All the possible ways to destroy Google’s monopoly in search

What the future of search could look like as DOJ seeks to end Google's monopoly.

See full article...

 

[kinpin]

If we want tech companies to act right and not abuse their monopoly we have to have government agency similar to SEC or FDA on their neck with constantly updated laws/directive etc (not that it prevented the 2008 crash but ..)

We can wait to have companies abuse their monopolies before acting. We want to good paying jobs, and somewhere to invest our pension funds. As these capitalist conditions exist, the markets will keep pushing companies to grow and grow and they'll find nefarious means to do so. If Google is broken up. Im sure as hell the company that replaces them will turn into the same monster.

 

[real mikeb_60]

While I understand that DDG is basically a pretty face on Bing (with a few other sources occasionally used, including Google if you ask for it), it's much less intrusive than either Bing or Google. I even use their browser as the default browser in my Android (Google!) phone and it works fine. So alternatives exist. The real issue seems to be Google paying for premium placement in other systems; it should be considered a given that if you use Android you're defaulting to Google unless you or the phone OEM changes that. Much like with Windows it's impossible not to have Edge; it is, however, possible to not use it most of the time.

Perhaps, like in come European situations, the (lower) payment might be simply for placement in the search providers list, and a requirement to choose a default browser and search engine (with appropriate information about the choices so it's informed) during system installation/activation or major upgrades.

Funny that, if they're getting Google money, DDG is running a bunch of commercials basically dissing Chrome in favor of its browser. Wonder if the goofy (entertaining, at least the first time seeing it) advertising has any measurable effect?

 

[MSBit]

Probably 30-ish billion dollars.

Why do it for free when you can rake in a small countries GDP from just setting a default.

Got it.

I was trying to think of all kind of reasons Apple couldn't just choose a default if they wanted, and then it's as simple as this. Those poor, poor Apple shareholders...

 

[jonsmirl]

If most people would manually switch back to Google anyway, then that means there's no reason for Google to pay so much for the default placement. They'd still get most of their users without having to pay a dime.

But the fact that the overwhelming majority of Edge users use Bing, as the article mentions, clearly suggests that most people would just stick to the default. And the fact that Google regularly pays other browser vendors hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars for a default placement suggests they think so too.

You are missing that there is more than one way to switch search engines on Windows. When you first boot Windows 100% are running Edge. But then 83% of Windows users immediately replace Edge with Chrome. Replacing Edge with Chrome also switches you to Google for search.

 

[Defenestrar]

Here are my thoughts of what should be done to prevent future monopolistic abuse. If Google is truly a quality leader in both search and advertising then it should not be much adverse impact. If they have been abusing monopoly positions… well, they just might have to step up the game to stay ahead of legit competition.

1. Forbid Google from being on any set-a-search engine list at install/setup for 10 years (users are welcome to add Google later).
2. Indefinitely prohibit Google paying for the privilege default status or priority placement on any lists
3. Break search and advertising into discrete companies with no common ownership or leadership (i.e. Alphabet):
   1. Prohibit search from entering exclusive deals WRT selling data
   2. Mandate search have published price lists for data open to all (US?) customers
   3. Mandate that advertising gets no better rates for search data than the average of all customers (incentivising flat rates)
   4. Prohibit search from entering the ad-service business
   5. Prohibit advertising from entering the data collection/analytics business
   6. Prohibit search and advertising from engaging in OS and Browser development outside of regular participation on international standards committees

 

[Sheep Disorder]

If most people would manually switch back to Google anyway, then that means there's no reason for Google to pay so much for the default placement. They'd still get most of their users without having to pay a dime.

But the fact that the overwhelming majority of Edge users use Bing, as the article mentions, clearly suggests that most people would just stick to the default. And the fact that Google regularly pays other browser vendors hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars for a default placement suggests they think so too.

The Judge wrote

"Bing’s search share on Edge is approximately 80 percent; Google’s share is only 20 percent," Mehta wrote, noting that "even if one assumes that some portion of those Bing searches are performed by Microsoft-brand loyalists, Bing’s uniquely high search share on Edge cannot be explained by that alone."

That would mean whatever the Judge says what happens to Google should also immediately apply to Microsoft without any disagreement.

Of course, any outcome will go the same way as browser choice did in the EU (and search engine switches back in the day). Just that Apple and Mozilla Foundation might not get the money and we get bombarded with notifications and ads to switch.

