back to article The Schmidt hits the clan: Google chief mauls publishers' 'abuse of dominance' claims

Google's exec chairman Eric Schmidt has hit back at publishers for complaining about the multinational's alleged dominance in the search market in Europe in a series of splashy newspaper ads today. He said in a blog post this morning that the "serious nature" of the claims - that Google favours its own search products, such as …

  1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Facepalm

    "Antitrust" ... misused as regularly as "Antisemitism".

    In other news, my care-o-meter is at zero.

    What is this about? Users unable to even search properly (maybe we should set up federally sponsored search courses)? "Publishers" too irrelevant and out-of-touch to even get found (maybe we should set up a federally sponsored publishers' shelter)? Persistent inability of ad aggregators to get their "fair share" of ad clickthroughs? Inability of the french search engine "froggle" to take off? Oh the humanity!

    Also:

    Axel Springer CEO calling anything Mafia? IRONY GOLD!

    1. SuccessCase

      Re: "Antitrust" ... misused as regularly as "Antisemitism".

      Google claim their algorithms are applied equally to all sites, with no special cases. But here's the problem: what if Google decree it is in the customer's interest that the algorithm selects universally and without discrimination for sites beginning with a Y and ending in an E and in Google's opinion that serves user interest best. Hmmm Vimeo isn't going to fare so well but YouTube will do just fine. Ok well perhaps that's a bit too crude and Google would never do that (even though we have no way of knowing for sure), because, if we did know, it would be clearly indefensible; perhaps the algorithm selects for sites with video's that have the most comments. Oh wow, wadaya know; again YouTube comes out on top.

      Now let's say Vimeo adapt their website, encourage lots of commenting and just happen to meet the criteria, such that they are favoured by Google's algorithm (even though they can never be sure because the algorithm is secret). But hold on, Google, who tweak their algorithms all the time, suddenly "decide" user interest is best met by prioritising Video's where image analysis indicates they have been taken from an angle indicating the video is a selfie, and oh, since video comments are asinine and put right minded people off, they will be de-prioritised. This algorithm change is applied equally to all websites and without discrimination. Google say "hand on heart, we are just doing what the users want most" and since that is a matter of opinion and video comments are truly asinine, who's to argue? And YouTube it just so happens has many more selfie videos than Vimeo. But honest guv it's all being done in the best interests of the user, selfie videos are really popular these days and the word has even made it into the Oxford English Dictionary and everything.

      Clearly I have provided some crude example algorithmic rules to illustrate the point, but the point is, hopefully, clear: Google's claim that they don't discriminate against competitors with their algorithms and apply their rules universally is spin, on a spinning top, on a roundabout, it means less than absolutely nothing; It is disingenuous and treats the people they are saying it too as fools. But it appears some people swallow the line anyway. So Google it seems, do in certain key regards, understand their audience.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Antitrust" ... misused as regularly as "Antisemitism".

        Google's claim that they don't discriminate against competitors with their algorithms and apply their rules universally is spin, on a spinning top, on a roundabout, it means less than absolutely nothing; It is disingenuous and treats the people they are saying it too as fools

        A short summary is that Google DOES modify its algorithm (and has admitted this frequently, usually under the guise of trying to undo SEO gaming) and we only have their word for it that those changes are not anti-competitive and universal. The last time I trusted a US company to speak the truth without independent verification is too long ago for me to remember.

        However, I can understand how Google got the idea that people will buy that explanation: just see how long that "Do no evil" meme lasted. Heck, we STILL have people believing this and fanatically defending them online... As I said before, to me they are MS v2. The same tricks, the same delusions, the same willingness to drop a lot of dollars to make problems go away, the same comfort in breaking laws, the same effortless spin when caught - the only difference is that Google started with a truly unique product that is still best in class, their search engine.

        To be brutally frank, I am surprised to see that there is still no real competition to that - anyone an idea why?

