Is Google becoming an FTC target ala Microsoft?

[Tilted (Premo)]

FTC to Serve Google With Subpoenas in Broad Antitrust Probe - WSJ.com

[vraiblonde]

Boy, we sure know how to reward innovation and success in this country

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Boy, we sure know how to reward innovation and success in this country

They should have hired more minorities to key positions.
none of this would have happened.

[acommondisaster]

Weird, since Google is a big Obama supporter.

The Google Obama Connection

[pelers]

They aren't attacking Google's innovation, though. They are going after the fact that Google has expanded into a behemoth entity who has their fingers in everything. They aren't expanding through their own creative ideas, they are buying up other companies. Granted, once they get those companies they more than likely improve them with their innovation, but the major concern is that you can't get online without touching Google in some way.

The AP article says that competitors think that Google is skewing their search results to steer you towards web sites that are in some way affiliated with Google. As a simple for instance, if you type "Lexington Park, MD" into your Google search bar it brings up a map of Lexington Park... using Google Maps. Not Mapquest or any other mapping website. (As a side note, if you type in "Lexington Park, MD map" it will bring up Mapquest... as the second result after their own which has a large, pretty picture and pretty much eclipses Mapquest's link.)
ETA: This probably isn't such a great example. I tried "Lexington Park, MD map" on Bing and Yahoo and each of them listed their own mapping program, followed by a Mapquest link. None of them mentioned one another!

If you run a search for "email" the first link that comes up is Gmail. Followed by Yahoo! and then Hotmail.

If you look for "operating system" ... the first link that comes up is actually a Wikipedia article about what exactly an operating system is. The next link is Google Chrome OS. Followed by a couple more definition articles, and then, far enough down the page you don't see it unless you scroll, is a link to Ubuntu and MacOS.

If you run searches for products (I did "Fisher Price Rock and Play" because I have one right next to me) the first links that come up are from Amazon... who is majorly affiliated with Google. Then come Google's shopping links. Fisher Price's own product page was quite a ways down the list! (Didn't have to scroll, but it was at the bottom of my screen.)

Anyway, that's the point competitors are trying to make. I think it's rather silly but they probably have more of a point than the antitrust suit against Microsoft did.

[GWguy]

Originally Posted by pelers

They aren't attacking Google's innovation, though. They are going after the fact that Google has expanded into a behemoth entity who has their fingers in everything. They aren't expanding through their own creative ideas, they are buying up other companies. Granted, once they get those companies they more than likely improve them with their innovation, but the major concern is that you can't get online without touching Google in some way.

The AP article says that competitors think that Google is skewing their search results to steer you towards web sites that are in some way affiliated with Google. As a simple for instance, if you type "Lexington Park, MD" into your Google search bar it brings up a map of Lexington Park... using Google Maps. Not Mapquest or any other mapping website. (As a side note, if you type in "Lexington Park, MD map" it will bring up Mapquest... as the second result after their own which has a large, pretty picture and pretty much eclipses Mapquest's link.)
ETA: This probably isn't such a great example. I tried "Lexington Park, MD map" on Bing and Yahoo and each of them listed their own mapping program, followed by a Mapquest link. None of them mentioned one another!

If you run a search for "email" the first link that comes up is Gmail. Followed by Yahoo! and then Hotmail.

If you look for "operating system" ... the first link that comes up is actually a Wikipedia article about what exactly an operating system is. The next link is Google Chrome OS. Followed by a couple more definition articles, and then, far enough down the page you don't see it unless you scroll, is a link to Ubuntu and MacOS.

If you run searches for products (I did "Fisher Price Rock and Play" because I have one right next to me) the first links that come up are from Amazon... who is majorly affiliated with Google. Then come Google's shopping links. Fisher Price's own product page was quite a ways down the list! (Didn't have to scroll, but it was at the bottom of my screen.)

Anyway, that's the point competitors are trying to make. I think it's rather silly but they probably have more of a point than the antitrust suit against Microsoft did.