 

[jonsmirl]

Here are my thoughts of what should be done to prevent future monopolistic abuse. If Google is truly a quality leader in both search and advertising then it should not be much adverse impact. If they have been abusing monopoly positions… well, they just might have to step up the game to stay ahead of legit competition.

1. Forbid Google from being on any set-a-search engine list at install/setup for 10 years (users are welcome to add Google later).
2. Indefinitely prohibit Google paying for the privilege default status or priority placement on any lists
3. Break search and advertising into discrete companies with no common ownership or leadership (i.e. Alphabet):
   1. Prohibit search from entering exclusive deals WRT selling data
   2. Mandate search have published price lists for data open to all (US?) customers
   3. Mandate that advertising gets no better rates for search data than the average of all customers (incentivising flat rates)
   4. Prohibit search from entering the ad-service business
   5. Prohibit advertising from entering the data collection/analytics business
   6. Prohibit search and advertising from engaging in OS and Browser development outside of regular participation on international standards committees

Doing all of that will turn search into an absolute Microsoft monopoly while Google goes broke. Perfect remedy, kill the smaller monopoly and replace it with an even larger, stronger one.

 

[Don Reba]

At trial, Mehta's ruling noted, it was estimated that if Google lost its most important default deal with Apple, Google "would lose around 65 percent of its revenue, even assuming that it could retain some users without the Safari default."

Why do they even show ads to non-Apple users? It sounds like we are a rounding error on their balance sheet.

 

[caramelpolice]

The Judge wrote

That would mean whatever the Judge says what happens to Google should also immediately apply to Microsoft without any disagreement.

Well, no, because what constitutes an antitrust violation is different when you're a monopoly versus when you're not.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

Well, no, because what constitutes an antitrust violation is different when you're a monopoly versus when you're not.

Obvious question is at what point are you so large you must begin considering yourself a monopoly? I dont think that has ever been defined in law.

 

[TVPaulD]

Epstein told Ars that he hopes that Mehta's ruling stands, seeing it as "rock solid." Rather than resist remedies, Epstein suggested that Google should "take its medicine and do some soul-searching" and "find a settlement" that would allow it to reimagine its business, as Microsoft did under Satya Nadella after its antitrust loss in the 1990s.

I know what this paragraph means, but I think it could do with another pass. While Microsoft certainly did reimagine its business under Satya Nadella and that did happen subsequent to their antitrust loss in the 90s, Nadella did not become CEO of Microsoft until 2014, some seven years after the terms of the settlement had elapsed (barring some aspects which were later extended a bit) and 13 years after the settlement was reached.

The way this is written makes it sound like Nadella's restructuring of the business was something that happened in the immediate wake of the case. Nadella worked for Microsoft throughout that period, including on some major initiatives, sure, but his reimagining the business as CEO probably had more to do with more contemporary things like Ballmer's serial failures in consumer electronics and mobile than in responding to the antitrust ruling.

I'm genuinely curious: If not having Google the default choice in Safari is such a problem for Apple, what's preventing Apple from simply doing this without any agreement between the two (so no contract, payment, or kickback between Apple and Google)?

I'm obviously missing something (most likely money related), but... what? I understand not being able to contractually ensure to be the default is a problem for Google, but why for Apple?

Apple are the ones getting paid. If Google are banned from paying for that default placement, Apple loses that not insubstantial source of revenue which requires no actual work for them to receive, and amounts to them being paid to continue making a choice they probably would have made anyway.

An injunction on Google's Apple deal could also push Apple to create its own search engine after years of declining "to enter general search," a choice Mehta said was likely because Apple "would forego significant revenues" earned through the Google deal. That could cost Apple as much as $20 billion, Mehta's ruling said, citing a 2020 internal Google estimate.

I'd be curious to see what it would look like if Apple, shorn of the financial benefit to keeping Google Search as the default, decided to offer a search service of their own. If they focused on user experience and allowed it to be ad-free as part of an iCloud+ or Apple One subscription, I think it's something I'd seriously be into. I'm paying for Kagi right now, and it's good, but I'm aware of some questions marks around the people running it. I'm pretty locked in on not wanting to use ad-supported search any more though, and I've yet to come across another paid search option of note*. Apple seem like they could do it.

*I'm planning on looking at Qwant even though it is ad-supported at some point, since it's at least focused on not tracking. If they added a paid tier removing the ads and giving you the more advanced features without sharing data, I'd be looking much more closely.