        1. tom dial Silver badge

          Re: "Antitrust" ... misused as regularly as "Antisemitism".

          "I am surprised to see that there is still no real competition to that - anyone an idea why?"

          Other than the obvious one that the competitors haven't a clue how to do it as well? After all, nobody is forced by anything but habit to "google" anything; they could as easily "bing" it or "yahoo!" it, but those who try it usually will have found that the result, although often close, generally fail to be either equal or superior to those Google returns.

          The complainants are mostly would be competitors who want Google hobbled so they can succeed where their own efforts are deficient to what the web users want. The remainder are poor souls who envy success that is not theirs.

        2. andyUK

          Re: "Antitrust" ... misused as regularly as "Antisemitism".

          As David Icke states, big companies like Google display classic psychopathic tendencies.

          Denial, effortless spin (otherwise known as lies), ruthlessness, stating one thing while doing the opposite, anything to achieve the desired goal.

          1. Rikkeh

            Re: "Antitrust" ... misused as regularly as "Antisemitism".

            Icke also states that the Queen displays classic being a lizard from outer space tendancies, so maybe he's not a good person to quote about....anything.

            A big company also has diminished empathy and remorse, two other key psychopathic tendencies. A table (or any other inanimate object) also has these personality traits. Maybe that's because they're not things that can feel emotion/empathy (making the whole "X is a psychopath" wholly devoid of meaning).

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Antitrust

              A person can be completely wrong about one thing and completely right about another. I completely disagree with David Icke about lizard people running the world. I have not seen enough evidence to convince me.

              However, I have seen more than enough evidence to know Google manipulates their search results.

            2. andyUK

              Re: "Antitrust" ... misused as regularly as "Antisemitism".

              But the big difference is a big company is able to act in a ruthless, psychopathic way, using their power and influence to attain more power and influence (and money).

              A table is not, unless you count when it moves just enough to stub your toe on the leg

        3. sisk

          Re: "Antitrust" ... misused as regularly as "Antisemitism".

          To be brutally frank, I am surprised to see that there is still no real competition to that - anyone an idea why?

          Because word hasn't gotten around outside of the IT community about DuckDuckGo yet.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "maybe we should set up a federally sponsored publishers' shelter? "

    We have. It's called the EU. And in this case they'll decide that it somehow "isn't fair" that Google's search engine points to Google's other services. But for us in the EU, regardless what the gravy-trainers of Brussels decide we can simply use google.com

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      ...we can simply use google.com

      And keep adding variations on where we are in the hope of getting even the occasional link to somewhere or one not in the USA. Getting pissed off with it myself!

  3. i like crisps
    Megaphone

    'To date, no regulator has objected to our search tactics'.

    Is that because Google has bribed or infiltrated them all Eric?

    (just a question, thats all).......i know....i'll 'Google It'.

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: 'To date, no regulator has objected to our search tactics'.

      Why do you think he's so anxious to get this over and done with before Almunia moves on?

      Allegedly.

    2. SuccessCase

      Re: 'To date, no regulator has objected to our search tactics'.

      No, he's being categoric. He can read their emails and see all their searches. Even it though most don't directly use Google Mail, there is likely a co-worker or contractor somewhere copied in and forwarding some work-load to a home email address or storing draft reports in Google drive such that Schmidt can be sure. Wouldn't it be strange if an unfriendly regulators predilection for prostitutes and young boys is exposed, to just the right people who could bring that person down, but hey Google, a private company who have probably almost the whole world's contact list network would never do such a thing; even though there are no guarantees they wouldn't and they certainly have the means to excerpt such influence and massage the supply of information through mutual contacts. Oh and that regulator who has no obvious personal weaknesses. Hell! He's so good the man deserves a new job. Contacts x,y or z should be just the ticket, affect introductions etc.

      Of course I have no indication or evidence any of these suggestions are remotely true. But if they were, that would make Google more powerful than any single private entity in the US military-industrial complex; including Blackwater. Oh and they are separated from seizing such power by, er, an open door, so there's no temptation there then.

