View Poll Results: Should Google be able to pay to be the default search engine?

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I strongly agree.

    2 16.67%
  • Yes, I mildly agree.

    0 0%
  • I'm not sure.

    4 33.33%
  • No, I mildly disagree.

    1 8.33%
  • No, I strongly disagree.

    5 41.67%
  • Other (please share in a post).

    0 0%
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    MichaelCorfman's Avatar
    MichaelCorfman is offline GPWA Executive Director
    Join Date
    June 2004
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,486
    Thanks
    1,058
    Thanked 6,006 Times in 1,916 Posts

    Question Should Google be able to pay to be the default search engine?

    The US Department of Justice antitrust trial against Google began on 12 September 2023, seven weeks ago yesterday. One of the key considerations of the case is whether Alphabet's distribution agreements with device manufactures such as Apple amount to exclusionary conduct. The DOJ argues that Google is “a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet” through deals with hardware manufacturers and telephone company providers to install Google as the default search engine on their services.

    A possible outcome might be that it would become illegal, for example, for Google to pay Apple to make Google the default search engine in Safari. This could mean a more explicit choice of search engine might be required.

    For this week's poll, I ask if you believe search engines should be allowed or prohibited from paying to be the default search engine. Besides voting in the poll, I invite you to share your thoughts in a post.

    There are lots of articles about this topic on the web. Here are a couple of examples:

    Search Engine Land Google search antitrust trial updates: Everything you need to know (so far)
    Electronic Frontier Foundation: Antitrust Suit Against Google is a Watershed Moment
    Digiday: What if… Google loses its antitrust battle with the DOJ over its search market dominance?


    Michael
    GPWA Executive Director, Casino City CEO, Friend to the Village Idiot
    Resources for Affiliates: iGamingDirectory.com, iGamingAffiliatePrograms.com, GamingMeets.com

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to MichaelCorfman For This Useful Post:

    ocreditor (6 November 2023)

  3. #2
    content is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    September 2023
    Posts
    89
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 34 Times in 26 Posts

    Default

    I voted I'm not sure, I got a mixed opinion.

    While monopolies are bad and all, and it would be cool if searches were spread over more search engines with more variations of algorithms, I kinda don't mind the idea of default search engine on devices.

    The whole reason (I assume) Bing gets any searches is because Bing is the default search on new windows devices. Thinking about it that way, it kinda goes both ways. Since most people are going to use Google anyway, the Bing pre-configured default search engine on other devices may serve to give google some competition rather than only serving to uphold google's monopoly.

    Prohibiting default search engines on hardware's pre-installed software could arguably hurt Bing more than Google.
    Plus, such a restriction on manufactures may not be very practical, as virtual assistants like seri and alexa(and newer ai stuff that utilize search) sorta need a default search engine for a lot of their basic functions.

  4. #3
    universal4's Avatar
    universal4 is offline Forum Administrator
    Join Date
    July 2003
    Location
    Courage is being scared to death...and saddling up anyway. John Wayne
    Posts
    31,785
    Thanks
    3,641
    Thanked 8,675 Times in 5,531 Posts

    Default

    The question should not center around the perception of which engine is better but whether they are using their monopoly position to create a larger monopoly position by paying.

    When bringing bing in to the mix and whether there is fairness of Microsoft adding bing (their search product) in to windows (their OS product), the comparison is not apples to apples.

    Is Microsoft allowed to not allow or disable the ability to change from bing to google? No. Just as they are forced to allow other browser products to be installed or defaults changed.

    On that point ask yourself, if Apple had their own search product, would apple use their own search product as the default on a macbook as well as an iphone? Of course they would. And apple fanboi's would be in uproar if they would be accused of exerting their power over the market.

    I am not sure how I feel about whether it is ok for google to do this, obviously in a bidding war they could easily pay more.

    I wonder if the case will lead to the point that apple will be forced to make changing the default search easier, or even forcing a first install setup choice easier.

    I sorta feel a complete prohibition of payment for top placement might be an overstep.

    Will be interesting to see feedback on this.

    Rick
    Universal4

  5. #4
    Join Date
    November 2005
    Posts
    4,510
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    1,920
    Thanked 2,216 Times in 1,278 Posts

    Default

    Didn't Microsoft face similar accusations regarding its OS etc.

    Why are the majority in this industry and others, 'slaves' to Google?
    They've definitely positioned themselves in such a manner that they do indeed hold a major SE monopoly.