 

[ackmondual]

Its not illegal to be a monopoly.

I'm sure I'm missing something, but it seems similar to Google and this article, no? If not, then what's the difference?

 

[mir-teiwaz]

The judge's comment on Edge and Bing illustrates the point pretty well, I think. When there is a clear differentiation in the products (Edge sucks), the majority of users switch from the default, to the point that when you first open Edge in order to download Chrome or FF it puts up a bunch of pop-ups begging you to give it a try first. When there isn't (Google and Bing both suck unless you learn the tricks) people don't bother to change from the default. It's too much to hope, I know, but maybe, just maybe, losing their default position might force Google to compete on the merits of their product and unshittify their search engine.

 

[jkeats]

Safari is worth 65% of revenue? That's nuts.

I'm not surprised, mobile is the sweet spot for having ads take up a good portion of results ( I've got to scroll a screen+ down to skip past them on iOS ), people clicking quickly without noticing and being able to pay your way around adblockers

 

[orwelldesign]

The US used to be able and willing to break big companies up. Microsoft got hammered hard in the 90's, AT&T got hammered hard in the 80's. It's been too long since someone made an example of one of these companies. Break google into tiny itty bitty little pieces.

Do the pieces even make sense, though?

Spin off android? All of a sudden, phones are (n*currency_units) more expensive, because if Google can't Google all the android crap, why give it away for free?

Spin off chrome? Why? Who the hell wants to pay for a web browser? Being able to type something natural language into the search bar and have it give results that make some kind of sense? That's worth something. But it isn't worth a monthly subscription fee, that's for sure.

 

[Yep It's Me]

As long as profit unpins search results delivery, there will always be a Google-esque company trying to dominate and trend towards a monopoly. It's the nature of capitalist companies to dominate over their rivals and get as much of the pie as possible. Step one of the solution is remove profit as a motive.

I wonder if would help to have the technological equivalent of acknowledged subject matter experts that a search tool goes to for answers. Some kind of distributed indexer nodes that, over time, gain a reputation as the best for any given topic. There would need to be some way for the search tool to find the relevant expert nodes; a kind of DNS look-up ... DSS (distributed search service).

Libraries becoming general knowledge nodes. Various special interest groups could establish nodes specific to their topic. Chambers of commerce could form nodes for their local businesses. Governments might establish nodes on law. A person's local ISP could be the first / default DSS look-up, but that person could configure their search tool to use different look-up parameters if they were feeling froggy.

 

[domikai]

Consider what would happen if Google stopped paying Apple and Microsoft paid them instead. One morning every Apple user in the world who has not switched their search setting off from default is going to wake up and find they have been switched to Bing. This is not a single payment for default at install time. It is a recurring hostage payment every year to keep from being replaced.

A big question, if Google stops paying, Microsoft pays instead, Apple switches everyone who hasn't explicitly set a search engine to Bing --- how many people that morning are going to immediately set it back to Google?

Those aren't the only options. Currently Apple is contractually obliged to present the results as a branded Google search without any alteration. Google pays for this.

Consider what would happen if Google stopped paying Apple. They can now spin up whatever Apple Search interface they like, and contract with Microsoft for the underlying search service with either Apple or MS served ads as deemed strategic/appropriate by the two parties. I'm not saying that would definitely happen. I'm saying that there are now options with valid economic incentives other than cash for competition preemption .

This whole Google branding on Apple systems is out of character for the company anyways. I'm sure it makes them frowny.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

I'm sure I'm missing something, but it seems similar to Google and this article, no? If not, then what's the difference?

Google paid cash money to gain advantage in the search engine market. Having the monopoly is fine, but you need to gain it using competitive means. Not just having more money to bribe with.

 

[Deleted member 1070971]

I'm tired of Google products. As of today, I have started working with my first paid email provider. As I've said a hundred times or more, I only need an email address. I don't want to be connected to Google and all its first and third-party TOSs, privacy policies, settings, opt-outs, apps, services, arbitration, data-sucking, etc. Policing all this stuff is a ridiculous waste of time. If I can't adequately understand my place of control in a situation, I leave, and that's where I am with Google. I'm reducing attack vectors that come back directly to me and mine.

Do I think that I'm going to drive Google out of my life completely? Hopefully. If not, I just want to make it as hard for them as they have made it for me and the rest of us. It's going to be my happy thought every day. Today is one more day with less Google.

