find all this hand wringing over Google to be so tiring. Google is doing what is best for it's customers. Be that advertisers and/or searchers.

If they stop doing that, they'll lose their market dominance.

Last I checked, nobody is forced to use google to search for things, nobody if forced (except for perhaps android users) to use Chrome.

I'm not a laissez-faire capitalist by any means, but I don't see that Google has an unfair monopoly. They have achieved their dominance because their services are viewed as "best" by the majority of folks out there.

Nobody complains when Google suddenly starts delivering more customers to their web properties, only if traffic suddenly dies out.

[mdasen]

> If they stop doing that, they'll lose their market dominance.

That's precisely the issue. It can be illegal to use your market dominance in one area (search) to reinforce or create market dominance in other areas. Microsoft had the best operating system and a browser that they wanted people to use. People preferred Netscape, but Microsoft used its OS dominance to kill off Netscape.

It is ok to be dominant in a product. You aren't, however, allowed to use the dominance in one product to gain you dominance in other products. Google has dominance in search, but using that to kill off competitors for their lesser-liked products isn't fair.

> They have achieved their dominance because their services are viewed as "best" by the majority of folks out there.

Their search service is viewed as "best" my most, but that doesn't mean their reviews service is. That's what's at issue. Being the best at one thing shouldn't allow you to stifle people that are better at another thing. That is certainly not best for consumers.

If Google were 20% of search traffic, they could do many things because there's no dominance at issue. Since Google is the vast majority of search traffic, they can effectively eliminate most competitors. Starting a reviews site? Your listings will fall below our own regardless of their merit. Starting a videos site, YouTube alternatives will always be shown first even if it's not what the user is looking for.

YouTube should be popular on its own merit, not based on Google using its search dominance to choke competitors. Google's reviews should be popular on their own merit, not based on Google using its search dominance to kill off Yelp.

I do want to clarify that I'm not saying that Google is guilty of doing this, but that when you get to a certain market dominance, you can kill off competitors that are better than you by starving them rather than by being better than them. It's important that third-parties can compete with Google's non-search services without having Google's search service unreasonably favor Google's non-search services.

[notatoad]

>It can be illegal to use your market dominance in one area (search) to reinforce or create market dominance in other areas

I think it's a stretch to say that searching for HVAC business listings and searching for HVAC business reviews are really different markets. If google had an HVAC subsidiary and they suppressed all search results and ads for competing HVAC companies, that would be abusing their dominant position in the search market to create dominance in another market. But is it really monopolistic behaviour to use their web search dominance to succeed in a slightly more specific sector of the web search market? You can use google to find reviews of products and services. They advertise alongside those search results. That is their core business. Yelp is a straight-up competitor. "Google is better than us in the market we compete in" isn't a valid anti-trust complaint.

[simion314]

I think the point here is that Google is not returning the best results but pushing it's own other services on top of the list even if in this case other review services are better.

[notatoad]

It's displaying ads above the search results. That's what google does. It's their whole business. It's not pushing their own review services over yelp, it's advertising alongside search results.

[simion314]

What about when they put a Chrome ad even if you are not searching for replacing your browser? So the main point with the EU antitrust is not about yelp but about Google putting it's own stuff on top , not about the ads.

[Canning]

This one should stand out to most people so it's no surprise to me that EU took note as well.

[tyingq]

That's likely the crux of the complaint. It's not alongside, it's on top of...and "over" Yelp.

And the query specifically included the word Yelp.

[quadrangle]

No, when Google just lists local businesses and puts them on a map, that's NOT ads. Businesses get listed at no charge.

[tyingq]

And even when the searcher is VERY specific that they want Yelp...it's right in the query.

[mattnewton]

..why didn't they go to yelp then?

[ocdtrekkie]

To a large percentage of Internet users, entering something into the Google search bar IS how they go places. (The address bar is a very strange mystery to plenty of people.) That's a big part of why Google is not permitted to act the way they are. They have become more or less the front door to the Internet, and hence, cannot unfairly prioritize their own products over others'.

