Google Doesn’t Require Google Search On Android, Despite What FairSearch & Microsoft Want You To Believe

Fairsearch, a group backed by Microsoft and other Google competitors to lobby that Google isn’t “fair” to them with its search results, has been having a event today to push its view of all that’s wrong with Google. That includes building a myth that Google requires that all Android devices to use Google search. Google doesn’t do that. It never has. But that’s a good story the group still wants to tell.

The FairSearch Event

Today’s mythbuilding came out of a panel called “Tech Executives: Exploring Barriers to Innovation in Mobile and Online Services,” part of the FairSearch “Searching for Innovation and Competition Online” event that was held at the Newseum in Washington DC today.

Susan Athey, a professor of economics with Stanford’s Graduate School of Business was on the panel, making it sound like there was an unbiased academic meant to balance things out against having Skyhook Wireless and TradeComet, both with grievances against Google, also on the panel.

The Microsoft Speaker & The Incorrect Android Search Claim

But Athey isn’t just a professor. She’s also a consultant to Microsoft and has the role of Microsoft’s chief economist. The Microsoft connections weren’t listed next to her name on the agenda, but at least they were made clear in her introduction to those at the event.

She has an incredibly impressive sounding resume. That, along with her role with Microsoft, make what she says at 33 minutes into the panel discussion below so wrong:

“Microsoft tried to make deals to become the default search engine on mobile devices. On Android, that was rendered impossible. They were told, Android makers, and carriers, were told, that you cannot use another default besides Google,” Athey said.

Debunking Time

That’s not true. Not only is it not true, it’s impossible. It’s impossible because Android code is released to anyone to do anything that they want with. But if just being impossible isn’t enough proof, how about proof of Android devices that have dropped Google as the default search engine?

There was AT&T’s first Android phone, the Motorola Backflip out in 2010. Yahoo was used as the default search provider on that, not Google.

There was the Samsung Galaxy S with Verizon, also known as the Galaxy Fascinate. That phone, which I personally tested for several weeks in 2011, used Bing as the default search. You know, Microsoft’s Bing search engine, the one Microsoft supposedly couldn’t cut deals with device makers or carriers to be the default on Android devices.

That happend because of a deal between Microsoft and probably Verizon (rather than Samsung; Microsoft and Verizon have done default search deals for mobile before). Nor was there any way to change the default away from Bing, if you were so inclined.

Those two strikes alone make you question how much you can trust anything Athey says about Google and mobile search competition, and in turn, the advice she’s apparently giving Microsoft. But maybe she forgot these phones, when she made this statement. If so, how did she miss the new last week about the new Kindle Fires using Bing as the default?

Amazon’s Kindle Fire is an Android device, at least in using Android’s core operating system. Amazon has simply stripped out things it doesn’t want, such as integration with Google Play (instead, it uses its own App Store) and changing the search to use Bing, almost certainly because of a deal with Amazon and Bing (Microsoft confirms Bing is the default but gives no details how that happened).

Repeat False Fact, Make It True

If Microsoft’s consultant putting out false facts isn’t bad enough, FairSearch makes it worse by reporting the error as being true and not picking up the correction that Athey later makes after a Google spokesperson in the audience calls her out on it. In fact, FairSearch even turns things to make it seem like Google was confirming what Athey said.

Here’s FairSearch’s coverage:

Athey added that deals with Apple to make Google the exclusive default search provider, and with Android phone manufacturers requiring Google to be the default search engine to gain access to offering the Android market to users extends the company’s dominance in search.

As for the Google response, FairSearch reported this:

Adam Kovacevich, a Google spokesman, would not acknowledge during the question-and-answer session that the search giant requires Android devices to use Google as the default search engine in order to be allowed to offer Android Market to consumers.

Athey asked Kovacevich: “So are you able to use the Android app store if you have Bing as the default. If Verizon was to make Bing the default, would they have access to all of Android?”

To which Kovacevich said: “That I don’t know.”