  4. Spoonsinger

    RE: "it’s not the case that Google is "the gateway to the internet" as the publishers suggest."

    Just Googled this, and apparently he's wrong. (which I suspect is the way the article was going towards anyway).

  5. handle

    "The most downloaded app in Europe is not Google, it is Facebook Messenger"

    That's because on the majority of devices Google doesn't have to be downloaded - it's already there!

  6. Terry 6 Silver badge

    It works

    I have tried many times to move away from Google. (My new phone is not an Android/Google phone).

    But I usually come back to them. There are a few noticeable exceptions (Nokia's routing on the phone is really good). But I have to accept that Google gives me the information I need and other engines still give me the information they want me to have, like in the bad old days.

    1. Shannon Jacobs
      Holmes

      Alternatives to Android

      Unfortunately, the options did not seem viable to me. These days we have to pick among the various flavors of EVIL to find the one that seems least bad. The main reason I stayed with Android this time was because the google doesn't have the same degree of stranglehold on Android that the other options suffer from...

      Freedom is about meaningful and unconstrained choice. We have precious little freedom these days. Politics or consumer products, we're forced to pick the options that merely seem less bad than the others.

      1. sisk

        Re: Alternatives to Android

        It's possible to get a phone with a forked version of Android and no Google utils on it. That's probably your best option since the only other smartphone options are either aged to the point of irrelevance (Blackberry, Palm, Symbian) or at least as evil and possibly more so than Google (WinPhone, iOS).

        And yes, I realize Blackberry is still updating, but the recent BBs I've seen just don't stand up to other current smart phone offerings in terms of features and app libraries.

  7. Richard Jones 1
    Flame

    Search Results that Contain new Search Engines are crap

    If I am searching for something, lets call it a stop widget I want to find a place that can SUPPLY a stop widget. I most clearly DO NOT WANT a list of second rate search sites that may link me to other second rate search sites that may link me to yet more second rate search sites, but never tell me how I can get the item. I also DO NOT WANT the Hotel Stop Widget as a search option, though Google have managed to kill of most of that stupidity.

    Before anyone asks, yes I have had that experience when searching for rare, obsolete items, you end up with some half baked silly site that claims to have the item but only lists even more stupid sites that DO NOT have what I need.

    Customer service would be improved if I could bar all listings for secondary search sites, if this option appears I might unblock the Google cookies to allow it to work.

    1. Tom 35

      Re: Search Results that Contain new Search Engines are crap

      If you searched for a manual or driver Google used to send you to fake search sites that always had what you searched for even if you just make it up, but would just send you to ad filled pages that claimed the the thing you wanted was just one more click away.

      That and the shopping comparison sites with 20 different domains all linked to the same crap data.

      Bing used to be better for that type of search, but it got much worse, and google got better.

    2. Ole Juul

      Re: Search Results that Contain new Search Engines are crap

      We show the results at the top that answer the user's queries directly Schmidt said. That's a lie just plain wrong. I get commercial and popular results at the top. Also if I use negatives like "NOT" in my search string, Google ignores them. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Schmidt's meaning of the word "directly".

      1. Jordan Davenport

        Re: Search Results that Contain new Search Engines are crap

        Google supports Boolean operators, though they're not as user-friendly as the rest of their natural language search. You use a hyphen, as in a minus sign, in front of the word or quoted string instead of the word "NOT".

        Oddly though, I actually got more results on an order of magnitude when I just searched for "everything -porn" instead of "everything". Who knew?

    3. Dave Bell

      Re: Search Results that Contain new Search Engines are crap

      There are any number of bad business directory sites that show far too many dead businesses, but those entries get picked up by Google, perhaps because they show maps and images from Google sources such as Streetview.

      And the sites show adverts which may have been provided through a Google advert service, from which Google skims off a percentage of what the advertisers pay, so they have a motive to show links to the crap data.

