Check for monopoly

Anyone who will seriously argue that Google has not yet monopolized the Internet search market, I can only laugh in response. Such arguments do not stand up to serious criticism, and reports on the size of the market and revenues, which Google publishes quarterly, like any other public company, speak only about one thing - neither Bing, nor God, Yandex, nor even the new-fashioned Yelp (whose carry at least some utility only for residents of the United States and the United Kingdom) are not able to compete adequately with a company whose name has two “o's”. In a sense, the success of the latter is ensured by the popularity of the former, but this is my judgment, with which one can disagree.

But, as it is known, that which has not yet been written with a pen is doubly impossible to cut out with an ax. Therefore, any such attacks on Google, in the absence of an official conclusion of the US Antimonopoly Committee, can, and most likely will be, the fruit of someone’s inflamed fantasy. By a curious coincidence, it is quite possible that in a short time the competitors and haters of the company will have a well-founded reason to call the latter only “monopoly”. The US Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) is authorized to conduct an investigation into the company's main source of revenue, the advertising business built around Google's search engine.

What is even more surprising, for me personally, is the reluctance of Bryn and Page to appear at the August hearings in the Washington Senate, whose representatives are eager to hear answers to questions about Google’s market position, company policy, and also, obviously, to some other, more or less scrupulous questions. Even despite the "persistent recommendation" by representatives of the US executive to come to the hearing one of the two, and preferably a pair of the company's founders, they send the head of the legal department David Drummond (David Drummond), whose profession is to answer questions from anything. In addition to the above position, in which he has been listed since 2002, Drummond is also the vice-president for corporate development and is engaged, among other things, in relations with the government, Bloomberg writes .
')
According to the Wall Street Journal : “The investigation will take place around fundamental issues related to the core of Google’s advertising business, built around a search that brings dizzying profits to the company. This investigation will include such sensitive themes for Google as the unfair use of its own channels of information delivery to the user in order to increase its own user base at the cost of harassing competitors. ” Oh how. In practice, this means that according to representatives of the Trade Commission, Google uses its own strength and capabilities to “push” in issuing links to its own services.

The most striking example of such behavior is the situation with the Google Places service, a link (or rather, an interactive map) to which jumps out at almost every local search query, regardless of whether it is relevant to the actual query itself. Without a doubt, the FTC during the investigation of this case will invite not only employees of Google itself, but also companies that "suffer" from it: the same Yelp, which has long and methodically been faced with the problem of Google Places. Expedia , TripAdvisor and Microsoft are most likely to be defeated by other issues already related to contextual advertising.

The fact that most video search leads to YouTube is not Google’s manipulation or is it just a suggestion of the most relevant answer to a search query? Now it will have to prove to the Trade Commission, in fact, turned the presumption of innocence of Google into one, guilt.

However, Google is not the first time faced with unhealthy interest from the FTC. There have already been investigations prior to the takeover of AdMob and ITA that ended successfully for the company itself. The difference is that the government has never before considered the threat as the main tool for working with Google - search, as a threat. Therefore, from Mountain View, where the company's headquarters is located, have already delayed a comprehensive response to Washington, entitled: "Supporting the choice, providing economic opportunities." The word "choice" generally appears in this text 5 times, hinting at the simple truth that users can switch to any other search service on the Internet at any time.

This official blog posting is not aggressive, does not bear a defensive character, and, nevertheless, it responds in advance to some claims from the authorities.

Regarding the fact that Google integrates its own products into search results, which may lead to fewer clicks on other people's links:

“From the very beginning, we were led by the idea that if we focus on the user, everything else will come next. It doesn't matter what you are looking for - a movie ticket, a restaurant closest to you or you are watching a royal wedding - we will provide you with information as quickly as possible. Sometimes the best result is a link to another website. In other situations, it is an article from the news, a program about sports, a quote from the stock market, a video or a map. ”

The short answer to all claims that Google deliberately understates the issue of some sites to reduce their competitiveness:

“We make hundreds of changes to our algorithms every year in order to improve your search experience. Not every website can go up the first page or even appear on it in our search results. ”

As well as bringing clarity to the fact that we already knew everything for a long time, namely, the ability to use any other search service:

“Search helps you go anywhere and discover anything on the free Internet. Using Google is a choice and there are a huge number of other services available to you to receive information: other general search engines and specialized, direct links to websites, mobile applications, social networks and much more.

Because of the large selection given to you, we work tirelessly to make the search better and will continue to follow the principles that led us from the beginning. ”

To rephrase this, you can as: "We do not know the exact reason for the investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, but we are ready to provide any arguments and evidence in our defense."

Round One, FIGHT!



Thanks for the info WSJ , Bloomberg , TechCrunch
Infographics wall street journal