A big part of why tech users don't understand why Google is being subject to antitrust action is that a lot of people in the tech industry literally have no idea how everyone else uses their computers. Like not understanding that people tend to go to Yelp by Googling "yelp" and clicking the first link. (Which is sadly, usually a malicious Google Ad imitating Yelp, but I digress.)

[empath75]

They didn't google for 'reviews', they literally googled for 'yelp'

[wnoise]

"Yelp" is generic for "customer reviews"!

... half serious?

[adameast9000]

I couldn't agree more. Look at internet speed tests. I used the ookla speed test because it was the first result until one day Google had created its own, built right into the search results page. I don't know which product is better, but it's easy to see ookla getting starved out by this regardless of product merit.

[sillysaurus3]

It is ok to be dominant in a product. You aren't, however, allowed to use the dominance in one product to gain you dominance in other products.

Unfortunately there are countless counterexamples. It's an interesting ideal, but without court action it's toothless. And court action risks having a chilling effect on certain kinds of positive forces.

[foota]

OP mentions it, but this was what bit Microsoft in United States v Microsoft (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C...)

[thezilch]

Can you provide a specific issue?

If I put a competitor (eg. yelp, angie[slist], etc) into my search query, I get only results for those competitors. Leave the qualifying term out, and I get a SERP of all non-Google review sites. But again, I enter "yelp pizza" and get all Yelp results. Hell, I enter "pizza reviews" and get Yelp as the top 3 links of my SERP.

[nl]

If I search for "9000 shimano derailleur" on Google, the top infobox link is "Shop for 9000 shimano derailleur on Google".

This links to the Google comparison shopping site, which Google receives affiliate income for. The Google comparison shopping site is ok, but no better than many others.

I generally like the work Google does, but I think that there are some questions around using their dominant position in organic web search to move into a new market. To be clear, I'm not absolutely opposed to this, but I can see problems.

[loceng]

Do you have any views on Facebook and their product line?

[ma2rten]

It can be illegal to use your market dominance in one area (search) to reinforce or create market dominance in other areas.

As far as I know it's only illegal when there is harm to consumers. Antitrust laws are meant to protect consumers, not competitors.

[WillPostForFood]

Consumers and competitor benefit are effectively intertwined. Consumers need healthy competitors to avoid being subject to monopolies, so antitrust laws protect competitors to benefit consumers.

[euske]

I find it amusing how their argument is similar to the MS' antitrust argument in 90s.

Microsoft: "An OS should include everything. Third party apps aren't needed. It's only good for consumers."

Google: "A search engine should include everything. Third party websites aren't needed. It's only good for consumers."

[bdcravens]

More interesting is the HN (and elsewhere) crowd that never relents on Google apologetics, yet presumably would be (and among those older, were) among the Microsoft critics.

[criddell]

You're describing me and it pretty much comes down to trust. I trust Google a lot more than I ever trusted Microsoft back when they were the bully.

[wbillingsley]

Which seems foolish. Microsoft just dictated the format your save file was in. Google ensures that by default most users never have their own data to load into another product at all. You seem to trust them because they have their hands around your throat rather than just your wrist.

[sangnoir]

> Which seems foolish

I'm yet to see any malicious actions by Google that comes close to the Halloween Documents or the licensing shenanigans. I don't know if you're looking back with rose-tinted glasses, but at it's peak, Microsoft was capital-E Evil (or ruthless if you're against moralizing): comparing Microsoft then to Google today seems foolish to me.

Edit: I naively think Google works with the principle that "What's good for the web is good for Google" and works to improve the web (and to my benefit). 90's Microsoft principle was "What's good for Microsoft is good for Microsoft. Destroy anyone who tries to mess with that"

[edoceo]

Google Takeout let's you grab your data from their systems, easy. Import is another story

[ekianjo]

Why do you trust Google a lot more? What did they do to deserve your trust?