      I have a suspicion that some of the crap data is either invented by careless searching: these business directories seem to grab business info from anywhere with no checks, or are copyright-theft evidence that nobody cares about. If there wasn't the Streetview picture, one business name would look like it came from a clumsy scan of a list of technical jargon, and it looks to have closed down several years ago.

      But it's still a source of page-views to charge an advertiser for.

    4. Mike Flugennock

      Re: Search Results that Contain new Search Engines are crap

      I've been seeing that a lot more lately, too... almost a throwback to the early/mid '90s, when we had a running joke about searching for search engines to search for search engines.

  8. Chris G

    Monopoly

    I have no doubt that as far as it can, Google operates in a monopolistic way, however, if I owned Google and had spent significant time and money making my product perform better than those of anyone else, I too would point to the services which offer the best results and hopefully they would be mine.

    The down side for competitors is that Google is so big it can continue to develop new ways of doing things better so it is difficult for them the catch up or surpass Google, although that doesn't mean it can't happen. if and when it does the new 'Gateway to the Internet' would most certainly operate in the same manner.

    I don't like all that Google serves up in it's search results because some of what comes up is more about the advertising they do with Google than the direct relevance to my search but Google does seem to operate better in general than others I have tried.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Monopoly

      Google are victims of their own success.

      They got monopolistic power by making products that are actually good.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Monopoly

        The problem is, when you don't know what the alternatives are because they are hard to find on Google then how can you say that there isn't a better option?

      2. Tom 13

        Re: Monopoly

        That is some, but not all of their success. Where they really monopolized the market was the Google Search page. Back in the days of dial up, if you were a tech, you set the browser home page to Google (especially IE). Unlike just about any other website there was almost nothing on the page except the search query. So you started the browser, and the page came up quickly. That confirmed you TCP/IP stack was working and provided a quick gateway to the rest of the internet. Once they established that dominance, there were better able to gather and analyze data for searching. Now that the dominance in searching is established, it is nearly impossible to displace them. Which isn't a bad thing is all you want to do is search. The problem is the same problem we have with MS: given a that a monopoly in one area generates a reliable cash flow, it is too easy for them to extend that monopoly into other areas where they couldn't gain dominance absent that reliable cash flow.

    2. Eric Olson

      Re: Monopoly

      At least in the US, there nothing wrong with a monopoly per se. You can be the dominant player in a given market and it's fine. The problem comes up when that monopoly (or any number of companies in a given market) conspire or use the 900lb gorilla routine to ensure they remain in a dominant position.

      So when Microsoft was making a mint off of Win 95, 98, and Office, that wasn't a problem. The problem was when they went out to Dell, Gateway, HP, Acer, etc. and used that position of dominance to strong-arm those OEMs into only loading MS products, threatening to raise prices, end licensing agreements, or played market participants against each other in hopes of keeping prices and volume higher than it might have been if said market participants had stepped out on MS for something else (*nix, Word Prefect, OS/2, etc.). If MS had just let those OEMs fall on their face for backing inferior or less successful products without interfering, no anti-trust action would have been taken. That's just market forces.

      That's not to say Google is innocent of things, and the actions between Apple and Google to artificially suppress wages for their top employees is an example of anti-trust violations even without either having a dominant position as the sole employer of said top employees. The point is that being a monopoly just means you have to tread carefully and just make sure you keep innovating and staying a step ahead of the competition, without raising the barriers to entry so high that people start sniffing around for collusion or conspiracy.

  9. Graham Marsden
    Big Brother

    We think it's ok...

    ... so don't worry your pretty little heads about it...

  10. Shannon Jacobs
    Holmes

    Freedom is about choice, not monopoly

    First, let me congratulate the google on their success, especially since most of it came before they knuckled under to the business rules of America, which demand cancerous growth of an EVIL sort.

