Europe’s leaders should ask themselves why their continent has not produced a Google or a Facebook

It's really quite simple to anyone with knowledge of business in the real world.

Europe hasn't produced a Google or Facebook because over here the main methods by which these companies have been able to grow so big are illegal, or considered to be immoral. A company attempting it would never get past first base.

The USA has a different culture, which it is perfectly entitled to have, but when companies which espouse that culture trade in Europe they are expected to stick to our laws, our standards.

I really don't see why you can't seem to understand this.

Ah, I see what you mean. I managed to find some hotel searches that include Google+ review information at the bottom of the listing.

So it's not about Google+ showing up artificially high in the rankings, but rather that G+ data and links are being included as extras on some results.

That's kind of a catch 22. Use too much info from a property you don't own and you're exploiting them for profit. Use info from a property you own and you're being anti-competitive.

What's the answer? Government control over search results? Bear in mind that this would ultimately end up applying to all search engines. I don't think we're at a point in history where governments have the knowledge, understanding or foresight to be making decisions about digital innovation.

Speaking strictly as a user I want these companies to be free to continue to work on new ways to get me information faster and easier.

And from a business perspective, I think this quote from the above linked BI article says a lot:

In October, Google removed thumbnail images and snippets of text from news results belonging to a group of German newspapers. The publisher, Axel Springer, was angry that Google was reposting its content to enhance search results. But the German publishing group later scrapped its plan to reduce its Google results to headlines after traffic plummeted.

As The Economist has put it, "Google (whose executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, is a member of the board of The Economist’s parent company)..."

Yes, and the MEP who spearheaded the anti-Google vote in the European Parliament is a lawyer for the German publishers who have been trying to squeeze money from Google. If you want to talk about conflicts of interest, that's a biggie.

Earlier, someone wrote:

Wonder if some of those defending Google the most own Google shares?

One could just as easily ask, "Do any of those who are attacking Google have connections to rival companies?" Or: "How many of those who are attacking Google are unhappy site owners and SEOs who have a personal axe to grind?"

Still, instead of questioning other members' motives, it would be more helpful (and a better reflection on the poster) to discuss the topic at hand.

Europe hasn't produced a Google or Facebook because over here the main methods by which these companies have been able to grow so big are illegal, or considered to be immoral. A company attempting it would never get past first base.

That really isn't true. A lot of us here were around to watch Google take over search purely because their results were so much better that no rational person would use any other search engine. That's why googling became synonymous with searching. They didn't need to do anything illegal or immoral. At that time they were a small company, making no money, with no time to do anything other than try to figure out what to do with their sudden dominance.

They've since become a behemoth but the success in search came way before. When I see this kind of legislative move my concern is always about future innovation. Not from Google but from everyone. None of us know where the internet is going at this point.

The average American has precious little idea of where Prague, Utrecht, Leipzig or Tallinn are located, least of all understand European anti-monopoly culture (essential element of the welfare state). Same goes for the average European regarding America and American attitudes on such matters (expect Canucks are somewhere in-between?).

Two worlds apart, if you may - but still, will find common ground when talks start in earnest. The ball has started rolling, already for some time now, it will roll for quite a while - and "next day" will not be "business as usual".

.

it's funny how a lot of the comments i've been reading about this (both here and elsewhere) have a lot of americans sticking up for google seemingly because its an american company. its almost like they are siding with google because the europeans are picking on "their" company.

it was a bit like that in the UK as well, when the US government was picking on BP. so we all do it.

i wonder if the european parliament would go any easier on google if they were a european company... maybe a little bit.

How many of those who are attacking Google are unhappy site owners and SEOs who have a personal axe to grind?

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions small site owners? Most small businesses (millions) struggling to survive in a globalized marketplace against behemoths given an unfair advantage?

Nothing wrong there, me thinks, and very predictable.

.

A lot of us here were around to watch Google take over search purely because their results were so much better that no rational person would use any other search engine.

Yes, I remember it well, I was around way before Google was dreamed of. Their first search engine wasn't really all that good. They got a hand up, though, by a lot of webmasters because they were popular guys, socially active well before 'social' really got going, and their initial success was based on word of mouth. Many of us were very keen on them because their search engine was so easy to scam. However:

They drove a coach and horses through copyright laws.
They drove a coach and horses through privacy laws.
They ignored Overture's copyright on their method of charging for ads.
They stuck one up Steve Jobs good and proper.
etc etc etc

I recommend the book 'In the Plex ........' which describes a lot of their stunts.