That gives you the impression that Kovacevich was somehow on the panel himself and being uncertain about whether what Athey said was true or not. He was pretty clear. Athey was wrong. But the FairSearch coverage omitted that.

The Google Denial FairSearch Denied

In the video above, at 40 minutes in, Kovacevich says this:

I just want to clarify something that you said, that we require Android manufacturers to install Google as the default search. That is just not true.

That straight-up denial didn’t make it into FairSearch’s recap. Nor did Kovacevich explaining the situation with the Kindle Fire, or that there are other devices where Google isn’t the default. Nor Kovacevich saying again, “We never require that.”

In response, Athey backpedals. She shifts from having made a clear-cut declaration that Google absolutely banned carriers or manufacturers from having Android devices without Google search to asking Kovacevich if he knows if there are incentives to push Google search.

She’s the consultant who just attacked Google. Shouldn’t she know this? Her main question was if you could use the Android app store (officially now called Google Play), if Verizon made Bing the default.

The answer, by the way, should be yes. Yes, because that’s exactly how the Samsung phone I mentioned earlier works. The Kindle Fire doesn’t work that way, because Amazon wants to use its own app store. But it probably could.

Kovacevich response to her about the Google Play question was “I don’t know,” and that’s not surprising, because Google Play might not be considered these days part of the Android source code. I don’t know myself (it’s a weird situation that doesn’t seem to come up much). He reiterated again, however, that the statement he was correcting was about the search default.

Microsoft’s Own Correction Not Corrected

Despite clearly not knowing the situation herself with Google Play, Athey nonetheless goes on to say “So very very strong incentives that might make it economicially unviable to use Bing would be a correction.”

Oh, a correction? Not that FairSearch mentioned that she corrected her earlier misstatement. Nor is her correction even necessarily true. After all, Bing is on the new Kindle Fire. Amazon and Microsoft are clearly finding some viability to do a deal there.

Microsoft has also cut plenty of deals to be the default on search over the years in various places. Google doesn’t even always win (as with the last Dell deal).

Meanwhile, Confusion With Asus

As a related note, there was news today that Google threaten to pull Acer’s “Android license” if Acer partnered to make a smartphone using the Aliyun OS from Alibaba. Well, that’s how one report went. That came off an Alibaba blog post, now pulled but which said according to this copy:

A Sept. 13 news conference announcing the China launch of a high-end Acer smartphone running a cloud operating system made by Alibaba Group was abruptly canceled after Google, owner of the Android OS, threatened to cancel Acer’s license to use Android for its other phones if the launch went ahead.

Google doesn’t own Android nor is there any “Android” license that Google can enforce, given that Android is open to anyone to use.

Google could, however, choose not to work with partners on Google-branded devices, which might be the case with the Acer situation. That’s the impression I get of what might be happening from reading this Reuters report (we’re checking with Google for more. Also, I briefly had up that this involved Asus rather than Acer, sorry!).

Google can be influential in helping to certify products as being Android-compatible (an issue with Skyhook, and something that should raise concerns about Google) and certainly about pushing its money or brand around to get things favorable to the company. That’s true of many big companies. It can certainly be attacked on these fronts, too.

FairSearch Seems Little About Being Fair

Indeed, as a big company, there’s plenty that Google does that leaves it vulnerable to criticisms, such as its growth in offering direct content. There’s really no need to just be making stuff up, as I witnessed happening on the panel today.

Moreover, I think I’d have a lot more respect for the complaints Google competitors have against the company if they weren’t part of the FairSearch facade. The organization seems little to do with actually seeking fairness in a discussion about search fairness.

Personally, I’d either like to see Microsoft drop out of the group (and fight Google, when it feels necessary, in its own name) or for Google itself to apply for membership in FairSearch. I wonder if it would be accepted.

