will be the headline in the American press. The reality is that it was a short paragraph in a long document on consumer rights in a digital market.
However it's true that a large majority of the parliament just requested the European Commission 'to consider proposals aimed at unbundling search engines from other commercial services'
It's defined as a long term way of 'achieving to enforce EU competition rules decisively, based on input from all relevant stakeholders and taking into account the entire structure of the digital single market in order to ensure remedies that truly benefit consumers, internet users and online businesses'
The resolution has 25 other points on the digital market so it's indeed just mentioned as a possible option, it's not binding for the European Committee and no, it doesn't mention Google, but speaks about search engines in general.
The reality in Europe however is that Google has about 90% of the search market. Much higher than in the US, so concerns over a monopoly are realistic and if the EC takes measures they will be targeted at Google.
If it would eventually happen it would mean Google Search would become a separate company selling results and ads to the highest bidders. Products like Google Now could be offered by different companies based on the same search. It seems most likely that the Google the ad seller would be forced to become an independent division as well, but this is all speculation at the moment.
When the US government split up the Bell telephone company, the press referred to the daughters as baby Bells. When it was seriously considered to split up Microsoft, the pun returned in 'Baby Bill's'. Any suggestions for a similar pun on Google daughters?
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+20141127+TOC+DOC+XML+V0//EN #Tech #Europe #Politics
Thanks for getting the "real" message out +Max Huijgen.
Microsoft Word
A googolplex can mathematically be divided in googols, but i'm afraid that is a bit too difficult for a pun…
Goo and the baby gulls.
+Max Huijgen it seems as though I'm missing the European point of view here. 90% market share but you have a choice to use Bing or any other search yes? Guess I'm failing to see what would be accomplished by splitting search out.
And most of those Baby Bells re-aggregated as AT&T.
How about bAAAAAAAAAAby.
corporativism, reactionary, against the citizen user, made from thirsty publishers without perpectives, never been able to create something out of theyr directly interest in content and in profit, and sure old capitalistic ways.
As an European, I fail to see what this would accomplish apart from benefiting bing and the rest of the junk. Complaining that Google has a near monopoly on search fails to take into account the extremely low barriers to changing search engines. It makes more sense to have Microsoft split its OS division from the rest.
What's the question +Vik Arya Why people in Europe don't use Bing? Because it sucks on search on non-American results.
Why Google, and not any other tech company? Google is getting a lot of flak but I fail to see what differentiates them. I actually like Google better than most corporations.
I think that the Ero parliament forgot that the internet is a world wide communication system. They better reconsider and confirm their reason to make this type of decision. I don't think it is a good time to do this until they calculate what the outcomes for them will be a lot of problems for the European Union.
+David de Moura Castro
that would apply to all search providers including Yahoo!, Microsoft's Bing and others.
Changing browsers was just as easy for the end user +Jose Rodrigues and yet Microsoft was forced to offer a choice screen.
The ease of switching search engines is much higher as the results change considerably. For most Europeans Bing wouldn't be satisfying.
I'm sure Google will adjust accordingly if necessary.
Gaggle…
+Max Huijgen Ahhh. So the EU choice is severely limited by poor competition?
So in essence converting Google's search operation to a utility type model is more beneficial to the EU…sorry I'm just trying to make a parallel to what we're seeing with our ISP industry here for my own understanding.
So … if the MEPs say that "Indexation, evaluation, presentation and ranking by search engines must be unbiased and transparent" (http://goo.gl/qYEeh9), what does unbiased and transparent exactly mean? That they still want to see – transparently – Google's ranking algorithm? Is Google biased towards spammers and what happens if one of Google's competitors is a spammer? On the other hand, do we all get a right to see – transparently – a list of all deleted entries regarding the RTBF, just because also the presentation has to unbiased and transparent?
And why do you mention Google Now? Like Google+ it's no "commercial service", even Maps or Google Local are no commercial services, they are completely free.
+Max Huijgen I was in the middle of this post and thought I'd share for discussion. Ofcourse JBQ is an ex Googler so his point of view is naturally framed in this fashion but he does make some good points as well.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JeanBaptisteQueru/posts/fjF7Wu2Z9Ex
next step, blame on +Google Chrome .
