and people would be surprise why ?

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
How Google Skewed Search Results
FTC staff report details how Google favored its own shopping, travel services over rivals


A previously undisclosed report by staffers at the Federal Trade Commission reveals new details about how Google Inc. manipulated search results to favor its own services over rivals’, even when they weren’t most relevant for users.

In a lengthy investigation, staffers in the FTC’s bureau of competition found evidence that Google boosted its own services for shopping, travel and local businesses by altering its ranking criteria and “scraping” content from other sites. It also deliberately demoted rivals.

For example, the FTC staff noted that Google presented results from its flight-search tool ahead of other travel sites, even though Google offered fewer flight options. Google’s shopping results were ranked above rival comparison-shopping engines, even though users didn’t click on them at the same rate, the staff found. Many of the ways Google boosted its own results have not been previously disclosed.

The report’s insight into Google’s business practices is still relevant as Google expands its own offerings. Just this month, it launched a search tool for car-insurance quotes, which competes with similar tools offered by Allstate Corp.’s Esurance, among others. It has beefed up hotel listings that compete with TripAdvisor Inc. and Expedia Inc.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Why should Google not be able to use its own product/service to promote its products/services?
 

glhs837

Power with Control
So wait, I should promote the other guys stuff ahead of my own? I know Google Flights offers fewer options than others, but I still use it because the information presentation is more understandable for me. Google isn't a public freakin service, this is one huge freaking slippery slope, folks. FTC, GTFO of my internet.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Google isn't a public freakin service, this is one huge freaking slippery slope, folks. FTC, GTFO of my internet.

:yay:

Like back in the day when the Fed decided that Microsoft couldn't load its IE browser on computers with its software. Complete bull####, but it was stunning and scary how many people were in favor of busting the company up. People who spouted conservative rhetoric out one side of their mouth, then supported one of the more Socialist things a government can do.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
:yay:

Like back in the day when the Fed decided that Microsoft couldn't load its IE browser on computers with its software. Complete bull####, but it was stunning and scary how many people were in favor of busting the company up. People who spouted conservative rhetoric out one side of their mouth, then supported one of the more Socialist things a government can do.

To be fair, the issue wasn't so much the loading, but writing the software such that other browsers wouldn't function. Like Google making it so that Expedia simply wouldn't load. which is a bit of a different story.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
To be fair, the issue wasn't so much the loading, but writing the software such that other browsers wouldn't function. Like Google making it so that Expedia simply wouldn't load. which is a bit of a different story.

You dont have to go through google to get somwhere else, they never prevented you from typing in expedia.com.

I don't see it too much different than not being able to get a whopper at mcdonalds.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
:yay:

Like back in the day when the Fed decided that Microsoft couldn't load its IE browser on computers with its software.


remember

... you used to have to PAY for 'Internet Suites' back in the 1990's .... of which the Web Browser was only one part

Microsoft had 90% of the desktop market and everything they touched - mostly worked with Windows ....
if you were coding a website on IIS [Microsoft web server] it never looked as good on Netscape or Opera that IE
... MS version of Java was 'mostly' compatible
later MS was forced to remove Java from its operating systems ....

Judgment

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, RealNetworks, Linux, and others.[15] Judgment was split in two parts. On April 3, 2000, he issued his conclusions of law, according to which Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Microsoft immediately appealed the decision.[16]

On June 7, 2000, the court ordered a breakup of Microsoft as its "remedy". According to that judgment, Microsoft would have to be broken into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components.[16][17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation

Caldera, Inc. in 1996 accused Microsoft of several anti-competitive practises, including vaporware announcements, creating FUD, exclusionary licensing and artificial tying.[54][55] One of the claims was down to bundling and tying MS-DOS 7 and Windows 4 into a single product (Windows 95) for the sole purpose of eliminating competition, another to having modified Windows 3.1 so that it would not run on DR DOS 6.0 although there was no technical reason for it not to work.[54][56] Several industry experts revealed that Microsoft put encrypted code, which became known as AARD code, in five otherwise unrelated Microsoft programs in order to prevent the functioning of DR DOS in pre-releases (beta versions) of Windows 3.1,[57][58] and that it was technically possible to run Windows 4 on DR-DOS 7 after bypassing some new and non-essential interface code through WinGlue.[59] In 2000 Microsoft settled out-of-court for an undisclosed sum, which in 2009 was revealed to be $280m.[60]
 
Last edited:
Top