Is Google Playing Fair With Groupon, et al? 193
An anonymous reader writes with the claim (illustrated with what seems like damning screen-shot evidence) that "Google is using Gmail's priority inbox to give special treatment to its own daily deal emails over all the rest."
wow (Score:4, Insightful)
who would have thought a for profit company would ever try to push its products and services before the competition?
Re:wow (Score:5, Informative)
Groupon is still marked as important for my gmail account.
Non-story (Score:5, Insightful)
who would have thought a for profit company would ever try to push its products and services before the competition?
send yourself an email marked with 'high importance' and it ends up in your priority inbox...so google is sending their offer emails with 'high importance' where other companies aren't, how is this a story at all?
Re:Non-story (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not, looking at where the article is hosted, well, it's the ONLY post on a blog.
Seems like a bunch of FUD to me. It seems "Kasey Moffat" (I suspect an invented character) created both a blog & twitter account just to do this.
Alarm bells anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. And sine Priority Inbox uses past behavior to track what's a priority and there's no record of what this user did with their email account before, their claims are unsubstantiated.
It would also be trivial to Photoshop.
Re:Non-story (Score:4, Informative)
I'd say it raises alarms because google offers doesn't do that on my email inbox...
Re: (Score:3)
Who benefits from this? the "Groupon" spammers -- sorry, email marketers -- who are so unfairly not highlighted automatically by Google as "important". And Slashdot goes along with these SEO scumbags hyping a story.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Non-story (Score:4, Informative)
A reply on the original article is
"Isaac said...
Google knows that you signed up for Google Offers because it's your own account.
They don't know the same thing about other daily offer emails because they do not have access to those other site's subscription information, and all these emails look like spam. So without that additional information available, how can Google tell the difference between spam/semi-spam and things that you sign up for? It can't, until you tell it they are important."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple.
Because they are competing in a very fast-growing and highly profitable market where Apple has a lead, but Google is very quickly catching up and looks likely to pass them in the short-term.
For reference, the last time Apple was in a situation like this, it was Microsoft they were up against.
All that said, this is PURELY speculative. I have absolutely no concrete evidence to support this hypothesis, nor am I likely to acquire any. Apple has a motive and the means to engage in the sort of PR skulldugge
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Non-story (Score:4, Funny)
Vell, Kasey's just zis guy, you know?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not marked in the usual sense but the Gmail system identifies it as something "privileged" and treats it accordingly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly. I'd call those emails in the screenshot SPAM, and treat them accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sounds like the issue isn't so much about anti-competitive behavior, but an abuse of the email priority settings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Non-story (Score:4, Interesting)
Priority inbox doesn't work like that. It looks at what emails have been read immediately and responded to quickly in the past to try and predict how important new emails are. If you immediately open Google's mails it will think they are important to you and put them in the priority category. If you do the same with Groupon they will end up in there too.
It is the opposite of spam filtering and uses the same techniques. Instead of deciding what is crap it decides what is important.
Re:wow (Score:4, Funny)
You know, it seems like Slashdot has become the place to go to enrage the geeks. Oh no! Google slaughters puppies and enslaves kittens. Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the Nerds of war!
I think we're missing something important (Score:2)
People actually use "services" like Groupon and whatever this Google thing is? That's the real scoop to me, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
People actually use "services" like Groupon and whatever this Google thing is? That's the real scoop to me, anyway.
It surprises you that people like discounts on stuff?
Re: (Score:3)
so what (Score:5, Insightful)
google gives you a free email account, then uses it to market stuff to you. why would anyone be surprised, or upset? there are many free email options out there, use another one if you don't like how this one works.
Re: (Score:2)
I think people are missing the point. Of course this is not surprising. Of course a for-profit company wants to advertise their own products. Of course they want you to use their stuff before you use Groupon et al. Of course. The point is, Google touts itself as providing a fair service that doesn't favor its own services (as conflicting as that may be). It claims that its algorithms are unbiased. I think that is all the author was trying to point out (i.e. they may not be as unbiased as Google is touting t
No monopoly over email (Score:3)
I think people are missing the point. Of course this is not surprising. Of course a for-profit company wants to advertise their own products. Of course they want you to use their stuff before you use Groupon et al. Of course. The point is, Google touts itself as providing a fair service that doesn't favor its own services (as conflicting as that may be). It claims that its algorithms are unbiased. I think that is all the author was trying to point out (i.e. they may not be as unbiased as Google is touting themselves to be... as unsurprising as it is). A small point but an important one.
Google may be in a monopoly or nearabouts position in search, but they definitely do not have a monopoly over email. If their search algorithms were biased in favor of their products, that would be a big deal for an antitrust case. Biased email prioritization? Not so much. Using one product as leverage to promote another is legal, like it or not, and it happens all the time. Only when you use a product that is in a monopoly position as leverage does that become illegal.
Personally, I read email in thunder
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a tempest in a teapot. I have already marked Groupon as having a low priority in my Priority Inbox, so that is where that comes in. I also get Google Offers. The first time it came in as important. I then marked it unimportant, and it never showed up there again.
If Google kept putting their deals in my priority inbox, I would have been upset.
Now if they had marked my mother-in-law's emails as important, I would have gone back to hotmail.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, unless more information comes to light that makes this some sort of nefarious plot, this just doesn't sound like it's a big deal. As it stands now, I'm not really sure why I as a gmail user should care. It's not like Google is preventing me from getting those messages or ensuring that they are brought to my attention. For emails of priority, they always got their own label anyways. Google hasn't taken away that option either.
Re: (Score:2)
Google touts itself as providing a fair service that doesn't favor its own services (as conflicting as that may be)
No, they don't. Unless you provide evidence of this, you are wrong.
According to Google's TOS: [google.com]
4.2 Google is constantly innovating in order to provide the best possible experience for its users. You acknowledge and agree that the form and nature of the Services which Google provides may change from time to time without prior notice to you.
4.3 As part of this continuing innovation, you acknowledge and agree that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users generally at Google’s sole discretion, without prior notice to you. You may stop using the Services at any time. You do not need to specifically inform Google when you stop using the Services.
4.4 You acknowledge and agree that if Google disables access to your account, you may be prevented from accessing the Services, your account details or any files or other content which is contained in your account.
4.5 You acknowledge and agree that while Google may not currently have set a fixed upper limit on the number of transmissions you may send or receive through the Services or on the amount of storage space used for the provision of any Service, such fixed upper limits may be set by Google at any time, at Google’s discretion.
Basically Google says: we can change our service at any time. We can stop our service at any time. You can lose access to your data at any time. We can limit your data usage at any time. Nowhere do they claim to "providing a fair service that doesn't favor its own services".
Corporations are not here to help you pursue happiness. They're here to take every cent out of your wallet, and then take your wallet. Why woul
Re:so what (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well. But nobody paid google to put deliver the ad via gmail.
Re: (Score:3)
You also have to keep in mind there are 2 perspectives here, the perspective of the email user and the perspective of the advertiser. If someone pays to put an ad on Google, they expect Google to place that ad in accordance with whatever contract they signed. If Google is taking their money and then still advertising it's own products over theirs, then that is definitely a conflict of interest.
Besides the other objection already noted, I think Google's model of for-pay advertising inoculates them from conflict of interest. You see, advertisers only pay for the ads that users (a) see and (b) click on. So if Google chooses to advertise its own products over a client's, the client actually didn't, and doesn't, pay at all.
If that situation were to arise (and, as the other poster noted, I don't think that's a reasonable description of this case, since Groupon didn't pay Google anything to deliver
Re: (Score:2)
They even say they will when you sign up..
17. Advertisements
17.1 Some of the Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions. These advertisements may be targeted to the content of information stored on the Services, queries made through the Services or other information.
17.2 The manner, mode and extent of advertising by Google on the Services are subject to change without specific notice to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and there are even more non-free ones. Having email without any PITA and weird TOS is worth 50Euro/Year.
Just a thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just a thought (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just a thought (Score:5, Interesting)
He also has a grand total of one blog post.
Re:Just a thought (Score:4, Insightful)
To sum up
1. new account w/ no history
2. mail from google is considered important by default
3. there are no other email addresses considered important by the algorithm because there is no history on the account.
Result: The google mail is the only email the algorithm treated as important!
Obviously, it must be an act of evil by Google.
Damning indeed! (Score:2)
Damning screenshot evidence? No way that can be faked.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. It's perfect in every form, especially those blurry screenshots.
Because you already read messages from Google? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
4. I didn't open any of the resulting subscription confirmation emails. Since Priority Inbox sorts emails based on your reading/replying history, I didn't want to give Priority Inbox any additional information about which daily deals emails to prioritize the next day.
Frankly, he could have faked it, but it is an experiment any of us could repeat in two days, so it would make him look like an idiot.
Personally though, it's really hard for me to care one way or the other. At worst, it's probably some fluke of the algorithm Google uses, and can be rectified easily by reading a couple emails from the company that you want. It's not like they are shoving it into spam or something where you will never read it.
Re: (Score:3)
Google marks their own mails as important by default. Mark them as unimportant if you don't want them showing up. Whether it's a notice about daily deals, account changes, service notifications, whatever - their own mailing are marked as important to begin with. (Hey, it's their free service, after all). It even says this in the service details for priority inbox. This is a bunch of noise about nothing.
Coming up next: Blogger discovers Microsoft advertises their own services in ads on their sites more than
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, the ones that represent account changes and service notifications could reasonably be assumed to be important.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, the ones that represent account changes and service notifications could reasonably be assumed to be important.
I strongly suspect that the cause of the offer prioritization is a rule that was put in place to accomplish exactly that, and that it never occurred to anyone to make an exception for offers in that rule.
Re: (Score:2)
It even says this in the service details for priority inbox.
Where does it say that? I've looked and can't find it.
Re: (Score:2)
17. Advertisements
17.1 Some of the Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions. These advertisements may be targeted to the content of information stored on the Services, queries made through the Services or other information.
17.2 The manner, mode and extent of advertising by Google on the Services are subject to change without specific notice to you.
17.3 In consideration fo
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, okay. So not anything related specifically to Priority Inbox, but the "manner, mode and extent" being "subject to change" would certainly seem to cover it.
My money is still on this being an unintentional side effect of a rule intended to boost the priority of service notifications, account changes, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry yes, you're right I should have worded my original post differently. Something along the lines of "signed up for a service which says that you will be targetted with specific advertising in a multitude of forms and locations", and the priority inbox falls into the umbrella of services.
I agree that it's an unintentional side-effect. All Google mails being treated as priority messages. I was just trying to point out that he can't complain about receiving targetted advertising messages when he signed up
Re: (Score:2)
The service description says that Google mails will be prioritized by default. He VOLUNTARILY signed up for a service which says he'll receive priority mails from Google, and then complains that he receives priority mails from Google. Alas, most people are stupid and he'll probably get some air-time for his theory (and already has).
Re:Because you already read messages from Google? (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting.. I posted a comment pointing out that the service agreement says he'll get Google mails as priority messages and that he can opt-out of them, and after it was up for a few minutes, he deleted the comment.
So pretty much, it is as above. He signed up for a service which says he'll get priority Google emails by default when activated, and then starts complaining that exactly that is happening. What a douche.
Re: (Score:2)
For prosperity's sake, posted to his Blog.. wonder how long this will last:
---------
Interesting.. I point out that you signed up for a Google service which says you'll get priority Google emails by default when activated, and you complain when exactly that happens. .. And you delete my comment.
Perhaps think through your article again, taking this into account rather than just deleting comments pointing out the obvious. Or perhaps learn to read service agreements when signing up for services. For instance, t
Re: (Score:3)
Yep.. he deleted that one too. Obviously he knows he's in the wrong if he has to take to deleting comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To be honest, I think the article is 90%+ sleaze. They're insinuating that Google (the organization) is anti-competitive because they defaulted to promoting their own service, as part of a user-customizable feature, and one (let's not forget) that's actually very simple to correct.
Three things.
One, as I said, it can be changed. Downvote the google offers, upvote your mother.
Two, the thing about a lot of google's services is that they're algorithm-based. The funny thing about algorithms is a high rate of
Re: (Score:2)
Thus, we locate the last person on Earth who has not heard of GroupOn.
Rejoice, friend, because you are lucky soul.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant specifically the ones in the screenshot: Tippr, yipit, homerun, scoutmob. Looking at it again, I see Groupon and Living Social listed, which I have heard of.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, I think the article is 90%+ sleaze. They're insinuating that Google (the organization) is anti-competitive because they defaulted to promoting their own service, as part of a user-customizable feature, and one (let's not forget) that's actually very simple to correct.
Hmm, it appears that MS has budgeted some astroturfing to along with their anti-Google lobbying push...
Filters FTW (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They could be easier to use, but they're hardly difficult to use. I mostly wish they'd beef them up to make it easier to have long lists of things going to the same label and a more efficient way of collecting all my order confirmations under the same label. But, it's really not difficult to use as is.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how easy it is to create a filter to de-prioritize emails in Gmail? Gmail filters are the easiest things in the world to use. I don't know why ANYONE would complain about this when they can correct it in about three clicks.
Conversely... I don't know why google would need to automatically prioritize their offers, since anyone who wanted them marked priority could do it themselves in 3 clicks.
That said... I don't know anyone on the planet who actually wants daily marketing email messages automatic
All that shows is that default settings (Score:2)
What's the problem here? (Score:2)
Bad spam filtering (Score:2)
Why would any "offer", obviously bulk mail, ever go into the "Priority inbox"? Even if you wanted it, it should go into the "Bulk" folder.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a service you sign up for. Hence, not junk mail.
You posted another troll article, idiot. (Score:3)
I strongly suspect you did it to drive page hits.
Nothing wrong with that (Score:2)
Google doesn't have a monopoly in e-mail. Not even close. They can - legally and ethically - use their e-mail service to market whatever they want to you. If they want, they can fill your inbox with spam about Google Docs, Google Maps, Android. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
I'm getting a bit sick of bogus "anti-competitive" stories. Restrictions on this sort of thing only apply *if you're a monopoly*. If you're not, you can do all the cross promotion and bundling you want. Consumers get to de
Must be a lot of money to be made... (Score:2)
... since everyone and his brother is getting into this game. Out of the blue I started getting "daily local deals" from Amazon - and they just signed me up without asking. Facebook's done that as well.
I don't like Google mis-using its position in this case; but (once it's offered in my area) I'd be more upset about getting opted-in automatically than what priority the email arrives with. I don't want to get these sorts of emails, period. I've got a twitchy trigger finger when it comes to flagging spam.
Better question (Score:3)
Is slashdot trying to chase away customers by posting more and more troll pieces?
A blog with a single post. (Score:2)
Come on, Slashdot... don't disappoint me...
Dear Google, (Score:2)
The opt-in SPAM from you shows up on the top of your free e-mail service, above all the other opt-in SPAM I get. I don't see how your SPAM could possibly be more important than other SPAM on your own service. This is unfair, and I call shenanigans. Now excuse me while I go and purchase some more coupons for massages and manicures.
Re: (Score:2)
No in GMail (Score:2)
GMail is not in a position of market dominance, at least not according to TFS. So, it's a free service funded by ads, and it promotes them using built-in system of the service? Somehow I don't see an issue here. However, if somebody feels they're getting spam they did not opt in to and can't unsubscribe from, then I'm sure there's room for juicy lawsuit, based on spam laws. But that's not the case here, is it?
Re:Excellent timing (Score:4, Insightful)
I dont see how, google is not the only email web client solution on the net and no one is forced to use it (and honestly I dont see the appeal, its clunky IMO)
Re:Excellent timing (Score:4, Insightful)
I dont see how, google is not the only email web client solution on the net and no one is forced to use it (and honestly I dont see the appeal, its clunky IMO)
No one was forced to use Microsoft but their product was so common that the judge determined that them encouraging customers to use another one of their products was illegal. I guess the call here is determining if Google is a monopoly on the search business.
Re: (Score:2)
In this instance, the call would be whether or not Google is a monopoly for the email market. They aren't even in first place, so it would be hard for us to call them a monopoly wouldn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Slashdot definition of monopoly seems to be "making more money than I think they should have."
Re: (Score:3)
The truthful and accurate definition of a monopoly is one in which the consumer choice for a product or service resides with a single company.
Obviously Google is not just an email services provider and I am not finding it unreasonable that Google would advertise and sell advertising space to those that receive free email service.
I deal with a large amount of customers in various databases and I can say that I don't see GMail having such a huge percentage of the market share (based on domains in the email wi
Re: (Score:3)
The Slashdot definition of monopoly seems to be "making more money than I think they should have."
The thing is, Google is a monopoly by the measurements of most regulatory agencies (controlling a sufficient percentage of the market).
The thing that the alarmists get wrong is that unlike certain other IT monopolies, Google is a natural monopoly, maintained by natural means (I.E. better products, not vendor lock in). Monopolies are not intrinsically bad, they can occur simply because the competition is not good enough. This is the case with search, Google has blocked no one from entering the search mark
Re: (Score:3)
Typical slashdot response.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is that Microsoft's monopoly could create an effective barrier to entry for potential competitors. The web does not permit the creation of that sort of a barrier. Google can't force anyone to use its offerings, so it's hard to see how it could be considered to be in the same camp. I'm quite free to use Bing or Yahoo if I want, with no potential for Google to disadvantage me in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:False (Score:3)
No one was forced to use Microsoft but their product was so common...
False. The anti-competitive ruling against Microsoft did not come down because it was merely common, it was handed down for exactly what you incorrectly claim didn't happen.
We were forced to use Microsoft, we are no longer. Remember at the time of the ruling Microsoft was the only product on the desktop anywhere to be seen. It had nearly all of the software market writing software for it (these days we have FOSS software and Mac software a plenty). Linux flat out wasn't an option then. Mac's had zero games,
Re: (Score:2)
and honestly I dont see the appeal, its clunky IMO
Android integration
Re: (Score:3)
Which is completely optional.
Unlike in United States v. Microsoft, where IE was just a double click away, to setup Gmail on Android you must provide your login info. If you tap cancel during the setup, you will end up in the Android home screen. Then you're free to install any mail client of your choice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Excellent timing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Excellent timing (Score:5, Insightful)
...just in time for an antitrust investigation. Who at Google thought this was a good idea, anyway?
Most likely, no one, because mostly likely no one thought of it at all.
My bet is that this the result of a generic rule that boosts the importance of e-mails from Google, you know so that you're sure to see announcements of new gmail features, or Google account-related messages, etc., but no one thought to make an exception for Offers.
Given that Offers and gmail come from different groups within Google, and I'd expect that no one on the Offers team knows much about how priority inbox is implemented and no one on the gmail team was thinking much about Offers other than to note there was a launch party, I can see exactly how this would happen. Or maybe it is intentional... but I doubt it.
What will happen next is that the Priority Inbox rules will be modified to avoid giving any undue precedence to Google Offers, and lots of slashdotters will believe that Google was being Evil and only stopped when caught, regardless of the facts of the situation.
(Disclaimer: I'm a software engineer at Google, but I don't work on Offers or gmail.)
Re: (Score:3)
Given that Offers and gmail come from different groups within Google, and I'd expect that no one on the Offers team knows much about how priority inbox is implemented and no one on the gmail team was thinking much about Offers other than to note there was a launch party, I can see exactly how this would happen. Or maybe it is intentional... but I doubt it.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh yes it is very much as you suspect. You work for Google? You have to know that Google is like a creature with a hundred arms and that on any one day, one arm might meet the next one for the very first time.