Maybe you're too young to remember, but you could easily switch browser from within Windows +Scott Wilson
I mentioned Google Now as an example. That it's free is completely irrelevant to the monopoly discussion.
If search were independent, someone could build a commercial Google Now version based on data bought from Google Search. Zillions of other examples are possible +Bernd Rubel
Tnx +Vik Arya I'm not impressed with JBQ's reasoning.
http://ow.ly/EZiKR has an interesting point on the topic: by demanding "neutrality" in search results, search engine providers might be forced to index (and show) content. In Germany, publishers wanted money from search engine providers which showed snippets of their texts. Google's reaction was to remove the snippets or remove the texts from the index altogether, so they didn't need to pay for the content. With this in mind, the publishers' lobbyists might try another approach to milk Google.
+Max Huijgen IE was integrated into the OS. Other browsers had to be downloaded and then installed. This was much more difficult than typing bing.com.
+Max Huijgen w/o comment? 🙂 I don't agree with his title premise that Europe doesn't innovate so it has to litigate – seems like a boogey man argument.
But his arguments are persuasive in that they rightly point out how the rules can/would impact smaller players in the marketplace. We all know that even the best intentioned rules can have side effects (the ACA here in the US has a litany of side effects that do affect people).
I understand the desire for the right to be forgotten but its an issue that does require some more nuance but it seems its a heavy handed approach (the net wasn't designed to forget in the first place) I believe could be done better.
While google wasn't specifically mentioned its plain that the proposals intended target would be Google – no?
A couple of things do come to mind that I would like google to do better with but I'm not sure regulation would be the answer.
1. Promotion of their own services at the top of search. They should know better.
2. Burden on small businesses to promote themselves in search rankings is quite a rat race. Whoever has the most money really wins out here.
Yes… break up ma bell-that did wonders…
Gurgles?
The arguments of JBQ?
For one I don't believe Googe Search (GS) is market leader in Europe because of supporting services by Google.
It's simply the best search engine thanks to indexing of EU local / national results.
Secondly I dont buy the scale is needed to implement the right to be forgotten argument. There are many ways to solve this on small scale. +Vik Arya
I wrote myself that in reality this is about Google +Vik Arya I believe five years have passed without progress in the talks between EU and google.
They need to rethink their approach or inevitably will be hit by sanctions.
A Monopoly is when you have no other choices. It doesn't apply when one of those choices is clearly superior and people choose to use it on their own accord. I didn't wake up and say "Google is the only search engine I can use…". I deliberately chose Google because they offer something better over competition. Just because 90% of search traffic is Google is inconsequential. It doesn't mean Google is bad or a monopoly… It means the other options suck ass and I choose not to use them.
No, that's not the definition of a monopoly. Not in Europe, nor in the US. It's about market power disturbing competition +Will Burns
USA: Sherman Act
Think Standard Oil and Ma Bell-both broken up into regional concerns.
I'm keen to see how they plan to implement this, in granular, real detail. As of now, from what i've seen, they started on the right path but got a bit side-tracked and now lots of emotions have been thrown into the mix
It has been awhile since I looked indepth at antitrust law in the US, but I don't recall consumer suffering as part of the definition of a monopoly +Scott Wilson
Maybe you mean that in a decision to break up a company the courts will look at the effect on consumers, but it's certainly not the only or dominating rule.
Disturbance of the market f.i. also occurs when other companies don't have access to the market. (even if that wouldn't specifically harm consumers). See all jurisdiction on the Sherman Act.
+Max Huijgen The customers were not served by breaking up Ma Bell-though perhaps the government thought so…
At the moment nobody wants to implement it +Farhad Divecha It's part of the pressure on Google.
There is serious disappointment if not outright anger against the arrogance with which Google has responded during the last five years of ongoing discussions.
As it goes, it looks very similar to the Microsoft – EC case where Gates completely misunderstood / ignored both the US and EC concerns.
I know your soap box +Scott Wilson Its not an interesting angle.
I seriously doubt Google follows your reasoning and if they would, they would only harm themselves.
