• http://www.rimmkaufman.com/ George Michie

    Greg, I think you’re right that the alternatives likely won’t pull much traffic. It really does strike me as odd. It’s not much of a stretch to go from here to requiring Google to show users a message: “Oops, you’ve done this search on Google. Did you mean to do it on Bing instead?”

  • http://www.kyleeggleston.com/ Kyle Eggleston

    Good for Europe. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with curbing the monopoly Google has on the Web (and the world). This should give small businesses a better chance of surviving – rather than relying on the big G for all of their business.

  • Durant Imboden

    The “small businesses” that will profit from this are companies like Microsoft, Expedia, Foundem, Tripadvisor, and other members of FairSearch.org (the corporate consortium whose lobbying led to the settlement).

    The beneficiaries don’t include you, me, or the mom-and-pop corner store.

  • http://www.seopros.org Terry Van Horne

    the problem is people mistake using better products (by a country mile) for favoring their own stuff! They are because it is that much better than the competitors…just more indirect taxation…it’s why the EU sits stagnating… gov’t disrupts the natural business cycle but forcing shit like this because some fringe group with a definite agenda…grease some bureuacrats palm…err….lobbies them

  • http://www.silvar.net/ Miguel Silva Rodrigues

    Exactly. Plus, what gives those alternatives the right to be there instead of any others?

    It’s interesting to compare this ongoing (non)issue with the other news of the day here – http://searchengineland.com/google-generous-engine-local-businesses-186236 – which shows Google is already the search engine that gives more visibility to local businesses

  • aaron wall

    Google pushes for transparency & openness, yet so many of their partner contracts & complaints about competitors are in private and only see the light of day by accident years later.

    If superior product drives their search monopoly marketshare, Google is welcome to stop bundling the Chrome browser & toolbar on Flash security updates, stop forced bundling of default search placement in Android, & to stop buying default search position in other browsers like Firefox.

    That they are free to do these things – but choose not to – is quite telling. The lack of internal regulation in spite of such marketshare indicates precisely why external regulation is needed.

    Why do the people who were foaming at the mouth on Internet Explorer browser choice (which Google was pushing for behind the scenes) not care about monopolistic bundling when it benefits the home team? Do these same people forget the complaints Google sent to Australian regulators over Paypal?

    What sort of ideology is this: “I stand for absolutely unregulated free markets where monopolies are free to abuse ecosystems as they see fit without restriction, as long as the monopolies are my own. If they are competing monopolies we must justly regulate them.”

    What does Larry Page think about most companies? “Most people think companies are basically evil. They get a bad rap. And I think that’s somewhat correct”

    And this is the same Google which joined ALEC. It is ok for Google to hire a dozen lobbying firms & join large trade organizations to influence governance, but if anyone else does similar it is pure OUTRAGE!!!