 

[TomXP411]

Honestly, search is too important to the modern world to allow it to be run as a for-profit. Especially as part of a for-profit that makes its money off the collection and monetization of private data.

Search should be run by a non-profit foundation or similar.

I was thinking something similar... not specifically the "profit" part, but the fact that being the largest search engine is what makes Google so useful. If it were pared down, it would eventually lose much of its utility, and we'd be back to the days when someone had to use 3-4 search engines to find something.

When it comes to monopolies, there are actually some benefits to the consumer, including efficiencies of scale. However, there's also a huge opportunity for abuse, and that potential for abuse outweighs the potential benefits.

Removing the for-profit motive does help prevent the abuse potential, but it also means that the company may not prioritize creating new products that engage customers. Things like Google Mail, Google Drive, and the apps suite with Docs, Sheets, Draw, and Slides all came from Google seeking a path to keeping customers on their platform.

All that said.. Wikipedia has become the world's largest encyclopedia without being a for-profit, commercial enterprise. So maybe there is room for a search engine that is driven by the customer, rather than the shareholder.

I don't know what that would look like, but it would be interesting to see if it's actually possible.

 

[skhull2]

I did a Google search to find this article using Chrome on my Google Pixel 6 Pro, while hooked up to my Google WiFi. Only thing missing is Google Fiber, not available in my area.

 

[Made in Hurry]

Someone in a past Google story posted this search engine for perusal and i have been happy since:
https://www.qwant.com

 

[itfa]

The one billion+ wealthiest humans on the planet use an iPhone.

You'd think their money would buy them a little peace and quiet online. I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on my PC or phone which in and of itself tells me how much I'm worth to Google.

 

[Don Reba]

Spin off chrome? Why? Who the hell wants to pay for a web browser? Being able to type something natural language into the search bar and have it give results that make some kind of sense? That's worth something. But it isn't worth a monthly subscription fee, that's for sure.

32,087 people are paying just for their search at Kagi. 1,044 are paying for the Orion browser.
https://kagi.com/stats

 

[stormcrash]

As much as google likes to claim that they're the top because they're the best, that's because it's become self perpetuating. Nobody can afford the cost to build a real competitor because it will not gain enough marketshare to cover the costs, because google has such a lock down on default preferences and is the "default". And that default traffic gives them a lot of data that others don't have to tune their search to keep people coming back. So if a company as wealthy as Microsoft, who can plow money into losses in search, still can't dislodge Google then what hope does any other competition have?

And that's before getting into the chokehold google has on online advertising meaning that the competition often has to put up with lower ad revenue rates that further choke their ability to compete

 

[taxythingy]

The one billion+ wealthiest humans on the planet use an iPhone.

I'm trying to imagine a billion people crowded around an iPhone to watch a Youtube video...

 

[taxythingy]

Consider what would happen if Google stopped paying Apple and Microsoft paid them instead. One morning every Apple user in the world who has not switched their search setting off from default is going to wake up and find they have been switched to Bing. This is not a single payment for default at install time. It is a recurring hostage payment every year to keep from being replaced.

A big question, if Google stops paying, Microsoft pays instead, Apple switches everyone who hasn't explicitly set a search engine to Bing --- how many people that morning are going to immediately set it back to Google?

Not many. Most people are going to go "Huh, Apple changed the look of the search page."

 

[Justin Credible]

At least Firefox is giving me the illusion where to search for something other than google.

 

[VinnieVega]

Let's add in how many people install Chrome on Windows and ignore Edge. Because there is more than one way to switch search engines on Windows.

Desktop Browser Market Share Worldwide - July 2024
Chrome	64.73%
Edge	13.74%
Safari	9.09%

So 20% of Edge users switch their search to Google, and then 100% of Windows Chrome users use Google. What's that work out to? 86% of Windows users are on Google.

Also - I have a several VMs which run default Windows with Edge which are defaulted to Bing. Of course no one uses a browser on those VMs. I wonder what percentage of that 14% still using Edge/Bing are Windows installs which simply don't need to use a browser.

I Honestly don’t really understand that. I’ve tried using both Bing and Google recently and I honestly can’t tell much of a difference.

 

[mozbo]

Honestly, search is too important to the modern world to allow it to be run as a for-profit. Especially as part of a for-profit that makes its money off the collection and monetization of private data.

Search should be run by a non-profit foundation or similar.