    Whether this type of marketing-manipulation crosses the line, would depend on if it's being abused.

    I read an article a few weeks back about smart-cars, and the information they can garnish from their owners. It's mind boggling. Should car manufacturers be able to access this personal information, use it, and in some cases, sell it to 3'rd parties.

    There's so much covert, under the table deals being done, that I feel this DoJ v Google case, is only the tip of the iceberg per se.

  6. #5
    universal4's Avatar
    universal4 is offline Forum Administrator
    Join Date
    July 2003
    Location
    Courage is being scared to death...and saddling up anyway. John Wayne
    Posts
    31,785
    Thanks
    3,641
    Thanked 8,675 Times in 5,531 Posts

    Default

    Yes Microsoft did face similar charges a few times over the years. It led to them being more open about their browsers and other middleware.
    Wiki on the case
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Microsoft_Corp.
    Computerworld's take on the decision
    https://www.computerworld.com/articl...uncertain.html

    Funny you mention smart cars, but EV's have issues in that it is nearly impossible to even charge them without a phone app that knows everything about you (except at home).

    Is a search monopoly a good thing?
    Their monopoly on media is growing at a huge rate as well.

    Rick
    Universal4

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to universal4 For This Useful Post:

    Former Member 14 (4 November 2023)

  8. #6
    edgarf76's Avatar
    edgarf76 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2013
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,175
    Thanks
    798
    Thanked 580 Times in 427 Posts

  9. #7
    DaftDog's Avatar
    DaftDog is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2008
    Location
    Your kitchen.
    Posts
    2,068
    Thanks
    651
    Thanked 741 Times in 441 Posts

    Default

    How different is paying to be a default search engine on a device any different from top FMCG brands paying for premium shelf space at major retail outlets?

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to DaftDog For This Useful Post:

    universal4 (2 November 2023)

  11. #8
    universal4's Avatar
    universal4 is offline Forum Administrator
    Join Date
    July 2003
    Location
    Courage is being scared to death...and saddling up anyway. John Wayne
    Posts
    31,785
    Thanks
    3,641
    Thanked 8,675 Times in 5,531 Posts

    Default

    Interesting point, they really only are paying for eye level shelf space aren't they?

    Wonder if the outcome might be more awareness on changing search providers, or statements of offering alternatives. Even though in daftdog's example, stores are not forced to put a sign up that says, look on other shelves too.

    Rick
    Universsal4

  12. #9
    Cash Bonus's Avatar
    Cash Bonus is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,915
    Thanks
    8,350
    Thanked 2,828 Times in 2,056 Posts

    Default

    Absolutely not. That shouldn’t even be a possibility.

  13. #10
    NoDepositCasinos's Avatar
    NoDepositCasinos is online now Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2022
    Location
    Colombia
    Posts
    580
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 186 Times in 158 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman View Post
    The US Department of Justice antitrust trial against Google began on 12 September 2023, seven weeks ago yesterday. One of the key considerations of the case is whether Alphabet's distribution agreements with device manufactures such as Apple amount to exclusionary conduct. The DOJ argues that Google is “a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet?through deals with hardware manufacturers and telephone company providers to install Google as the default search engine on their services.

    A possible outcome might be that it would become illegal, for example, for Google to pay Apple to make Google the default search engine in Safari. This could mean a more explicit choice of search engine might be required.

    For this week's poll, I ask if you believe search engines should be allowed or prohibited from paying to be the default search engine. Besides voting in the poll, I invite you to share your thoughts in a post.

    There are lots of articles about this topic on the web. Here are a couple of examples:

    Search Engine Land Google search antitrust trial updates: Everything you need to know (so far)
    Electronic Frontier Foundation: Antitrust Suit Against Google is a Watershed Moment
    Digiday: What if?Google loses its antitrust battle with the DOJ over its search market dominance?


    Michael
    I have mixed feelings about this.

    I believe that the fairest approach, if I may use that word, is to allow consumers to choose from various options, much like they do with the colour or other features of their devices. Personally, I don't see paying for being the default SE very different from other advertising strategies (both online and offline) where you pay to be in the same place and time as your potential customer. As long as the customer has the freedom to make a choice and can change it anytime., it's OK for me.

    On the other hand, when we talk about a monopoly, is this the main reason why Google is one of the favourite search engines, or is it simply because people prefer it? In my case, I recently bought a computer, and the only thing I used the default search engine for was to download Google Chrome.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •