Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google United States

Google Pays 'Enormous' Sums To Maintain Search-Engine Dominance, DOJ Says (bloomberg.com) 75

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
Alphabet's Google pays billions of dollars each year to Apple, Samsung Electronics and other telecom giants to illegally maintain its spot as the No. 1 search engine, the US Justice Department told a federal judge Thursday. From a report: DOJ attorney Kenneth Dintzer didn't disclose how much Google spends to be the default search engine on most browsers and all US mobile phones, but described the payments as "enormous numbers."

"Google invests billions in defaults, knowing people won't change them," Dintzer told Judge Amit Mehta during a hearing in Washington that marked the first major face-off in the case and drew top DOJ antitrust officials and Nebraska's attorney general among the spectators. "They are buying default exclusivity because defaults matter a lot." Google's contracts form the basis of the DOJ's landmark antitrust lawsuit, which alleges the company has sought to maintain its online search monopoly in violation of antitrust laws. State attorneys general are pursuing a parallel antitrust suit against the search giant, also pending before Mehta.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Pays 'Enormous' Sums To Maintain Search-Engine Dominance, DOJ Says More

Google Pays 'Enormous' Sums To Maintain Search-Engine Dominance, DOJ Says

Comments Filter:

  • Google's interest in this results in funding going to open source projects such as firefox. Is then entirely bad then?

    • If this market niche is going to exist, firefox should have a going rate - pay us $X to make your search engine the default on Y numbers of installs - instead of an exclusive deal. Exclusive deals simply lock in the current leader since they can afford to pay the most.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      Given the fact that Firefox as a project has completely lost its way, and they spend the money on horseshit like Pocket? Yes, it's a bad thing. Giving Mozilla money at this point is just paying them to gradually turn Firefox into Chrome.

      Did you know that you cannot change the scrollbar width on Firefox? Their argument is that because you can change it from CSS now, they won't let you change it any other way any more. Meanwhile every other browser lets you. And oh yeah, even better, Firefox uses the system s

      • Did you know that you cannot change the scrollbar width on Firefox?

        Really? That's your complaint? I'll bet I can count on 10 fingers the number of people in the world who give a shit about changing the scrollbar width.

        Unless you're talking disappearing scrollbars, which is a whole nuther level of stupidity.

        • Really? That's your complaint? I'll bet I can count on 10 fingers the number of people in the world who give a shit about changing the scrollbar width.

          Why don't you google around about it and learn something before posting so you don't have to be so wrong?

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

            He's actually close. I got 85 results for "change scrollbar width Firefox linux" (without quotes). So not even an order of magnitude difference from his guess.

            Not that many people care about it, it seems.

            • He's actually close. I got 85 results for "change scrollbar width Firefox linux" (without quotes). So not even an order of magnitude difference from his guess.

              Your measurement of how many people care is based on how many webpages are created about it? Nice sleuthing there, Colombo.

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

                Well yes. The more people that are upset about it the more people post about it. It isn't rocket science.

                And not that many people are posting about this issue. Therefore not that many people care about it.

                Is that so hard to understand?

                • It's not a 1:1 relationship. Most people don't bother to post, even now.

                  There's also not that many Firefox users left, because they keep pulling shenanigans.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

                    >It's not a 1:1 relationship.

                    So you don't believe that the more popular something is the more it will be represented on the web? Interesting. Do tell me your alternate theory about why some things have more hits on the web than others. I'll wait.

                    I assert that is is not only correlation, but that dreaded causation that causes some things to both be more popular as well as have more hits!

                    >Most people don't bother to post, even now.

                    So, the "silent majority" of sufferers from this don't even bother to

                    • It's not a 1:1 relationship.

                      So you don't believe that the more popular something is the more it will be represented on the web?

                      Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid. That's not even close to what I said there. Learn English before boring me again.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

                      >>It's not a 1:1 relationship.

                      >>So you don't believe that the more popular something is the more it will be represented on the web?

                      >>Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid.

                      No, what was pretty fucking stupid was your original comment. Of course it isn't exactly 1:1. Of course there are outliers. But something with 85 hits is pretty unlikely to be as popular as something with 85M. Perhaps you can see that now?

                      >That's not even close to what I said there. Learn English before boring me again

        • Did you know that you cannot change the scrollbar width on Firefox?

          Really? That's your complaint? I'll bet I can count on 10 fingers the number of people in the world who give a shit about changing the scrollbar width.