[edited by: superclown2 at 8:39 pm (utc) on Dec 1, 2014]

i wonder if the european parliament would go any easier on google if they were a european company

I suspect the opposite is more likely. Apart from anything else, it would have been much easier to intervene much earlier.

Perhaps the problem here is really one of perception.

Let's say the Sun (prop. Rupert Murdoch) gives a plug to a 20th Century Fox (prop. Rupert Murdoch) film. Conflict of interest? Probably. Political spotlight on Mr Murdoch's business dealings and request to break up his business empire? Unlikely.

So perhaps those of us holding onto the concept of a privately-owned search engine as anything other than another media outlet for hire to the highest bidder are being unrealistic.

Google began as a non-partisan operation around the time that there were engines like Inktomi around who were 100% paid inclusion. Any ideals of algorithms written to reward the best sites impartially come from that time, and that idealism and innocence if you will.

What we've seen since then is a slow erosion of that ideal and that even-handedness, but on reflection it was naive of us to expect that things would stay that way forever.

It's taken a while for Google to take on the semblance of any other major media outlet, with their own corporate bias, but it was inevitable.

Power corrupts.

i wonder if the european parliament would go any easier on google if they were a european company

Probably, given some of the public statements made by MEPs. Still, it's worth remembering that the European Parliament doesn't enforce antitrust law: The European Commission does. That's why the vote on breaking up has been characterized as "political grandstanding": It's the equivalent of the U.S. Congress passing a resolution to break up Toyota.

Back to practicalities: The European Commission can't "break up" Google, but presumably it could force Google to separate search from advertising sales within the European Union. Would that benefit consumers? It's hard to see how. The proposed "breaking up" of Google (to whatever limited degree that might be possible) would be about protecting competitors, not competition. But then, that seems to be what the European Commission has wanted all along. Otherwise, why would the EC be soliciting input from the likes of Microsoft, Oracle, TripAdvisor, and Foundem? It's all about keeping the oligarchs happy, not about listening to Internet users in the EU have voted for their for favorite search engine with their Web browsers.

Would that benefit consumers? It's hard to see how.

You've failed to grasp the point of monopoly / competition law. It's not intended to benefit the consumer; it's intended to protect other businesses. [en.wikipedia.org...]

it's funny how a lot of the comments i've been reading about this (both here and elsewhere) have a lot of americans sticking up for google seemingly because its an american company. its almost like they are siding with google because the europeans are picking on "their" company.

it was a bit like that in the UK as well, when the US government was picking on BP. so we all do it.

Heh... I noticed that too. I guess to some degree we're also a product of our environments.

I suspect any ensuing arguments will have very little to do with information theory or informational retrieval, more politics and economics.

Otherwise, why would the EC be soliciting input from the likes of Microsoft

Because the EC is full of nationalists?

it's intended to protect other businesses

In order to encourage competition, for purposes of benefiting the consumer.

That's another part of this I don't get. G doesn't have 90% of market share everywhere, just the UK (or is it the whole EU?). Doesn't that make it pretty clear that it's consumer choice as opposed to anti-competitive practices?

The only barrier to competition is that it's not easy to build a modern search engine. None of the major players are doing anything to block the attempt. Anyone is free to try. But get government involved and, almost invariably, the restrictions and regulations become a new barrier to entry.

One example is telecommunications in various countries, especially the US. If you look at almost any industry where governments have attempted to enforce competition, you will find neither real competition or successful small players.

I'm not saying that there aren't situations where the gov needs to get involved, but I don't see this as one of them.

Wonder if some of those defending Google the most own Google shares? -snip-

Regards...jmcc

Low blow and in my case, utterly false (I own zero Google shares). Using your logic, one could as easily say those defending the EU own Google competitor shares, or Google has treated their competitors better in the SERPS. I don't believe any of the three are the reason, but rather simply differences of opinion.

@IanKelly

When I see this kind of legislative move my concern is always about future innovation.

the EU vote to break up google is all about innovation, the EU are saying that google suppresses innovation by pushing down competing sites while promoting it's own. Search for weather and google will show you the weather but there might be a really great weather site out there, why does google get to decide what to show us? is it a search engine or an information site? it can't be both.

also google doesn't apply the same algorithm to it's own sits as the competing sites. For some reason google's own sites are given a significant boost in the search engine while other sites are ranked lower even though they are better. If google applied the same algorithm to it's own sites they would be at the bottom of the search engine because most of them are just thin / scraped content.

None of the major players are doing anything to block the attempt.

One way to stave off competition is to buy up the fledgling companies that might otherwise become a future threat. Certainly Google have been making some interesting acquisions in AI.

Search for weather and google will show you the weather but there might be a really great weather site out there, why does google get to decide what to show us?