It's a bit like pointing to the Novell lobby during the Microsoft days. Whatever you believe, it doesn't change the reality.
Ah, of course missed the word 'bribed +Scott Wilson Now that is indeed interesting. Please expand on it.
The problem with "Google the monopoly" is that, as a consumer, using a competitive search engine is a URL away. It is trivial to go to a competitor. That hasn't been the situation with other cases and technology.
The problem is that Google's search is good. Damned good. And it isn't offered by a company with a anti-consumer past (ahem Bing). Google Search is not maintained by leveraging other market positions to strong-arm Search in to the marketplace.
This just seems like wrong-headed thinking on EU's part. But then, this wouldn't be the first time.
vague ramblings, not interesting +Scott Wilson
The case for 'Google the monopolist' doesn't depend on consumers actions or lack of. It's just taken into account +Paul Hosking as a fact.
If consumers would wade through multiple search result pages, the case would be much weaker, but they don't.
The objection and what will be held against Google is that they use search to promote / offer their own services so yes they leverage their market domination.
+Paul Hosking but with Google's dominant position they certainly can abuse in the advertising sector search and they have been taken to task of promoting their own services over competitors in search results.
+Max Huijgen what is the history behind what's driving the EU position on this matter?
If the search is so crucial to internet freedom, why not build a World/EU/government controlled engine so the validity of the results have a way of being monitored?
Unbundling search doesn't guarantee unbiased results, it just removes the cash feeding a great slew of free cloud services.
When is a company such an island that it is deemed forced to serve impartial results? Own products, not ok. Stakes in other companies? Employees previous affiliations? Relatives affiliations?
This is, as usual, old school thinking to new world problems.
+Vik Arya if I remember right, those "taken to task" has been yet more questionable findings by the EU. I may be remembering incorrectly though.
+Max Huijgen what makes a monopolist? In US cases, the "monopolist" label had been set due to a lack of consumer choice (i.e. removing choice), predatory pricing (putting competitors out of business then starkly raising prices), and taking advantage of other leading market positions to force a position in another market. What I'm hearing here is that Google is a monopoly simply because they maintain a large percentage of market share not because of other dubious actions (+Vik Arya point aside).
If Google is truely abusing their position in search to push other features then sure… I can see it. I remember the accusation vaguely – I don't remember it being clear. Anyone got references off hand?
+Paul Hosking I may be incorrect as well but it seems reasonable to ask Google to be neutral regarding promotion of its own products in a search capacity.
+Vik Arya sure. Don't get me wrong – if Google really is pushing other services via their position in Search then that's an issue. I vaguely remember that part of the issue was other data sources complaining that Google exposed their internal data without going through their interface and sought injunction to make Google stop indexing their data. So they fall out of search results. Then there's complaints that Google's search results return data from Google services that have no such restrictions.
Again – I might be remembering this incorrectly or confusing one event for another. But fuzzy memory has be thinking this is why I didn't put weight behind these accusations.
+Paul Hosking I addressed monopoly according to US/Sherman in an answer to +Scott Wilson above. Is that sufficient?
+Paul Hosking I believe the issue was if you searched for "email" then gmail would be the top ad result and so forth for other respective services from Google. I think part of that behavior still exists if you're signed in with your account but I'm not sure to be honest.
Edit: I'll try to find the reference and post it.
You gave one answer yourself +Christian Ahlin _Unbundling search doesn't guarantee unbiased results, it just removes the cash feeding a great slew of free cloud services._ If you're right that would in itself be a consideration to unbundle.
+Paul Hosking http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304450904579364330663366784 – hope that helps.
+Max Huijgen – I don't follow your response to +Christian Ahlin . Why should it be a consideration to unbundle search profits from free services?
+Scott Wilson I don't see how this is a MS sponsored fantasy. The article you linked points to corruption but not related to this topic. Certainly they do have their own flavor of anti-competitive business practices but they aren't alone in this space.
Be aware though that the WSJ link is outdated. The deal didn't go through.
Because under EU ánd US law this would stifle potential competition. Microsoft giving away IE almost got broken up for it.
+Scott Wilson This kind of behavior is pretty typical of companies who are competing from behind. They band together or go at it alone to file complaints and 'educate' legislators of their issues with competitors unsavory business practices.