Postscript (Sept. 14): I am checking further on the entire Google Play situation. It wasn’t something that Athey initially used in any type of qualification in her statement. But I’m as curious as anyone. The terms for the Android source code say that devices that aren’t deemed Android-compatible (something that Google itself decides) aren’t granted access to Google Play:

Google Play is a service operated by Google. Achieving compatibility is a prerequisite for obtaining access to the Google Play software and branding. Device manufacturers should contact Google to obtain access to Google Play.

That says nothing about denying it simply because you change search away from Google. Potentially, Google could deem that a device that doesn’t use Google search as the default isn’t Android-compatible. But I’ve never, ever, heard of that happening.

Related, Google own apps for YouTube, Google Maps, Gmail and others not specifically named in the terms are licensed separately. From the terms:

The Google apps for Android, such as YouTube, Google Maps and Navigation, Gmail, and so on are Google properties that are not part of Android, and are licensed separately.

This means someone could build an Android-compatible device but still not be allowed to use Google’s own apps in it. This, still, isn’t something Athey qualified her initial statement with, in any way. Nor is it necessarily a barrier. Certainly two of the phones I described above had both Google apps but search from others.

Postscript 2 (Sept. 14): I’m still waiting answers from Google and Microsoft. In particular, I asked Microsoft if there were any Android phones out there where they had a deal to use Bing. While I was waiting, I headed over to the Verizon site, to see if I could figure it out for myself.

Currently, none of the major makers like Samsung or Motorola seem to use Bing as the default. As covered, even Microsoft no longer seems to suggest that this is because Google overtly bans it, as was claimed initially on this panel. Whether it’s because the only way to get use of Google Play isn’t clear, either way.

However, Verizon does currently sell the Casio G’zOne Commando, and the product page for that says it uses Bing as the default search engine. The phone notably doesn’t use Android logo or name. However, it is Android and also does have support for Google Play.

Postscript 3: On the Acer situation, see our follow-up story, Google: Acer Is OHA Member, So Can’t Work On “Non-Compatible Android” Like Aliyun.

Postscript 4: One further fresh article, What Is The One True Android & How “Open” Is It?, which takes a bigger picture look in the wake of the Acer situation. Nothing with Acer, however, changes the fact that there is no requirement for Android devices, “compatible” or not.

Related Articles

Related Topics: Channel: Industry | FairSearch | Features: Analysis | Google: Antitrust | Google: Business Issues | Microsoft: Bing | Microsoft: Business Issues | Top News


About The Author: is a Founding Editor of Search Engine Land. He’s a widely cited authority on search engines and search marketing issues who has covered the space since 1996. Danny also serves as Chief Content Officer for Third Door Media, which publishes Search Engine Land and produces the SMX: Search Marketing Expo conference series. He has a personal blog called Daggle (and keeps his disclosures page there). He can be found on Facebook, Google + and microblogs on Twitter as @dannysullivan.

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn


Get all the top search stories emailed daily!  


Other ways to share:

Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion. Comments using foul language, being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion will be deleted. Comments may also be removed if they are posted from anonymous accounts. You can read more about our comments policy here.
  • TarassisDeray62
  • Tyler Herrick

    The ineptitude of that woman maddens me, she may be a whiz at economics, but clearly has no idea how OPEN-SOURCE Android works. Sure, lying to people 15 years ago was easier; in today’s age though? Rhetoric propaganda. As long as I can type a URL to any search engine in an address bar on the neutral web, fair competition is afoot.
    “Google pays for default search” said Susan Athey. Don’t singers sign exclusive contracts with recording companies? Don’t distributors sign exclusive deals with suppliers? IF you want to use THIS browser, by DEFAULT we use Google search, however, here is a setting that allows you to customize it to whatever you want.
    Blame the stupid user that doesn’t know how to use a computer, not the companies that provide choices…
    “So if you’re looking ahead and worrying about that, you realize this is an opportunity to have your position disrupted.” (@32:20~) Wow, what a statement that was. That’s like saying, if you’re not looking forward, you’re going to trip. Well thank you captain obvious. What company doesn’t evolve with the times? Oh wait, the failed ones.