This is absolutely confirmed with YouTube and those responsible for Google authentication. Those teams do NOT communicate very well and remind me of how NASA crashed a billion dollars into Mars.
I have been told point blank by people working on the YouTube API that they don't fully under
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe it is intentional... but I doubt it.
Actually, I suspect it was indeed intentional, but at the same time, completely understandable. Think about it. When you start getting this emails from groupon and other discount websites, what does google know about it? They know is the emails just suddenly started appearing in your inbox, and they know that you never bothered to click on the welcome email. That's not very convincing that you are actually interested in the emails.
Now, what does google know about your subscription to google offers? Well, th
Re: (Score:2)
My bet is that this the result of a generic rule that boosts the importance of e-mails from Google, you know so that you're sure to see announcements of new gmail features, or Google account-related messages, etc., but no one thought to make an exception for Offers.
Excuse me for saying, but that does sounds like what the original article was claiming is a problem, and a parallel of the complaint in the anti-trust probes: I believe the concern is that Google's algorithms by default deem all content, email, and services from Google as "important" but do not offer the same by-default automatic promotion to their competitors. The article author's claim is that this advantages Google's products over its products over its competitors'.
Given that Offers and gmail come from different groups within Google, and I'd expect that no one on the Offers team knows much about how priority inbox is implemented and no one on the gmail team was thinking much about Offers other than to note there was a launch party, I can see exactly how this would happen. Or maybe it is intentional... but I doubt it.
It'll be interesting to see how this p
Re: (Score:3)
Caveat: I'm mostly just an interested bystander (academic), though I do sometimes feel mildly uncomfortable from a libertarian perspective that theoretically it would now be very hard for someone to avoid giving Google data about themselves -- if they don't get it via search or email, they'll get it via Google Analytics installed on the other sites you visit.
Google recognizes that discomfort and provides tools for you to address it. I suppose some would argue that "opt-in" is a more appropriate model than "opt-out", but at least Google does make it possible -- and easy -- to opt out of all of their tracking.
Go to google.com, click the "Privacy" link at the bottom, then click "Privacy tools" in the left-hand navigation column to see all of the privacy settings and tools that Google provides. They even make browser plugins that will ensure that you *stay* opt
Re: (Score:2)
Google is already facing an inquiry from the FTC. All you need to do is pay attention to the news: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/ftc-launching-antitrust-probe-over-google-search-ad-businesses.ars [arstechnica.com] This sort of thing is not going to look very good to the FTC.
How so? If you send an email with the 'high importance' flag it ends up in your priority inbox the same way as emails from google.
Re: (Score:2)
That probe is fully legitimate, probing this as an antitrust violation would be absurdly silly.
They haven't the market share necessary for this to be an antitrust violation by themselves nor is there any reason to suspect collusion as it's all being done internally. It might suck for Groupon and the others, but this is hardly going to have much of an impact on them anyways, at least not anymore than getting caught up in overly zealous spam filters.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I use a Mac and Apple already does something similar with a rule to highlight messages from Apple (they get a different background color so they stand out). I don't really see the harm in this and it's easily disabled (an a Mac anyway..Not sure about Google).
Anyone can send an offer with High Priority so I don't see how this is 'unfair' as far as that goes.
Re: (Score:3)
Guess it's nice to know that Google wont be using Priority Inbox with me as I've got it turned off. Didn't need or want the feature when it was offered so disabled it right away. Anyone else who didn't either has a need for the damn thing or doesn't have a clue how to setup labels and filters to do what they want.
In other words, nothing to see here citizen, move along.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's been established for some time that the spam filter is heavily automated and that things like a person labeling a message as spam has a significant impact on how it's received. I've often suspected that if a message is labeled as spam in one account and it's in other accounts that it gets labeled as spam there as well.