651–660 of 702 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This goes both ways.
So? If Google leaves, there's always Bing, DDG, the search engine formerly known as Yahoo!, Yandex...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it's not so you will click it. They collect the data from customers and offer it to the advertisers. The data is a big part of the product they sell to advertisers: targeting advertising. They don't sell user clicks (why would anyone pay for that?), they sell targeted advertising.
That is not how Google's business works. Advertisers quite literally pay for clicks. That was part of how Google disrupted the market back in the day; most other advertising networks were selling "impressions", but Google was so confident in the relevance of their ads that you got impressions for free and only paid when a customer actually clicked on it. The click is worth paying for, because it is a signal that the…
Google sells targeted advertising, not clicks. Nobody pays for clicks. I do not think advertisers are buying raw data. I think they are buying advertising which is targeted based on that raw data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>compared to the merely large pile you'd need to run a credible regional alternative to google search for some segment of the population How exactly would a credible regional alternative to google work and why are there exactly zero of them if it's so easy?
What else would you call DuckDuckGo? Easy is relative. It is relatively easy to build a search engine that can service a user's requests (possibly less useful absolutely, but within the realm of service) compared to building an electric grid and power plant that can handle a large number of user's power needs. One of these can be done with technical skill to get to an MVP in a weekend. The other requires a hundreds o…
A user of bing's search index with extra features sprinkled on top. It's comparable to one of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_mobile_v...
They did not build the necessary expensive infrastructure for a search engine, they lease it. This actually kind of proves my point.
A company called Cuil tried to do exactly what you're suggesting. The reason you're probably saying "who?" now kinda proves my point too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proposing the standard sure, but importantly, prominently displaying it in search results. If an AMP equivalent standard came out by Mozilla or Microsoft or Facebook, it would be an uphill task for them to get google to give those pages special treatment in search results. Hence, there is an argument to be made about AMP being an anti-competitive (search engine dominance used to push it's own diet-html).
I'm not sure if the actual format is relevant in a court of law, as long as anybody is capable of producing the format. For example, Google is already favoring HTML above, say, TXT pages. Demanding TXT to be shown as high as HTML in search results doesn't make much sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very US-centric viewpoint and not one shared by people in Europe.
It has nothing to do with US/EU. The US has a long tradition of anti-trust laws which work essentially the same as the European.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From Google's piece: > When you shop online, you want to find the products you’re looking for quickly and easily. And advertisers want to promote those same products. That's why Google shows shopping ads, connecting our users with thousands of advertisers, large and small, in ways that are useful for both. The problem is that when you are shopping for something, you don't want advertisers to be influencing what you s…
> The problem is that when you are shopping for something, you don't want advertisers to be influencing what you see in search results. You generally want the best match to your search, not the product with the biggest advertisement budget behind it. So they should remove advertising from google search results altogether? Like saying TV networks shouldn't put ads/product-placements in their shows because their viewer…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or Google could follow the rules of the countries in which they operate.
Please quote the rule that Google broke. In all 28 EU countries.
Antitrust: Commission fines Google €2.42 billion for abusing dominance as search engine by giving illegal advantage to own comparison shopping service
Antitrust rules. The EU decided they broke them. Whether you think they did or didn't is irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'll probably get down voted Damn, I hate this trend of making you comments appear more controversial. > What's next? You really should not argue this point. We need to stop "big" companies doing "anti-consumer" practices. The reason why those terms are in quotation marks is because when you are discussing antitrust and monopoly laws those terms are not well defined. You should only look at these rulings per-case b…
Don't pretend to speak for "EU citizens". What have we got to do with Brussels and Microsoft stealing money from Google? Google is not a utility, it is a product company and you are free to use other companies products
I don't have the freedom to use another search engine with the scale and access to user data that Google has because the barriers to entry in this market are staggeringly high.
Staggeringly high barrier to entry == utility
>stealing money
Google has the freedom to not pay the fine and shut down operations in the EU.