  • cooldoods

    Does Windows Phone allow Google to be selected as the default search engine?

  • Carl Clay

    For Microsoft something is fair only if it services their interests.

  • Danny Sullivan

    On my Lumia 900, I don’t see an option for this within Internet Explorer or in settings in general. On my Verizon Galaxy Nexus, I can shift to Yahoo or Bing in addition to Google, which is the default.

  • cooldoods

    If it’s not possible, then I don’t see that Microsoft has anything to complain about

  • Ittiam

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry…. Heights of absurdity

    If fully open source and free Android cannot satisfy MS and its dogs, I dont know what will… Making bing default in Android?

  • atatata

    I do not get it. I have a big Samsung Galaxy from Google and I can not change default search engine which is obviously pre-installed Google search bar.
    From another point of view, even if it is possible to change default search engine, it means a little since studies were published that less 20percent of users change default setting. The fair setting would be like those established by European Comissioners to prevent monopoly of Microsoft in browsers, BEFORE installation users are asked what browser they want. The same must for mobile phone during activations users must be ask if they want Google, Bing, Ask, Yelp Whatever

  • Karthik kumar

    Love the humor at your end note, Danny. May be Google should go ahead and do it. :D I just wonder what the diplomatic reason for the rejection would be..

  • Raghd Hamzeh

    That has already been done.

  • Raghd Hamzeh

    They would probably require Google to send search results to Bing. You search “HP Laptop”, first result would be “Search for *HP Laptop* on Bing!”

  • Lily Weng
  • Nathaniel Bailey

    Yeah I don’t think they would let Google in Danny, not with so many
    members being involved with MS (they will like vote not to accept
    googles membership).

    Why would MS want bing to be the default on
    android anyway? A. They already have bing as the default on windows
    phones, B. The large percentage of android users would simply change
    back to google as default anyway because they are much better!

    Side note, Danny I think you missed out change Asus to Acer in the title for that section of the article ;)

    P.S. FairSearch my ass!!! They should simply change the name for MSFavouredSearch and be done with it!!

  • jnffarrell1

    Brought to you by the people who hired a camera man to simulate the focus of Nokia.

  • Danny Sullivan

    No, the Google search widget can’t be changed. It can be removed. I think it would require Samsung to create or work with Bing to have a similar Bing widget. You can, however, change the default search within the browser to Bing.

  • Danny Sullivan

    Thanks, got it fixed, Nathaniel.

    Microsoft would love to be the default because of the extra traffic. But as you say, people might change. In fact, after Microsoft was made the default search on Verizon BlackBerries, a little uprising started with people demanding to know how to get Google back. Verizon even had to do a blog post about it.

  • Bob Bigellow

    If it’s not possible, I will never get a Windows Phone.

  • Knowles2

    That never stop Microsoft from complaining in the past. I do not see it stopping them now.

  • Knowles2

    Cant you download new widgets of Google Play?, if you can, then it surely it up to Microsoft to release a Bing Widget.

  • Knowles2

    So this is all about fair search, which I take to mean fair as in unbiased an accurate, now if Microsoft cant get it facts straight about one of it rivals, a relatively little thing called research should be able to solve, which a academic should be pretty good at doing, then how can we trust Bing to be fair, unbiased and accurate?

    Microsoft have tried everything to avoid a direct open confrontation with Google, you would think Microsoft is scared of Google.

  • Kaushalya Madhawa

    Still they are the cry babies lagging behind Android and iOS.
    First give a reason why one should switch to bing?

  • jnffarrell1

    Another misinfomercial from MSs old style PR team. I am neither surprised or delighted.

  • Nelson D

    Danny, carrying the water once again for his overlords, forgets about the what it appears and what it is in reality. Android appears open source and manufacturers can do what they want but in reality Google will cut off anyone that doesn’t use Google tool. Just ask Skyhook about using non-Google tech on Android. Or Acer that was threatened this week by Google over Alibaba’s Mobile OS.