Yes it may be a fake campaign as you say but that is not to say that some things aren't legitimate complaints.
I do want to say thanks though for pointing it out. I was unaware that MS had such heavy participation in this manner.
+Scott Wilson thanks for the hint to Fairsearch Europe. In only knew focusontheuser.eu, a campaign from Yelp, Holidaycheck and other Google competitors and particularly referenced by one of the german legislators in this process. You know, the one who has binds to a law firm that represents the german publishers in this process: http://goo.gl/VhCK74
"unbiased and transparent" were the keywords, right?
Heavy participation by fairsearch??? C'mon that's just a lobby club like the other ten thousand or so in Brussels.
Microsoft, Nokia, Tripadvisor, Twenga, Oracle etc use fairsearch as their lobby mechanism, but really Brussels is full of them. Google is spending lots of money on lobbying as well.
This is such a non-debate.
+Max Huijgen fair point – heavy participation is a rather grandiose description 🙂 But I think you/I agreed if I'm not mistaken. Its nothing out of the ordinary.
When I think of a monopoly, I think of how my family in America is basically forced to use Verizon. There's barely any alternatives considering the coverage. Thus, the price increases because of lack of competition.
That is not the case with Google Search. Consumers choose willingly to use the free service, with it being very easy to change your default search engine. It's actually much easier in Chrome then IE to make that switch.
Furthermore, I noticed Bing has increased in quality dramatically. This is in no small part because simply put, Bing was horrible. Now it's a pretty good product. Is that not a sign of healthy competition? But I still prefer Google, because of its integration with the other Google services I use.
This action by the EU would not help me as a consumer. I'm worried it might harm me because my attraction to their products had been their recent focus on integration between these products. I also question the cost of getting to the top of a search results list. The website I manage easily gets to the first page, because the website represents a good "product." No money spent at all.
That was a little ranty. Summary: who would this help? The average consumer who obviously doesn't care enough to change default search engines? Small businesses, who are pretty well represented if you Google them, ESPECIALLY local businesses?
No…They aren't protected. Microsoft and Yahoo are, who initiated the complaints.
So when you search for an address, Google should not be allowed to show a map of the address? It's Google Maps, after all, so can't be bundled with search. So when you search for a foreign word, Google shouldn't be allowed to show you the translation? Good luck with those "unbiased" search results.
+Vik Arya searched for "email" would result in gmail, this is true not because Google promoting their own service, but because lack of context.
Try search with "define email" or "what is email" and you won't see gmail at all.
If they are truly promoting their own services, you would still see gmail as a result regardless of what keywords you use, then you have a case for monopoly.
TL;DR Your argument is invalid.
+Chris P please see the link that I posted. I was trying to give an example which was not necessarily accurate but the concept is what I was trying to convey.
+Vik Arya if the link you meant is the WSJ's regarding comparison site Nextag's allegation that Google intentionally lowered their ranking, it's not proven and Google admit no wrongdoing.
Are competitors site optimized for Google crawler? How fast can they respond and how often does the user use that site compared with using Google Shopping?
+Max Huijgen Look at the revenues. There is only one viable company there: the company that provides search results and sells ads. Unbundling ads from search kills both ads and search; unbundling everything else, from gmail to G+ to … whatever else … simply ends the service.
The only thing that pays is ads; the majority of what pays in ads is in search. There is nothing to disaggregate.
Somewhat balanced view: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21635000-european-moves-against-google-are-about-protecting-companies-not-consumers-should-digital
After reading both views and points, I think the intent was noble. However, along the way, it became anti consumer and pro business. I use Google services not because I am forced to use them, but because they are the best. And they continuously evolve. Unbundling the services won't do any good because each one excels in their field of operation.
Rather than this, Europe should go after real world crimes, say tax havens and others rather than piracy and stupid anti consumer shit. These are not of big consequences compared to real world crimes.
+Chris P Fine – the WSJ article doesn't do a great job of explaining it either.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/05/google_to_promote_rival_search_results_to_dodge_ec_sanctions/
Its clear that Google changed their behavior to avoid a fine so I'm not sure what your point is.