[jdjb]

For me it's not that Google is more trustworthy, but that their influence and abuse of monopoly position doesn't affect me as much. As a developer I'm well aware of my options for search and operating systems.

I can choose not to use an Android phone. I can choose not to use Google search, block Google domains in my hosts file, etc. While the alternatives are probably not as pleasing or convenient, I can definitely get by without Google.

I can also get by without Microsoft. I've used Linux almost exclusively for 15 years now. But choosing to stick on Linux has been made harder with Microsoft's monopoly. It's easier now but I can remember when it was very difficult to find good hardware to run Linux and not have to pay a premium or pay for a Windows license even if you never wanted Windows (and definitely didn't want to pay out of principle).

As far as I know, Google's dominance on search doesn't affect my experience when I use other services. I haven't seen a "Halloween documents" event out of Google's camp.

[nashashmi]

They gave things away for free.

[ekianjo]

Microsoft gave tons of Windows 10 licenses for free. Does that mean you can trust them?

[ocdtrekkie]

People's allegiances and opinions often settle in when they're younger, and they will stick to those brand loyalties for decades into the future. A lot of us grew up (or got into tech) during the Microsoft lawsuit days, which set in that view, and when Google came around, they were a breath of fresh air.

It's really hard for people to realize that times have changed and the tables have turned.

[flukus]

> Microsoft: "An OS should include everything. Third party apps aren't needed. It's only good for consumers."

What? MS was all about third party apps and encouraged the vendor lock in they provided. Windows was absolutely spartan compared to what you'd get with a linux distro at the time.

I know the included certain apps that were contentious, like a browser, but Balmer wasn't kidding when he made that "dvelopers, developers, developers" speech.

[tuxracer]

> nobody if forced (except for perhaps android users) to use Chrome

Unlike iOS you can install different browsers on Android directly from the Play Store. These can actually be different browsers with their own rendering engines not just alternative UIs on top of Chrome. Firefox on Android for example uses the actual Firefox rendering engine, not Chrome.

[ekianjo]

You can, but by default you get Chrome, which is about the same thing people were fighting Microsoft over in the Netscape-IE days, but this time on Android.

[tuxracer]

That case created a misconception that refuses to die... There's nothing inherently illegal about having a default app or product. There's also nothing inherently illegal about having a popular app or product.

The reason Microsoft got in trouble is because it was not only found that they had a monopoly in a particular market, but that they obtained some of that market share illegally through shady contracts effectively forbidding OEMs from offering alternative OSes, etc... They were then found to have used that illegally obtained monopoly to take over a completely different market in part by bundling IE with Windows and punishing OEMs who sought to including alternate browsers and completely disallowing the removal of IE.

[pound]

one more thing to mention about that default chrome on android: you cannot install ad-blocker there.

you may install firefox and still will have a lot of time links opened in built-in chrome, on android

[oh_sigh]

The difference being that Apple has a huge percentage of the market share and Android isn't the only game in town.

[ocdtrekkie]

"Huge"? In the EU, where the current investigations are going, Apple is barely a blip on the radar. Windows Mobile has had better traction in some parts of Europe than the iPhone.

Android has over an 85% global market share. And for OEMs, there is NO other game in town, since iOS isn't licensable.

[ekianjo]

Apple only has a significant share in a few geographies, for the most part the world has turned to Android already.

[ojbyrne]

I see Firefox and Chrome and several other browsers in the iOS AppStore.

[jedmeyers]

Those are just UI shells that will use the same built-in rendering engine.

[hooluupig]

They are just themes of safari.

[dep_b]

But they rely on the browser engine Apple ships.

[ec109685]

So, they can still have their own search engine configuration.

[quadrangle]

It's not about whether a monopoly is fair or "unfair", it's about whether it provides power that they can abuse and is thus worse for the public interest.

Google got their monopoly fairly enough, maintain it through a mix of fair and questionable practices, and definitely uses their monopoly now in ways that are anti-competitive.

[the_mitsuhiko]

> Google is doing what is best for it's customers.