    On paper and according to his proclamations Danny Sullivan is actually a journalist. In reality however he is a just another Matt Cutts (This is not meant as a compliment, although Danny is awed by Matt and his ability to lie through his teeth)

  • Nelson D

    Poor Danny, he is a kamikaze for Google, burning his credibility one blog post at a time:

    “Android phones must adhere to a “compatibility” standard determined by
    Google. In an e-mail on Aug. 6, 2010, Dan Morrill, a manager in the
    Android group, noted in passing that it was obvious to the phone makers
    that “we are using compatibility as a club to make them do things we

    “After we announced our deal with Motorola, Google went crazy,” said Ted
    Morgan, Skyhook’s chief executive. “That’s when Google went looking for
    compatibility compliance issues.”

    “Are there any seeds we can plant with Motorola’s P.R. team to that
    effect?” wrote Andy Mathis, a Google manager. “Perhaps there is language
    we can plant with them for a blog post?”

    More here “Google is allegedly playing hardball with its
    Android partners.

    The company forced Acer to drop its support of Alibaba’s new mobile
    operating system, Aliyun, threatening to pull its Android-related
    cooperation and support if Acer didn’t, according to a report from the Dow Jones Newswires.

    Acer was originally scheduled to hold a press conference today to show
    off a smartphone running on Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba’s Aliyun
    platform, but it cancelled the event. Acer told Dow Jones that it will
    continue to talk with Google and hopes to still use Aliyun.”

    Take a hike Danny Sullivan! Go tell those Google PR lies to others.

  • Danny Sullivan

    I mentioned exactly that about Skyhook. It’s right there at the end, which you probably blew past.

    And the Kindle Fire alone actually demonstrates that no, you can use non-Google tech on a device. If you’ve actually used one (I have), this is self-evident.

  • Danny Sullivan

    It’s right there in my story:

    “Google can be influential in helping to certify products as being Android-compatible (an issue with Skyhook, and something that should raise concerns about Google)”

    Did you just completely miss that part?

  • Danny Sullivan

    Widgets don’t get listed in Google Play that I can see. They seem to be a device specific option, as best I can tell.

  • IamTheFij

    Quote 1: Yes, for Co-Branding. Google won’t let you use their NAME if you don’t. You can still use the software. It’s public. I have seen Android running on many devices that aren’t even phones and have nothing to do with Google.

    Also, Google is free to decide not to partner with someone for any reason at all. That is could be arbitrary. Acer could still say, “That’s fine, we’ll build our own device like Amazon did.” But I think they wan’t Google because consumers want Google.

    You even quoted it there. They threatened to pull their “cooperation and support”. That doesn’t stop them from doing whatever they want with the software on their own.

  • IamTheFij
  • IamTheFij

    “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git:// ; repo sync ; make”

    Boom. Now you have Android. You have the full source code. You can customize it however you want and release it on any device you want.

    Best part is… you don’t even have to tell Google you are doing it! How cool is that!?

    Let me try this one:
    mkdir winphone ; cd winphone ; repo init -u git://

    No luck. So what were you saying about open?

  • Dare Obasanjo

    This article is disappointing because it is an example of the new age of rushing to publish news instead of doing actual journalism by getting the facts.

    The statements by Susan Athey are generally that lots of people use mobile search via the default search engines on their devices and in Microsoft’s experience OEMs and carriers with Google deals (e.g. anyone who is in the inner circle that can get pre-release builds of Android during development versus waiting for AOSP to be updated with the latest bits) have had exclusive deals with Google that require that Google search is the default.

    Nothing in the claimed “debunking” in this article actually contradicts here statements. This is sad since it is straightforward for Danny to have reached out to Google, key Android OEMs or key carriers to get this question answered. Instead Danny references the Amazon Kindle Fire which is a fork of the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) which by definition doesn’t have an exclusive deal with Google. As for the two branded Android phones referenced in this article, the Motorola Backflip was a Motoblur device from Motorola’s era of ‘customizing Android’. The question is whether today, Motorola can make a deal to switch the default search engine to Bing now that they are a Google division? The same goes for the Verizon Fascinate (also known as the Samsung Galaxy s in other markets). Does or can Verizon today replace the search engine on Android devices from Google to Bing?