""The EC had been concerned that Google "unduly" diverted traffic away from the company's competitors to its own specialised search services.
It said today that Google had agreed to implement a "threefold remedy" for its current and future specialised search services, such as results for flights, hotels and restaurants, by offering the following concessions:
Users will be informed by a label of the fact that Google's own specialised search services are promoted.
These services will be graphically separated from other search results, so the distinction with normal web search results will be clear.
For relevant specialised search services, Google will display prominent links to three rival specialised search services in a format which is visually comparable to that of the links to its own services. For instance, if the Google links have images, the rival links will have images as well, including on mobile services.""
Yes I used a poor example in one of my earlier posts but I still stand by my statement that google was promoting its own services over others and had to change its behavior around how it displayed those search results.
Mind that last sentence +Vik Arya It's not yet past tense as Google's latest proposal has been refused by the Committee.
+Max Huijgen But I'd imagine they're still going to have to adjust something right?
I don't know +Vik Arya From what I see Google needs to rethink it's approach and from what I 'feel' thats also what European decision makers expect.
We had three proposals on search results, all way short of expectations. There are other issues like the aggressive stance against the right to be forgotten, the arrogant way in which objections against the 'unified' T&C were handled.
It really looks very similar to Microsoft in the 2000 era. If I were Google, I would appoint an European as senior vice-president of market relations and start fresh.
By the 'Microsoft money' you refer to the 3 billion paid in fines to the EU?
Why do you think Microsoft paid? And Intel (more than a million in Euros, a lot more in dollars).
Exactly. That's why Google will breakup if its so decided)
C'mon +Scott Wilson We all have better things to do than moan about vague accusations which don't even mention Microsoft as an actor.
'This case of corruption is significant as it involves all the political class, regardless of colour, at the highest level – and – if witness statements are true – many of the most important IT companies on the international market,'
Anyway, you believe Google will withdraw from Europe and lose its best source of income? And that shareholders will agree to it?
Sorry +Scott Wilson but I expect sensible discussions under my posts. I'm the host. If you can't do better I will have to ban you for trolling.
Fine as in 10% of yearly turnover? Pull out as in lose access to the largest market in the world? Say bye to about half their current turnover and profit? Don't think so.
So it's irrelevant as Google would never do it, but even if they did they would lose the search traffic from Europe as well:
People would switch as
a) google could no longer index European webpages
b)99% currently use their local domain (f.i. google.de/es/etc)
c) Google could only show irrelevant American ads so they would be considered annoying
+Max Huijgen It sounds to me that you're describing a culture clash of how the EU wants things vs how Americans want things. Not saying one way is right/wrong/better/worse. But certainly compromises should be evaluated.
I respectfully disagree though with the idea that Google is very similar to MS in how they have handled things. MS was blatantly being anti-competitive by forcing less choice on consumers. Google isn't/wasn't being blatant about it – their actions are obviously open to interpretation and I'm not interpreting them as purposefully anti-competitive.
Also – I'm sincerely confused. The following article says that there is a legal binding agreement for the next 5 years but you stated that the proposal was refused by the Committee? Am I referencing old information?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/05/google_strikes_deal_with_ec_competition_chief_on_search/
Hi +Vik Arya Your source jumped the gun. The deal didn't go through and the five year old investigation is now in the hands of a new Committee.
I'm not so sure this is a Euro/US culture clash. It surely is a different way of looking at monopolies, but historically (from the beginning of the industrial revolution) the EU has been lenient where the US was very firm on anti-trust.
After the Standard Oil and the Bell company considered splitting up IBM and Microsoft. It came very, very close to it.
The current climate in the US is more supportive of monopolies following the rise of the Californian libertarians who think that full market control is the best way forward. Competition only weakens the ability to innovate is the new credo.
This is not a belief supported in Europe.
I truly believe that if Google had been an European company we would have the same issues due to the different line of thought on competition.
Hope this answers your question +Vik Arya
+Max Huijgen Gotcha. Well…guess we'll see how things play out.
It's ironic that Europe's way to defend competition is to bow to the anticompetitive pressure from struggling industries.