But is it? Because right now I basically can't stop using Google services at this point because they pushed out many others from the market. I would however greatly prefer some competition in the field.

[nradov]

Which Google services no longer have competition?

[the_mitsuhiko]

Google Search for a start. Youtube is effectively standing alone in the space. Google Maps is completely dominating the space (in particular there is nothing that replaces the Earth product or the parts of Earth in maps).

Gmail is taking over the world over here. Most local mail solutions are irrelevant at this point and the only real alternative to gmail even intentionally is outlook now.

Chrome effectively took out the rest of the bunch as well, at least on desktop and Android.

Lastly Google's ad business is something nobody can avoid.

[themacguffinman]

Right, but unless you are accusing Google of foul play, their market dominance is just evidence of the superior consumer value they provide. In other words, they are doing what is best for its customers.

The question of this thread is: did Google unfairly push out their competition. If you can't argue that, then this is just pointless Google hand wringing.

[ocdtrekkie]

This is actually untrue. It's not illegal to become a monopoly. It's illegal to be anticompetitive once you have that market dominance.

Google may have achieved it's dominance legally, however, it's conduct since then is illegal.

[themacguffinman]

I know it's not illegal to be a monopoly, that's actually my point. I was responding to the_mitsuhiko's complaints of Google monopoly in certain areas, to which I argue that Google's monopoly status isn't inherently a problem.

[ionised]

> their market dominance is just evidence of the superior consumer value they provide.

I don't think that's true.

They leveraged their search engine dominance to push Chrome on people with banners stating that the user experience would be better on Chrome.

They bundled the Chrome installer with a load of other app installers and users would immediately find themselves with a new, default browser, because Google knew most users never explore advanced installer options to discover they needed to opt-out.

Google maps is far worse than OSM and HereMaps in my opinion, but it is far more pervasive because it is the go-to mapping service when users perform a search.

[nradov]

Bing, Vimeo, Here, Yahoo Mail, Firefox

Some ad blockers can block Google AdSense.

[acdha]

Do you run a website where those are significant traffic? It's been a long time since not-Google search has been more than a rounding error in my experience, with the exception of Yandex for Russia and Baidu for China if you have content for those audiences.

Vimeo and Firefox are trying but the trajectory has not been good.

[nradov]

The question was about alternatives to Google services (which do exist in almost every category), not about the share of traffic that websites receive from various search engines. If websites want to avoid being overly dependent on Google then they're going to have to get creative and figure out ways to drive traffic other than search.

[rb666]

Fastmail is actually an amazing alternative over Gmail. Have been using it for half a year now and will never go back. I use my own domain with it, so even if Fastmail disappears, I am still in control.

[gscott]

You are... until gmail decides not to accept mail from your mailserver.

[rb666]

I don't run my own mailserver, as I said, I use Fastmail with my own domain. Two very different things.

[ekianjo]

> Google Search for a start.

DuckDuckGo isnt one?

[vadym909]

Whoah. Hold on. The problem is not with Google offering a Review service for HVAC companies. If the Google reviews are more comprehensive and valuable than Yelp- by all means have them show up in the organic listings- for that matter even use up your own budget to take up the sponsored space. But don't pretend that you've now got a new feature as part of search (taking up the sponsored box as a legal maneuver) that offers a similar service like Yelp and that it is part of your Google Search service. That is PURE EVIL.

[annexrichmond]

> Google is doing what is best for it's customers

except it has been shown that the organic search results rank Yelp listings higher than Google's Local listings thus they are, in fact, displaying worse results at the top. Unless you believe Google's search product sucks I think this proves they aren't doing what's best for customers at all, they are doing what's best for them.

Keep in mind they are trying to develop Google Maps into a social review platform where you can write reviews, order delivery, etc. that seems similar to Yelp. Is it not clear they are using their Search monopoly to get more content on their own, currently worse, local reviews platform to have it become more dominant in the long run?