          Unless you're talking disappearing scrollbars, which is a whole nuther level of stupidity.

          Add me to the list.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by WallyL ( 4154209 )
        Er, hope I'm not feeding the troll. I use Firefox on Debian and I can adjust a few about:config entries to get my customizable scrollbar:
        widget.gtk.overlay-scrollbars.enabled false;
        widget.non-native-theme.scrollbar.size.override 18;
        widget.non-native-theme.scrollbar.style 2;
        widget.non-native-theme.gtk.scrollbar.allow-buttons true;

    • it's even worst with Firefox... because now Firefox has an incentive to please Google by making their browser worst.

  • Unfortunately, no useful competition (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ugen ( 93902 ) on Friday September 09, 2022 @10:08AM (#62866687)

    I actively dislike Google and their business practices (to the point where theirs is the only site that has cookies explicitly blocked in my browser). Tried many times to switch to another search provider. The results, unfortunately, have always been unsatisfactory and, after a period of time, I was forced to go back to Google.

    Google results are both more relevant and better integrated with maps in particular. No other maps provider in the western world is as good, although Yandex maps are better in Russia and, needless to say, Baidu in China.

    It may be a chickend and an egg issue - perhaps if another provider was able to become the top choice, they would be able to improve? But then several companies with deep pockets tried their hand at that, with little result. Perhaps it's the curse of being a search provider.

    • Same here. I try to use DuckDuckGo whenever I can, but I always end up searching for something, then selecting a map, then asking myself "Where's the streetview?". Or looking at the results and scratching my head trying to figure out why they are irrelevant. For me, there is no serious competitor to google.

      • Same here. I try to use DuckDuckGo whenever I can, but I always end up searching for something, then selecting a map, then asking myself "Where's the streetview?". Or looking at the results and scratching my head trying to figure out why they are irrelevant. For me, there is no serious competitor to google.

        And therefore, if Google says jump, you will be in the air before asking "How high, Master?"

        It is pretty sad that people will willingly accept what Google does - and if you don't know how much it is that Google is doing to you, y'all might check it out.

        • so, what is Google doing "to me" directly? they seem to be trying to make money, just like everyone else. before them it was the white pages (remember, you had to PAY THEM to not list you!)

          i can list a lot of bad things Google does, but this is hardly unique; i can also list a lot of bad things done by almost any company of that size.

          • so, what is Google doing "to me" directly? they seem to be trying to make money, just like everyone else. before them it was the white pages (remember, you had to PAY THEM to not list you!)

            i can list a lot of bad things Google does, but this is hardly unique; i can also list a lot of bad things done by almost any company of that size.

            It only matters if it is a you problem, I suppose.

            Ever do anything ever that you wouldn't want your SO or employer to know about? If never, have you considered running for office, they are looking for people who's souls are pure.

            • So, to be clear, what you're saying is that Google does not only collect data to train and run ML algorithms to sell me some dumb shit in ads, but are actually:

              1. actively spying on me at all times (or somehow otherwise able to know my secrets even if they're not explicitly stored in Google's systems)

              2. Google is, at the literal scale of 10e8+, automatically extracting blackmail data therefrom, or
              2.b. retaining all of this data for the purposes of retrospective retrieval, and

              3. are going to actively use the

              • So, to be clear, what you're saying is that Google does not only collect data to train and run ML algorithms to sell me some dumb shit in ads, but are actually:

                1. actively spying on me at all times (or somehow otherwise able to know my secrets even if they're not explicitly stored in Google's systems)

                2. Google is, at the literal scale of 10e8+, automatically extracting blackmail data therefrom, or 2.b. retaining all of this data for the purposes of retrospective retrieval, and

                3. are going to actively use the data that only they can authenticate against me if I run for office, instead of just fucking making it up in the first place or, oh idk, faking a positive on their totally-normal and not-at-all-weird child porn detector [nytimes.com]?

                Enjoy your fantasy life. Also, it's "whose."

                Hey, spelink cop - you are perhaps not the expert on the intertoobs you think you are. But that's okay - you write with great authority - so you must be right. Why don't you put your hypothesis to the test. I triple dog dare ya.

      • I have the same experience. I use DuckDuckGo for my searches. But some searches return junk results. So I have to come crawling back to Google sometimes.

    • As soon as someone comes up with something better than Google, they'll likely dominate the entire market. The only thing Google has going for it is being the best search by a huge margin. Which is at least respectable.

      One thing all of these AI models being used for DALLE and such are going to do is enable future generations of search engines. Google is absolutely pouring huge resources into this and have been doing it for many years, but I don't think they're actually doing anything that exceptional with

      • As soon as someone comes up with something better than Google, they'll likely dominate the entire market.

        Probably not. We see example on example of people saying that they stick with microsoft because it has the most computers, so people will stick with Google.

        You might try installing a scriptblocker to see what your decision costs you. It's metastatic.

    • I actively dislike Google and their business practices (to the point where theirs is the only site that has cookies explicitly blocked in my browser). Tried many times to switch to another search provider. The results, unfortunately, have always been unsatisfactory and, after a period of time, I was forced to go back to Google.

      Then y6ou will put up with whatever Googles says you will put up with. Sucks.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I don't know why Google pays them all this money. Bing has been the default search engine on Windows since it started, and yet nobody uses it except to search for "google". In fact I bet half their traffic is people accidentally opening search results from the Windows start menu. That's how hard Microsoft rammed it at us, putting it in the start menu and mixing its search results in with your files, and they still failed.

      If they stopped paying Apple, Apple might switch to someone else, they might launch the

      • Apple users are probably the least likely users in the world to seek an alternative, and are most likely to just use whatever is set on their phone. Apple has been training their users to behave this way for... well, forever actually. Even back in the 68k Macintosh days there was just drastically less software available for the Macintosh platform, and in large part that was because it was a lot more expensive to become a Macintosh developer. Not only did you need to spend twice as much on hardware, but whil

    • Apparently, Google disagrees with you. If they didn't, they wouldn't feel it necessary to pay insane amounts of money to be the default option on phones.

  • There's definitely some shady (maybe illegal) stuff happening here between Apple and Google, but I'm not ready to say that Google is the one to blame. If users were prompted to choose a default search engine when they first set up their iPhone, I'd bet that 90+% of them would choose Google. Google's not paying to acquire new customers or paying so that people won't try something new, they're essentially paying protection money to Apple. They know that most people want to use Google search, but if Apple d

    • Every smart TV these days seems to have a Netflix button. Netflix pays to have their app pre-loaded on the TV. Is that the same illegality as Google being the default search engine? It is easier to change the default search engine than it is to re-map your TV remote buttons. Even if you do remap it to start up Hulu or Paramount+ the physical button still will say Netflix.

      Every Mcdonald's offers Coke. While I doubt Coke is paying McD's to be there I'm sure there are deals being made. Should the DOJ
      • Thats not the same. Most smart TVs that have a Netflix button are also going to have a Hulu and Youtube button, and if recently made, a Disney+ button, a Paramount+ button, Amazon Video, etc. These are the popular services and they're all equally accessible in that circumstance. That isn't the case with Google existing as the default search engine, where it often isn't even obvious that you'll be searching with google until you get the results. This is pretty basic anti-competitive behavior.
        • The complaint isn't that Google is the default search engine. The complaint is that Google pays to be the default search engine. That is the same as various streaming services paying for placement on the home screen of a smart TV or have a button on the remote. And there may be more than a Netflix button, but there isn't a button for every service. The ones that are there paid to be there.
      • For your Saturday reading, I recommend "The Tragic History of RC Cola [mentalfloss.com]" at Mental Floss.

        To me, RC Cola has the best price-to-quality ratio. But maybe that's only because it's bottled in Estonia. Perhaps only Pepsi can compete with RC in that price range, if there's a sale on Pepsi drinks in any of the nearby stores that I go to.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      If users were prompted to choose a default search engine when they first set up their iPhone, I'd bet that 90+% of them would choose Google.

      That's because Google bludgeoned their competitors: it's what monopolies do. It takes a while for the proverbial trees to grow back.

      The only reason Google hasn't bludgeoned Bing to death is because they need an apparent competitor to "prove" they are not a monopoly, similar to why MS let Apple live in the 90's when they could have finished them for good.

  • Don't think I'm one of Google's defenders, because I'm not. That said, I might not be thinking about this the right way, but Google's core business is web search. How exactly is promoting their core business using agreements like this with external companies anti-competitive? This line of argumentation doesn't allege that they are actively denying potential market share to other companies or reducing options via 3E's/monopolization, paying for exclusion, bundling, unfair labor practices, industry collusion,

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Merk42 ( 1906718 )
      If the crux is "large company can afford to outbid competition", then that affects a lot more than just a default search engine on a phone.