+Vik Arya +Max Huijgen give me proof that a better competitor in a measurable and repeatable way is intentionally hidden or inaccessible from Google search result.
Case in point, I did a quick search on Google Shooping and Nextag site. Needless to say, Nextag is slower by a few milliseconds. Page loading speed, as far as I know, is one of key factors for Google to assign page rank. By this one metric alone, the competitor is inferior without Google have to cheat.
TL;DR Proof at least one competitor that deserve a better page rank compared with Google similar services in an objective, measurable and repeatable way. My point being not guilty until proven so.
+Max Huijgen, the thing is, as a heavy user of Google's products, I really fail to see how the EU is advocating for consumers in this case. It seems an insult to even headline it as consumer protection. I'm not someone who is business saavy, but I believe I do have the perspective to realize the (unintended) harm the EU has done and may do.
The reason I have recently had a lot more enthusiasm for Google's Products is there new business philosophy that relies on a heavy integration of different services. Where before there were more disparate projects which many consumers have criticized, they've excited me and others by a new focus on heavy integration. Just look at Google Inbox! I LOVE that product, and it's FREE, and it's entirely due to integration between Search, Maps, Wallet, Drive, etc.
Having a heavily interconnected framework just makes my life SO much easier and it is something I think is long overdue.
While ostensibly this seems to be targeted at something else I can not entirely grasp (as someone who has, and can continue to use different search engines effortlessly), I personally worry that breaking up Google would threaten this new business philosophy, which is what I've waited for for years!
At the same time, I fail to realize how Google Search penalizes small businesses or consumers. I really don't. For consumers, it is exceedingly easy to change the default search engine and has gotten much easier. Small business get a lot of free benefits from Google Search with no need to interact with Google at all. I know this.
The only people who seem to benefit, are large corporations who have, in my opinion, lesser products. I do not like Bing precisely because it is not integrated into other Microsoft products as compared to Google.
Will Facebook be the next internet access that is regulated? They also have a lot of advertising on the website.
+Chris P are Yahoo Mail or Outlook.com not better in some form or fashion? This is a pretty subjective thing. Do people not use Mapquest? What about Firefox? Should Google downplay these results in search because they are not as good as their products? Who gets to decide whats better and what isn't? As a search engine I want as neutral a result as possible. Now I understand that SEO games those results (those with more resources will spend on ensuring page 1 results/top of page 1 results) but I'd rather Google be service agnostic and let the users decide for themselves. Let their services win on their own merits.
Edit: I know where you're coming from in terms of wanting empirical proof but I don't think we can have that in this case of 1 service being better than the other (in some test cases sure but overall no)
Btw, I did a search "what's the best email provider" and Gmail for Work doesn't show as a result, it shows up as an advertisement. The link to Gmail for personal is not to be seen on first page. I'd say that's neutral considering the context of the keywords.
What does neutral even mean? Who gets to decide what's neutral? Is there a formula for neutral? Will the parliament rule what neutral results should look like? Should neutral be defined by committee? A search-results page is not a statement of truth. It expresses some kind of opinion of what the best search results are for any given query. Put a straight jacket on that and you've straight jacketed the search-engine company's ability to innovate in search. One simple example: disallow the integration with the map or storage services and see how that compares for a query about addresses or personal photos.
+Max Huijgen I disagree. Changing browsers was not easy.
– It was impossible, then, to make a different browser default. In 2014, some apps still open IE when the default browser is set to FF. Customers were impacted.
– Microsoft added extensions (embrace-extend) that made the web incompatible) Its still the case… I don't get full functionality using web version of outlook on chrome and FF. Customers were impacted.
– It took bandwidth, knowledge and strong intent to download and install competing browsers. Its not as easy as typing an URL. Customers impacted.
Finally its not as easy as typing an URL. If I dont get what I am looking for in google, I will definitely go to a different search engine. And if its the case often that will be my default.
However, Microsoft monopoly on the desktop still hurts me. Very few companies ship device drivers for Linux. Hell, I cant even buy a linux notebook without jumping through hoops and paying the MSFT tax.
First the right to be forgotten and now this. EU is digging themselves into a hole.