    The questions above would be what would be considered a debunking of the statements by Susan Athey. This article as it stands is an example of “rushed”, gotcha journalism that subtracts instead of adds to the dialog.

  • Danny Sullivan

    Dare, what’s sad to me is that Athey — your chief economist at Microsoft — made an unqualified statement that Microsoft was blocked from doing search deals on Android when that was clearly not the case.

    The Backflip was an Android device without Google Search. Fact.

    The Samsung Fascinate was an Android device without Google Search. Fact.

    Both of those alone counter what she said. I don’t know how you get around this. What she said was wrong. In fact, she — when actually called on it by Google — said it was wrong.

    Despite that, FairSearch — which Microsoft backs — chose not to include her denial. If I hadn’t written this article, then FairSearch would likely have kept pointing to that statement to build this idea that Google insists on search in all Android devices, when it doesn’t.

    It’s similar to how people often say that Bing is the default in IE, when that’s not the case. I’m sure you know this. The default will usually depend on what deal has been cut with what OEM.

    When I see people incorrectly saying (usually with some hostility) that Microsoft forces Bing on people in IE, I correct that. I correct it, because it’s wrong. And what Athey said was wrong, as well. That’s why she corrected herself. You just wouldn’t know that if you read the FairSearch summary — which is also wrong.

    I am, however, checking specifically on the current situation with both Google and Microsoft. Google already said — as I explained — that they don’t insist on Google search in Android devices. But sure, I’ll ask a second time. I’m also asking Microsoft if they’ve actually been told this and stand by Athey’s original statement, plus what’s the current situation with its deal with Verizon (it has another year or two to run, and it can cover some Android phones, to my understanding — as it did before).

  • Nelson D

    “Google Doesn’t Require Google Search On Android, Despite What FairSearch & Microsoft Want You To Believe”

    No but read your headline and the purpose of the article, not a sentence buried deep. That’s you MO as a Google kamikaze blogger, insert a sentence here and there and then claim to be impartial based on that. So what is “require” and what is “can be influential” ?

    If they threaten you with excommunication from the Android community and major loss of revenue, is that “can be influential,” or “require” ? The mafia doesn’t require you to do what they say, but they break your legs unless you do what they say.

  • stref

    Dare, I follow/respect your writings (have for a long time) and simply have to admit it’s disingenuous at best to read about MS complaining of being locked out. Especially after reading Danny’s follow-up comment calling out what he’s found and offering to double check his work. Having worked on Dev tools at Borland and competing directly with MS VS for years I know first hand the advantages MS offers it’s own tools but those issues impact too few people for anyone to notice/care. Btw, the timing of this piece by Dvorak couldn’t be better: “Microsoft does the Silicon Valley Shuffle”

  • Danny Sullivan

    The headline is fine. Microsoft’s chief economist made that statement. FairSearch, which is backed by Microsoft, reported it without noting the error. The purpose of my article was to correct that error.

    More broadly, I write critical articles about Google all the time, including about Android. See the list of related articles at the end of my piece above.

    You seem to be under the mistaken notion that I’m somehow sitting around thinking “Oh dear, I can’t write anything negative about Google, or they won’t talk to me.”

    I’m not, and just some of the articles above that I’ve written self-evidently speak to that. It also would make no sense to do that given Microsoft runs a major search engine that I report on. Taking such an approach, just being nice to Google in hopes of some type of coverage, risks alienating Microsoft.

    More important, it risks alienating my readers and frankly just isn’t how I operate. I’m calling things as I see it, and if Google doesn’t like it, if Microsoft doesn’t like it, that’s too bad. I’m not writing stuff for their benefit. I’m writing for my readers.