This sentence is equally true if you replace instances of Google with Bing.

Would you like the EU to tell Google how to format their results? If so they'll have to tell Bing, et al how to format their results as well.

May as well just ban commercial search engines and let the state handle search.

is it a search engine or an information site? it can't be both.

Why?

If google applied the same algorithm to it's own sites they would be at the bottom of the search engine because most of them are just thin / scraped content.

This is speculation. Where is the evidence, or even an informed analysis, to back this up?

If true, if Google really is penalizing their competitors in search results, then something needs to be done. But unless I've missed something there has been quite a lot of investigation into this and no evidence that it's the case.

That's another part of this I don't get. G doesn't have 90% of market share everywhere, just the UK (or is it the whole EU?). Doesn't that make it pretty clear that it's consumer choice as opposed to anti-competitive practices?

Not really. It's very difficult not to use Google over here for most people since it's the default on just about everything. Even when the new Mozilla/Yahoo agreement starts Google will still be the default search engine on Firefox in Europe.

Not everyone is web-savvy enough to change defaults, and neither do most of them want to be. A huge number of them type their search terms into the address bar (which almost inevitably gives them a Google search, naturally); they never even go near Google's web sites.

The guys at Google are superb at marketing. The guys at Bing are just awful at it. The least said about the Yahoo people the better. And that is why Google has a 90% share of search in Europe.

@IanKelly

This is speculation. Where is the evidence, or even an informed analysis, to back this up?

If true, if Google really is penalizing their competitors in search results, then something needs to be done. But unless I've missed something there has been quite a lot of investigation into this and no evidence that it's the case.

here you go...

[techradar.com...]

also bing doesn't have a dominant position

This is a good example of what I'm getting at. The linked article uses one unrelated fact (that Google added a new kind of sponsored ad) and spun it into a much bigger deal than it was. Adding PPC product shopping to their ad offerings was a natural evolution, any search engine with the capability would be stupid not to do it.

Yes, DealTime and others took a hit, but their position in organic rankings was not manipulated, the market changed. It was always going to change.

It always comes back to companies that rely too much on organic traffic. That will always be a gamble. Even if you had 2 or 3 big search engines with equal pieces of the pie this would not change. In fact I suspect that with another real innovator in the market, things like weather widgets and paid shopping links and algorithm overhauls and everything else webmasters complain about would come faster and harder than before.

All of these things are not the result of Google, they're common sense moves that anyone in Google's position is going to make. Even if the EU were to manage to hamstring Google, Bing or some other search company would fill the gap with exactly the same thing. So all of this boils down to whether or not the government should control search.

May as well just ban commercial search engines and let the state handle search.

Even if the EU were to manage to hamstring Google, Bing or some other search company would fill the gap with exactly the same thing. So all of this boils down to whether or not the government should control search.

Google has come up with a working "wheel." Search is too important to keep private and should be publicly distributed. Eminent domain. Thanks for all the hard work for the benefit of man, Goo.

I suspect that if the EU really tried to impose such a "break up", Google would just say "No thanks" and pull out, if only temporarily (a la German News) and let the chips fall where they may. And I have a pretty good idea how those chips would fall.

May as well just ban commercial search engines and let the state handle search

Good idea. Just think of the possibilities for taxation, social engineering, electioneering, political correctness, propaganda ......

Oh forget it. Let's stick with Google.

I suspect that if the EU really tried to impose such a "break up", Google would just say "No thanks" and pull out, if only temporarily (a la German News) and let the chips fall where they may. And I have a pretty good idea how those chips would fall.

There will apparently be millions of webmasters dancing in the streets to welcome the new Microsoft monopoly.

That will teach those pesky consumers.

...

So all of this boils down to whether or not the government should control search.

Governments already control advertising, and if search results are nothing more than a form of advertising, why shouldn't they control search?

If the choice, in Europe, is between:

1.- Search regulated by Google (and Bing)
2.- Search regulated by the consensus of the 28 European countries (such as UK, France, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Czech Rep., Luxemburg, and so forth)

Read my lips : bye Google

.

[edited by: heisje at 12:27 pm (utc) on Dec 2, 2014]

@IanKelly

it's not a PPC advert, it's a whole price comparison web site. if you search for car insurance google direct you to their car insurance site

[google.co.uk...]

it's a google affiliate site.

I hope you're not selling widgets because tomorrow google will be selling widgets, and you won't be able to compete with them. how many will cheer for google then?

Search regulated by the consensus of the 28 European countries (such as UK, France, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Luxemburg, and so forth)

Can't wait.