Should Google be able to pay to be the default search engine?

The US Department of Justice antitrust trial against Google began on 12 September 2023, seven weeks ago yesterday. One of the key considerations of the case is whether Alphabet's distribution agreements with device manufactures such as Apple amount to exclusionary conduct. The DOJ argues that Google is “a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet” through deals with hardware manufacturers and telephone company providers to install Google as the default search engine on their services.

A possible outcome might be that it would become illegal, for example, for Google to pay Apple to make Google the default search engine in Safari. This could mean a more explicit choice of search engine might be required.

For this week's poll, I ask if you believe search engines should be allowed or prohibited from paying to be the default search engine. Besides voting in the poll, I invite you to share your thoughts in a post.

There are lots of articles about this topic on the web. Here are a couple of examples:

Search Engine Land Google search antitrust trial updates: Everything you need to know (so far)
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Antitrust Suit Against Google is a Watershed Moment
Digiday: What if… Google loses its antitrust battle with the DOJ over its search market dominance?


Michael

I voted I'm not sure, I got a mixed opinion.

While monopolies are bad and all, and it would be cool if searches were spread over more search engines with more variations of algorithms, I kinda don't mind the idea of default search engine on devices.

The whole reason (I assume) Bing gets any searches is because Bing is the default search on new windows devices. Thinking about it that way, it kinda goes both ways. Since most people are going to use Google anyway, the Bing pre-configured default search engine on other devices may serve to give google some competition rather than only serving to uphold google's monopoly.

Prohibiting default search engines on hardware's pre-installed software could arguably hurt Bing more than Google.
Plus, such a restriction on manufactures may not be very practical, as virtual assistants like seri and alexa(and newer ai stuff that utilize search) sorta need a default search engine for a lot of their basic functions.

The question should not center around the perception of which engine is better but whether they are using their monopoly position to create a larger monopoly position by paying.

When bringing bing in to the mix and whether there is fairness of Microsoft adding bing (their search product) in to windows (their OS product), the comparison is not apples to apples.

Is Microsoft allowed to not allow or disable the ability to change from bing to google? No. Just as they are forced to allow other browser products to be installed or defaults changed.

On that point ask yourself, if Apple had their own search product, would apple use their own search product as the default on a macbook as well as an iphone? Of course they would. And apple fanboi's would be in uproar if they would be accused of exerting their power over the market.

I am not sure how I feel about whether it is ok for google to do this, obviously in a bidding war they could easily pay more.

I wonder if the case will lead to the point that apple will be forced to make changing the default search easier, or even forcing a first install setup choice easier.

I sorta feel a complete prohibition of payment for top placement might be an overstep.

Will be interesting to see feedback on this.

Rick
Universal4

Didn't Microsoft face similar accusations regarding its OS etc.

Why are the majority in this industry and others, 'slaves' to Google?
They've definitely positioned themselves in such a manner that they do indeed hold a major SE monopoly.

Whether this type of marketing-manipulation crosses the line, would depend on if it's being abused.

I read an article a few weeks back about smart-cars, and the information they can garnish from their owners. It's mind boggling. Should car manufacturers be able to access this personal information, use it, and in some cases, sell it to 3'rd parties.

There's so much covert, under the table deals being done, that I feel this DoJ v Google case, is only the tip of the iceberg per se.

Yes Microsoft did face similar charges a few times over the years. It led to them being more open about their browsers and other middleware.
Wiki on the case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Microsoft_Corp.
Computerworld's take on the decision
https://www.computerworld.com/articl...uncertain.html

Funny you mention smart cars, but EV's have issues in that it is nearly impossible to even charge them without a phone app that knows everything about you (except at home).

Is a search monopoly a good thing?
Their monopoly on media is growing at a huge rate as well.

Rick
Universal4

A definite no.

How different is paying to be a default search engine on a device any different from top FMCG brands paying for premium shelf space at major retail outlets?

Interesting point, they really only are paying for eye level shelf space aren't they?

Wonder if the outcome might be more awareness on changing search providers, or statements of offering alternatives. Even though in daftdog's example, stores are not forced to put a sign up that says, look on other shelves too.

Rick
Universsal4

Absolutely not. That shouldn’t even be a possibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman

The US Department of Justice antitrust trial against Google began on 12 September 2023, seven weeks ago yesterday. One of the key considerations of the case is whether Alphabet's distribution agreements with device manufactures such as Apple amount to exclusionary conduct. The DOJ argues that Google is “a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet” through deals with hardware manufacturers and telephone company providers to install Google as the default search engine on their services.

A possible outcome might be that it would become illegal, for example, for Google to pay Apple to make Google the default search engine in Safari. This could mean a more explicit choice of search engine might be required.

For this week's poll, I ask if you believe search engines should be allowed or prohibited from paying to be the default search engine. Besides voting in the poll, I invite you to share your thoughts in a post.

There are lots of articles about this topic on the web. Here are a couple of examples:

Search Engine Land Google search antitrust trial updates: Everything you need to know (so far)
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Antitrust Suit Against Google is a Watershed Moment
Digiday: What if… Google loses its antitrust battle with the DOJ over its search market dominance?


Michael

---

I have mixed feelings about this.

I believe that the fairest approach, if I may use that word, is to allow consumers to choose from various options, much like they do with the colour or other features of their devices. Personally, I don't see paying for being the default SE very different from other advertising strategies (both online and offline) where you pay to be in the same place and time as your potential customer. As long as the customer has the freedom to make a choice and can change it anytime., it's OK for me.

On the other hand, when we talk about a monopoly, is this the main reason why Google is one of the favourite search engines, or is it simply because people prefer it? In my case, I recently bought a computer, and the only thing I used the default search engine for was to download Google Chrome.