  • Derek Abbring

    I spent 4 years working for that company, looks like the fails at microsux’s are at it again. I will never understand why people are loyal to a company that has a historic track record of ripping companies and people off…yet they stand by “believing” any word that comes from the top level of microsoft…

    This is just a way for them to get around slander through marketing…that’s all this is, if your the little guy (bing) you spread false word around about the top dog (google) to try and gain some buzz and some traffic. Then, since they have an unlimited advertisement budget, they are backing that up with a national TV/hulu campaign focused around “bing it on” which is just a remake of the coca-cola & Pepsi challenge.

    Unfortunately for microsux’s though, when you look at the market-share, Microsoft is not pepsi in this situation with bing, they would be more like diet rite cola.

  • Hpdirty

    And you? A M$ employee?

  • Danny Sullivan

    I suggest you go back and read some of the articles I listed above. I criticize Google about all types of things all the time.

    In fact, it’s been kind of laughable. I write a post defending Google, others ask why I’m all anti-Google.

    I write a post critical about Google; I get people asking why I’m all anti-Google.

    Of course, an anti-Google post spoils the whole view the “he’s pro-Google crowd” wants to have, so then you have to have an entire new biased/conspiracy line: he only occasionally writes anti-Google posts on things that don’t matter.

    Click on my name above. You’ll get a list of all the articles I’ve written. Do the same on Marketing Land. Actually go through them. There is plenty critical and on substantial topics.

    The reality is, as I explained in another comment, I’m not aiming to write either pro-Google or anti-Google pieces. I’m aiming to explain things related to search and search marketing for my readers, clarifying and calling out where it makes sense.

    That’s my business. Writing for my readers.

  • jafu888

    I download widgets from play. Go to Play and search for widgets

  • Danny Sullivan

    Wilhelm, see the postscripts. We didn’t know the stick they were beating Acer with, and as it turns out, it wasn’t over being not able to use the Android name or logo. It was over not being part of the Open Handset Alliance, which in turn gives it a closer relationship with Google. The links in postscripts 3 and 4 go into depth about this, including the entire trademark thing.

  • Alan

    “Those two strikes alone make you question how much you can trust anything Athey says”

    How much can we trust you Danny? You are obviously to close to Matt Cutts. As videos like this go to show You are not exactly unbiased, even your apparent attack on Google to the FTC was spurred on by your annoyance at NexTag. Yes google will get some blowback but your motivation was not to have a go at google but at nextag. Yet then you hide behind your letter to the FTC as a shield against people who think you are Google Pawn.

    I understand you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. There is a simple way to clear the air, write a post that states your honest and personal position on Google.

  • poordann

    danny googles cherleader. Google has eliminated all it’s would be middle-class and poor internet entrepreneurs and given their share to internet giants like retailmenot and all it’s other investments

  • poordann

    I used to be able to employ 12 people, now Google has taken from small business and given more to big business, trickle down internet economics doesn’t work just like it doesnt work in brick and mortar. Google has a lot to do with are sluggish economy.
    Once a big business has so much money they don’t hire more or help grow economy, the extra money is just paid out to the people on the top who just let it sit in their banks as apposed to a small business creating jobs and expanding and spending money to grow, how could anyone support a business that has a lot to do with our countries decline.

Get Our News, Everywhere!

Daily Email:

Follow Search Engine Land on Twitter @sengineland Like Search Engine Land on Facebook Follow Search Engine Land on Google+ Get the Search Engine Land Feed Connect with Search Engine Land on LinkedIn Check out our Tumblr! See us on Pinterest


Click to watch SMX conference video

Join us at one of our SMX or MarTech events:

United States


Australia & China

Learn more about: SMX | MarTech

Free Daily Search News Recap!

SearchCap is a once-per-day newsletter update - sign up below and get the news delivered to you!



Search Engine Land Periodic Table of SEO Success Factors

Get Your Copy
Read The Full SEO Guide