    Having said that, they are now on the wrong side. Let's pose a thought experiment. What if you had a choice of which search engine to use? What if the google were divided into two (or more) companies, each of which started with an equal share of the resources and equal copies of the data. Then the new companies would independently start growing and improving, and there would be more choice and more freedom.

    Don't think of it as a penalty for success. Think of it as a reward in the form of reproduction, rather than death in the form of cancer. Every cancer ultimately destroys its host.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Freedom is about choice, not monopoly

      >> Having said that, they are now on the wrong side

      Explain why you think that.

      There a big company and sometimes do things I disagree with. But compared to others out there they seem to be positively saintly.

      Gimme some reasons because this thread is filled with stuff like... "Now of course I don't have any proof that Google rig their algorithms in this way but EVIL!!!!".

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Freedom is about choice, not monopoly

      No, they're not the cancerous rules of America, as you charmingly put it. They are the rules of the stock market, and in turn the society you choose to live in. You are right in some respects though. The great thing about it is that, certainly where the internet is concerned, companies almost always die in their quest for never ending riches. They all chase that single solitary goal of controlling it (Internet) and fuck themselves en route.

      Unfortunately, Google seems to be preparing pretty hard to get out of the internet business at some point - so we're probably stuck with them unless we all want to get together and come up with and then implement a plan to provide a real alternative to their search engine.

      Anyone up for that? Ah. Thought not.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I as a consumer, 99.9% of the time I am looking for information and am not buying anything. Other search engines think they are serving advertisers and that consumers should be buying something every time they search. Example, my father was searching for info on my mothers leukemia, there are 7 stages and most are not treated. You usually die of old age before this leukemia gets you (she is 85 and still doing fine). Any way, he search with MS before Bing and only came up with books to buy. He tried Google and got the one page summary of the 7 stages he wanted. MS lost him FOREVER, regardless of how many times they rebrand themselves. Google understands this.

  12. John Savard

    Gateway to the Internet

    The "Gateway to the Internet" is exactly what Google is for many people - simply because it has done its job as a search engine so well.

    I remember the days when I used the book "The Internet Yellow Pages" and AltaVista to find things. I still keep a lot of bookmarks in my browser so I don't have to Google whenever I go on the Internet. But Google is indeed how I usually find anything new, using other search engines only a tiny fraction of the time.

    1. AlanS

      Re: Gateway to the Internet

      I used to use Altavista and Yahoo in preference to Google, as they seemed to have better indexes for Britain. Then Google caught up and they are nowhere. I'm not bothered by targeted ads as 99% of my searches are for information, and for my (few) usual purchases I go direct to the company.

  13. unitron
    Holmes

    I do believe I've found the problem

    " (after all we built Google for users, not websites) "

    They did it the wrong way round--they need to create a search engine that lets a website find the users/readers/customers it wishes to have.

    You want someone who's ready to buy that latest model Acme Widget right now, not someone who's daydreaming or window shopping, and certainly not that annoying old coot looking for original parts and service information for a model that hasn't been produced since 1947.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Schmidt-head.

    The guy's an arse. He didn't even build Google up from the ground, he joined from Novell.

    1. Indolent Wretch

      Your right he should be allowed no opinion, official on unofficial, in any respect on the company he's working for, at all, forever.

      Nobody should be allowed to make any statements at IBM either because everybody who founded that company is dead.

  15. Stretch

    In the beginning...

    The Internet was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Google moved upon the face of the waters.

    And Google said, Let there be meaningful results: and there was meaningful results.

    And Google saw the results, and that they were good: and Google divided the results from the paid adverts.

    And the evening and the morning were the first day. And Google was the internet.

  16. Mike Flugennock
    Coffee/keyboard

    What's that, Mr. Schmidt? ...your WHAT hurts?

    I'm a Zen non-fuck-giver.

    Listen closely to the silence around me... the sound of one fuck not being given.

  17. Joel Cholakians

    Bring back 10 basic links and nothing else apart from paid adds on the side-lines and then you will be complying with the law. Simplez.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like