[themacguffinman]

Except if you look at the screenshot in Stoppelman's tweet, it's clear that Google's Local listings are displayed as advertisements. The Local section is unambiguously tagged as "Sponsored". Yelp and Local rankings aren't comparable.

Unless you think Google shouldn't be allowed to run their own advertising systems?

[guessbest]

For me Google is the best search on technical issues and research. When it comes down to touchy political and social issues, Bing and DuckDuckGo beat Google every time. In fact I don't even use Google to look up things I see in the news. It is always skewed. I completely avoid Google News.

[millisecond]

Honest question, how is it skewed? Not a fan of google news myself for other reasons but never felt they forced a PoV.

[ionised]

They filter and service your results based on what they think you want to see.

Filter bubbling.

[appleflaxen]

> I don't see that Google has an unfair monopoly.

really? isn't the use of their search engine to squelch competition in local reviews support that they are a monopoly?

[haltingthoughts]

Looking at what is best for consumers is missing the point. The point is that when companies use leverage in one market to help themselves or hurt competitors unfairly in other markets it stifles competition.

It's hard to be a web browser company when it comes bundled with the OS. Do you really want a world where you choose Apple, Google, or Amazon once for everything everywhere and that is the only choice you get? Or do you want Unix philosophy for businesses and mix and match however you feel?

[baddox]

Isn't stifling competition only bad if it harms consumers? I don't understand how what's best for consumers isn't the point.

[SwellJoe]

As long as there is credible competition, market forces work. When Google (or MS, or Amazon, or...) successfully destroy all of their competition, that's when consumers suffer, and that's when it's too late for regulators to effectively solve the problem. See the cable/telco duopolies for an example of that problem in action.

So, sure. The fight to destroy all competitors is good for consumers while it lasts. Once it's over and there's a monopoly or cartel (as in the case of last-mile internet), the consumer is at the mercy of the monopolist. History indicates the monopolist will not be benevolent.

History also indicates the monopolist will leverage their increased power to manipulate the legal environment to prevent new competitors from springing up. In addition to the telcos, the fossil fuel industry is an example of that lately; despite renewables being cheaper and creating more jobs, more than half of our elected officials in the US are working hard to ensure another decade of fossil fuel energy dominance.

[haltingthoughts]

I should have said looking at whether it is harming consumers now isn't the point. It's how it harms consumers over time. The chilling effect on innovation, the monoculture/fragility, the lock-in will hurt consumers in the long run.

[wbl]

People can compete with Google on quality of reviews. This is attempt to make Google less useful.

[bdcravens]

I think the position the powers that take is that competition is intrinsically consumer beneficial, with the inverse assumption that anything that harms competition harms consumers.

[georgeecollins]

The problem is that Google does what customers want selectively. For example, I don't think I want my search results to be as dominated by ads as they are today.

Once the competition is beaten, they may change their priorities from giving the customer and the partners what they want, to doing what is best for Google. Compare youtube of five years ago to now. There are many more ads and many more restrictions on how partners can place ads. If youtube had started with those rules and that much advertising I think it would have been less successful.

There is a pattern for all internet companies where they say to users and partners: look how great our platform is. And then when they achieve dominance they change the rules. The best protection is competition.

[MichaelBurge]

These anti-trust laws were originally created to whack railroad companies, which had huge capital investments and "natural monopolies".

Google does have some investment in its data centers, but people never make the explicit argument that the $11 billion/year in data centers is what causes them to be a monopoly. They make the much more abstract "market dominance" argument that I don't buy.

The only thing that I'd consider a monopoly in the same spirit would be the ISPs. It's stupid to dig up the streets twice just for "competition", so there's a natural monopoly. And it'd probably cost untold billions to rebuild it.

[nashashmi]

I like Google too. And I like the search engine returning products if it thinks they are relevant. But the issue behind EU commission was that they found Google purposely lower the ranks of relevant competitor's results nearly off the front page without merit.

The typical argument is that Google can do that because it is their search agent. But they did not express it explicitly in their terms of service.