Many critical activities are run as for-profit with a tolerable level of issues. OTOH, some critical activities that are run as for-profit have absolutely intolerable problems. Health insurance / care. Last-mile ISPs.

Web search is declining sharply, but it hasn't reached the deplorable state of e.g. health insurance. So I don't see a need for the non-profit alternative. (Yet. Ask me this again in a year or two.)

 

[johnd_2]

Safari is worth 65% of revenue? That's nuts.

Interesting. That means the fate of Google actually rests in Apple's hands.

 

[johnsonwax]

32,087 people are paying just for their search at Kagi. 1,044 are paying for the Orion browser.
https://kagi.com/stats

Wow, 32,000 out of 7,000,000,000 smartphone users. They'll win over the market in no time.

 

[ChrisSD]

The good news is, Firefox is open source. You can kill Mozilla (or they can commit suicide) but you can't kill Firefox.

I think that's incredibly optimistic. The value of Mozilla isn't just the browser itself, it's that there's an organisation putting in the funds and talent to keep up with the ever evolving web standards. Recall that even Microsoft noped out of doing this. Google can afford to throw a lot of resources and people at their browser and keep the "living" web standards an ever moving target. Practically nobody else can, and even Mozilla only manages it with the help of Google's money.

 

[johnd_2]

the fact that being the largest search engine is what makes Google so useful.

Is it the biggest search engine, or does the label "biggest" include all the non-search stuff, such as ads, data-mining apps like Gmail, gadgets-of-the-day like the new Chromecast replacement, etc.

 

[johnsonwax]

Interesting. That means the fate of Google actually rests in Apple's hands.

Always has, which is why Android is such a complication to that relationship. Prior to Android Apple saw Google's search product as a valuable value-add to the platform and there were no payments. Android is what caused the payments because Google now had a competing mobile OS which Google demonstrated they were willing to give exclusive access to (turn-by-turn maps most notably). Apple couldn't afford to have Google cutting Apple off from key features to boost Android, so they started to turn the screws.

That's the aspect of this case everyone keeps trying to look away from - that Googles search monopoly was being leveraged through Android to choke off iPhone. The payments were Apple's way to compensate for this by making sure they got as much out of it as Android could. So when Google cut off access to turn-by-turn, Apple was able to finance their Maps service using Google's money. Eventually Google came to realize that iPhone users were more valuable to advertisers than Android users that they couldn't really win that approach and stopped being quite so aggressive.

So if the payments to Apple for default is a remedy, then so must divorcing Google Search from Android and Chrome and Chrome OS because those things were created primarily for that purpose.

 

[ianstar]

I know a lot of people have been critical of Mozilla's attempts to branch out into new markets, often criticizing them for 'not focusing on Firefox' with these ideas. However, this is exactly what they were afraid of. That their cash cow would suddenly dry up, either from an external decision or by Google themselves. That isn't to say some of Mozilla's expenditures aren't without fault, but I think they're going to be in a very difficult position if this goes through.

I agree with you in general and I think this will hurt Mozilla but at the same time, with Mozilla being very aware of this, it is unconscionable that they were (and maybe still are?) paying their CEO ~$5,000,000.

 

[Ushio]

Neat to come back around this topic again!

While we're at it, is there any case on YouTube? It too effectively has no competition. Not sure if that legally makes them a monopoly for that market though.

YouTube's competition is ABC, NBC, CBS, ESPN, USA, FX, Netflix, Tubi, PlutoTV, Disney+, Twitch, TikTok etc.

 

[rharris]

I use duckduckgo & Mojeek. I pretty much refuse to use google DIRECTLY.

 

[johnlsenchak]

Internet users have to remember all the search engines back in the last nineties (like AltaVista ) who went under or where consolidated into other search engine website so that a mega player like Google could thrive without much competition. Yahoo.com is certainly not any type of competition for Google now , but they where a major player back around 1995 Yahoo.com was the number one search engine for many years before they bought Geocities.com, did they have a monopoly?

 

[pjcamp]

Jesus. Claiming that Google is popular because it is superior begs the question "What do you mean by superior?" It's popular because it is superior and you can tell it is superior by how popular it is?

And every Windows user knows the explanation for the Edge anomaly -- every time you try to find out how to do something or to troubleshoot on Windows, it ignores your default choices and instead pops up Edge to send you to a Bing search.

It's like these guys grew up on Pluto.