    • If Google has more money to spend on search because of their position in search, and they spend that money to get an even better position in search, that's obviously and literally anticompetitive. (The word "anticompetitive" does not appear in the Firefox dictionary, BTW... things that make you go WTF.)

      • If Google has more money to spend on search because of their position in search, and they spend that money to get an even better position in search, that's obviously and literally anticompetitive.

        Something needs to be added to your definition, to separate it from simply reinvesting in the business. Every business spends some of its current revenue to run ads, develop follow-on products, and generally keep their business engine running.

        • Something needs to be added to your definition, to separate it from simply reinvesting in the business

          Yeah, sorry, I forgot to point out that they already have a dominant position. If you have a dominant position and use it to maintain that position atop the market, it's anticompetitive. Period. Whether you should be allowed to act that way is another question, but the answer is generally considered to be no by people who want markets which serve consumers.

  • ... they either throw billions at it to keep it going, or get bored, cancel it and go back to relying on their earnings from ... Ah.

  • It's all a bunch of crap (Score:4, Interesting)

    by registrations_suck ( 1075251 ) on Friday September 09, 2022 @10:38AM (#62866801)

    The bureaucrats and politicians are delusional if they think that the VAST MAJORITY of people want to use any of the various assorted COMPLETELY INFERIOR search engines.

    1). If the "default" is eliminated and people are going to have to choose, they will choose Google.

    2). If something else is installed as the default, people will actually bother to change it to Google because everything else COMPLETELY SUCKS.

    With the current situation, Google is VOLUNTARILY DISTRIBUTING ITS WEALTH to various other parties, to at most pick up a few percent of business that it MAY otherwise not get. This is a huge boon to everyone else and should be applauded, not denigrated.

    Look, I hate Google and its evilness as much as the next guy. But I'm one of these guys who is going to go out of his way to use shitty products just to align with my politics and preferences. I hate Google. I don't trust Google. But I use Google's search because everything else is crap. I use Google Maps because Apple Maps is crap. If Apple gave me the option to make Google Maps the default, I would gladly change it. However, as it is, I will gladly manually copy addresses from my calendar into Google Maps rather than just click on an address and be stuck using Apple Maps because Apple Maps sucks ass.

    It's not the government's job to try to save people from their own laziness. They certainly shouldn't fuck up things for everyone else in the course of trying to do so.

    • But I'm NOT one of these guys who is going to go out of his way to use shitty products just to align with my politics and preferences.

      NOT dammit, NOT one of those guys.

    • I often have to switch between Google and Bing to find what I want these days, in part because Bing has gotten slightly better, but largely because Google has gotten significantly worse because it has been rigged to death with SEO gaming and Google doesn't give a fuck about fixing it. If you don't see this problem happening, its probably because you don't actually search for anything obscure. There use to be a time where you could get endless pages of Google results. Doesn't happen anymore. Chances are pret

      • No way. If you are somehow not aware that there are search engines other than Google, and you're at least middle school age, then you're just lazy, stupid, or both.

  • "Google Pays 'Enormous' Sums To Maintain Search-Engine Dominance" ....from which it MAKES 'enormous sums' + (enough more to justify spending ...'Enormous' Sums To Maintain Search-Engine Dominance).

  • It's a free market after all, competing search engines can make deals with browser providers to be the default. Actually, back in 2014 Yahoo paid to be the default for Firefox in the US and earlier Yandex used to be default for Firefox in Russia.

  • ... spend enormous sums to improve their search engine and not make it suck so badly.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      The thing is, different people want different things from their search engine. I'd really like to be able to specify a boolean search key, but most people don't want that. Once upon a time Google paid reasonable attention to how I phrased my search, these days putting quotes around a term no longer forces it's presence, and prefixing it by a minus sign no longer means "don't include this". I rarely want to restrict my searches to some particular site, so that option doesn't interest me. (So much so that

  • Does Google have to pay the sums in order to even be an option on those platforms? Apple at least could easily push their own choice of search engine and most users would just use it without realizing they have a choice.

    Samsung is a different problem due to the licensing restrictions behind Google Play Store... there's legitimate concerns there.

  • That does stay in business by shady and illegal practices. No surprise, really, at this time. Anybody that thought Google was different (I did too, for a while) can now safely classify that under "lesson learned".

  • since forever. And they've not even had to pay for the privilege.
    DOJ can't be ass'd about that it seems.

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Close