• http://www.searchmarketingcommunications.com Tim Cohn

    Are utilities not allowed to use their own feedstock?

  • http://www.planetc1.com/ chiropractic

    I find it hard to believe “we built Google for users, not websites” holds true today. Appears more like Google builds where they believe they can increase advertising, and then rallies around that idea.

  • http://www.geocast.com Colin Bruce

    A simple suggestion would be to force google (and other search providers) to rank content in an egalitarian mechanism i.e. they can’t prefer their own solution unless their solution is the ranked solution.

    Nice in theory but almost impossible to police.

    That fact most Google pages are marked in their robots.txt as uncrawlable is very uncompetitive. Having your cake and eating it is abusing the monopoly.

  • http://steveridesabike.wordpress.com Stephen Palkot

    “A simple suggestion would be to force google (and other search providers) to rank content in an egalitarian mechanism i.e. they can’t prefer their own solution unless their solution is the ranked solution.”

    I also demand that Search Engine Land no longer internally link back to their stories. Or perhaps we can create an algorithm that objectively finds a resource on the topic to ensure that SEL doesn’t deprive other SEO publications of traffic. Or, other SEO publications can band together and file an FTC complaint against SEL for linking to its own material within stories.

    And you know what? I like the map in search results. It’s more convenient to type an address into the general search box in Firefox than to go into maps.google.com. Consider this Google user happy with “universal” search.

  • kangsu

    Isn’t Microsoft allowed to ship their own web browser? Oh wait, that’s what got MS in trouble.

    The real question is if Google is a monopoly. If it is then they play by different rules. And one of those rules is that they can’t use their monopoly (presumably keyword search) to leverage their position into new markets (e.g., local search).

  • http://fjpoblam fjpoblam

    MS had to react to the “browser favoritism” gripe by offering a choice of browsers at Windows install time. Browsers could react by offering a choice of default SE during each and every browser install (including each and every upgrade, just to be sure?).

    Given all this, how many users will “take the default” instead of considering that “competition is just a click away.”

  • David_lou

    “It has also been held by courts that the content of SERPs is an “editorial” arena protected by the First Amendment. So hypothetically Google could only show Google-related results and still be within the law.”

    That settles it. Google isn’t a traffic pump, and it’s not obligated to send traffic to anyone, it’s obligated to give answers and if you don’t like it point you browser elsewhere.

  • http://www.jaankanellis.com Jaan Kanellis
  • pjhile

    Blog publishers shouldn’t be permitted, it seems to me, to manipulate social media links to punish other publishers or competitors. What if these authors end up linking back to their own sites and not to their competitors? /s

  • http://www.geocast.com Colin Bruce

    If the MS monopoly had been allowed to continue then the Internet would not be the entity it is today. Failure to understand the concept and implications of monopoly (however it was arrived at) is very risky.

    Most people were perfectly happy to use the IE browser – why did they care that MS was being forced to unbundle? Sites still loaded as far as they were concerned. If that had been allowed to continue you can imagine the software that would have been forced upon us…

    This is not an end user issue. Never has been and never will be. Users want simplicity, they are apathetic and habitual. That user’s wanted simplicity was the MS argument. In the process of monopoly busting you may create a short term situation where the end user is worse off. This is a service provider issue and concerns the control Google has over almost every website in the world.

  • pjhile

    @Colin Bruce, If the MS monopoly had been allowed to continue, the Internet might be a much better entity than it is today. Failure to understand the implications of the monopoly on use of force is much more risky than whining about a company’s market share.

    Being an open standard/source guy, I would have loved to see MS raise their prices/bundling/etc. to the point where people were begging for alternatives. Instead, users described as ‘apathetic and habitual’ are voting on how to bully businesses around. In the end, after mountains of regulations stifle innovation and competition to a breaking point, we’ll all end up losing out.