It's part of their 'smart' technology to tailor searches for particular audiences,as well as pushing their own resources. If you and I both put in a search request, chances are we will get different results based on our previous web and search activities. If you search for motorcycle stuff, and someone else looks for horse supplies, you'll get very different returns from a query of "saddle" or "leather accessories". Hmmm.... and if you are into S&M, different result yet again!!

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by pelers

They aren't attacking Google's innovation, though. They are going after the fact that Google has expanded into a behemoth entity who has their fingers in everything. They aren't expanding through their own creative ideas, they are buying up other companies. Granted, once they get those companies they more than likely improve them with their innovation, but the major concern is that you can't get online without touching Google in some way.

So what? The playing field started out level. And Google was created by two 20-something college students, not some multi-billion $$$ corporation.

At what point does the government get to say you're successful enough? And at what point do they get to say you've created enough, and had enough good ideas?

We'll note that the government has a monopoly on all sorts of products and services we use every day. They should bring an anti-trust suit against themselves and leave business alone.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by pelers

As a simple for instance, if you type "Lexington Park, MD" into your Google search bar it brings up a map of Lexington Park... using Google Maps.

Of course it does - it's *their* search engine. If you search using Yahoo, you get Yahoo priority results.

Use a different search service if you don't want Google results.

[pelers]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

So what? The playing field started out level.

Yeah, and Google did a better job than the other search engines. I don't dispute that at all. I think it's silly that they are going to have to go to court over being good at what they do and giving good incentives to other companies to affiliate with them.

I wasn't saying that they deserved to go down in flames, I was just trying to clarify WHY some people wanted them to go down. Entitlement generation is hard at work trying to keep that playing field hammered down flat!

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by pelers

They aren't attacking Google's innovation, though. They are going after the fact that Google has expanded into a behemoth entity who has their fingers in everything. They aren't expanding through their own creative ideas, they are buying up other companies. Granted, once they get those companies they more than likely improve them with their innovation, but the major concern is that you can't get online without touching Google in some way.

The AP article says that competitors think that Google is skewing their search results to steer you towards web sites that are in some way affiliated with Google. As a simple for instance, if you type "Lexington Park, MD" into your Google search bar it brings up a map of Lexington Park... using Google Maps. Not Mapquest or any other mapping website. (As a side note, if you type in "Lexington Park, MD map" it will bring up Mapquest... as the second result after their own which has a large, pretty picture and pretty much eclipses Mapquest's link.)
ETA: This probably isn't such a great example. I tried "Lexington Park, MD map" on Bing and Yahoo and each of them listed their own mapping program, followed by a Mapquest link. None of them mentioned one another!

If you run a search for "email" the first link that comes up is Gmail. Followed by Yahoo! and then Hotmail.

If you look for "operating system" ... the first link that comes up is actually a Wikipedia article about what exactly an operating system is. The next link is Google Chrome OS. Followed by a couple more definition articles, and then, far enough down the page you don't see it unless you scroll, is a link to Ubuntu and MacOS.

If you run searches for products (I did "Fisher Price Rock and Play" because I have one right next to me) the first links that come up are from Amazon... who is majorly affiliated with Google. Then come Google's shopping links. Fisher Price's own product page was quite a ways down the list! (Didn't have to scroll, but it was at the bottom of my screen.)

Anyway, that's the point competitors are trying to make. I think it's rather silly but they probably have more of a point than the antitrust suit against Microsoft did.

My response was the same as vrai's - so what? Generally speaking, Google should be allowed to use whatever search algorithms it chooses - offer customers the services / products it desires to. It's not like it's a public utilit, or something of that sort, where it's the only option customers have and it's appropriate to require it to offer certain services under specified conditions because its (effectively) been given special rights / exclusivity by the government.

If someone goes into a Ford dealership and asks where they might be able to get an oil change, there's a good chance that the dealership's own service department will be recommended before the Jiffy Lube down the street is. No one forced that person to ask that dealership for the advice or direction, it was their choice - as it was the dealership's right to provide itself as an answer.

Google surely uses its market dominance and general omnipresence to its advantage in its efforts to expand itself into newer endeavors, much as Microsoft did. I don't think that's improper though, our far reaching (and somewhat subjectively applied) anti-trust laws notwithstanding.