2008 may be the year that Google’s innocence ends, as media and governments start to cast a less forgiving eye at the behavior of the company that controls 60% of the search market and perhaps as much as half of all online advertising revenue.
In 2007 the Federal Trade Commission opened an antitrust investigation into Google’s $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick. The deal was eventually approved, although the EU took a lot longer to give their stamp of approval (The EU in general isn’t a fan of Google).
This year, though, things might not go so well. Politicians are lining up to question Google’s recent search marketing deal with Yahoo. The deal was clearly structured to try to slide past regulators, but it isn’t clear that this time Google will get a pass.
Other questions are being raised as well – such as why Firefox continues to default search to Google on clean installs, instead of offering users a choice right up front. Microsoft is forced to offer users a choice when they install Internet Explorer. Given the longstanding financial ties between Google and Firefox, perhaps the same choice should be presented there as well.
There’s no getting past the fact that Google has out-competed everyone in the search game, and is justly collecting the economic rewards of that effort. But society loves to tear down their heroes just as quickly as they supported them as underdogs.
This may be the year that things change for the ten-year-old Google. Their days of innocence may be over – perhaps Yahoo, or Firefox, are the apples that they should not have bitten into.
good article.
Who cares if users get a choice up front? They can always change it if they wish, and even if they couldn’t, no one is forced to use Firefox. Switch to another browser if you don’t like it. Sheesh…
Eh – right. which is exactly why Microsoft should be allowed to do the same with IE, right?
totally agree. I hate google’s monopoly with passion. they need to be regulated
Why is it only Arrington in the past couple of days? TC lonewolf?
Some day someone should write the Darwin Guide of Search Engine Evolution (or perhaps, the Darwin Guide to Eating Ones Competitors in a Kind Gentle Way)….
Barbara
I believe that despite what is being said about Firefox…Mozilla realizes that Google is the best search engine; people know how to use a browser and change the default page, it’s not a big issue. Although I do believe that Google has been very overbearing in 2008 – I truly hope it’s not worse in 2009. Larry and Sergey need to step up to the challenge. Great post, I enjoyed reading it.
“and realizes that it
2008 may be the year”
You may want to correct that Michael.
Hahaha…As soon as I posted my above comment; the picture of Adam and Eve was added. I nice and might I say; very contextual touch.
fake fake shel – because my lazy coworkers insist on taking the weekend off. It’s so hard to find good help these days.
“Other questions are being raised as well – such as why Firefox continues to default search to Google on clean installs, instead of offering users a choice right up front. ”
Eh…it does offer a choice, the drop down menu allows you to choose from other options and you can add new default search engines (including Microsoft) using the “manage search engines” feature in seconds. True, google starts out on top but it is WAY easier to select something else IN Firefox then it ever was with IE. (Does IE seven even let you change engines?) Also in a default INSTALL of win XP or Vista you don’t see Firefox on the desktop as a browser option as a “choice right up front.” you have to go through the trouble of downloading it…the regulators need to fix that before they get on Firefox for its default search engine listing IMO.
Doesn’t Mozilla get almost all its funding for developing Firefox from its deal with Google to make Google the default search bar?
I suppose that might not be a suitable defense for the arrangement, but without Google’s money, Firefox might not even exist today, and it certainly wouldn’t be as well-developed as it is, never mind have the kind of market share it has.
want me to help? i write really good posts. thought provoking and stuff!
ahh, this old chestnut. slow news day?
I don’t think that there will be any regulations againts the big G+ Player in europe. Projects like the european search engine “exalead” are not forced any more and as long as you get FF for free, there is no way to get a regulation by law.
gz chris
I love it when Mr. Arrington beats me up on a Monday morning and adds some much needed “beef” to my already non-existent morning breakfast (which I haven’t enjoyed in months)! I couldn’t agree more, I think the two points you bring up, especially the Yahoo deal, could take Google from that “cute chic at your work you have an affection towards,” and turn into that “good looking chic, but man she’s really a bitch.” I was in weddings all weekend and couldn’t believe it when I got the news of the pending deal. I offer this scenario to all my TC Peeps, which happens first: Lindsey Lohan enters rehab, Yang get’s fired???
The EU took longer to approve the DoubleClick deal mainly because Google’s market share is much higher in Europe than in the US. That naturally raises concerns even more.
In Germany Google has more than 90% market share in search.
I know Google is good – REALLY good! – in search, but that kind of almost-monopoly is not good for someone to have, who in effect controls access to information.
true !!
Why does everyone dislike or fear Google?. We live in an open, capitalist economy, and any business that seeks greater revenue and profit – and market domination is simply doing their best in a system that was designed over 150 years ago. I can remember the same level of outcry and ‘calling for their heads’ in the late 90’s and early 00’s when MS was the ‘gorilla’ in the mist. Well, MS was regulated, and their monopoly was defeated by the courts! (somewhat) – what a great outcome for the consumer…we now have a sub standard operating system, innovation has slowed on the windows platform, Google has emerged to dominate the ‘web’ business model, MS is no longer a preferred employer, and if you held shares pre 2004, and you still own them, you will be much worse off! So what have we really achieved. Guys, Google never had innocence – it is, was, and always will be a successful company doing their best in a system that encourages and rewards such practices. The market will shift, and Google’s importance will be reduced – this is what happens in free markets; you don’t need regulation – free markets regulate themselves! (how do I know all this – easy, I Googled it!)
I think the point about the argument over default search engines is that Google doesn’t own and develop Firefox like MS does IE, so they’re free to choose whatever search engine they like.
“Why does everyone dislike or fear Google?”
Because they control what information people get to see – or at least which one they can find. If a company has that power, they also – theoretically or practically – have the power to suppress any negative information about themselves or to influence public opinion in their favor by chosing what people get to see. That kind of information control is usually only available to dictatorships. It’s just not good for democracy and free-speach to allow ANY company such power over information accessibility no matter how good their intentions may be.
So what happens to their motto – Don’t Be Evil?
I think they should update the tagline to make it more relevant from this year onwards …
Perhaps – “Don’t Be Crazy? Of course we’re EVIL!” ..
This makes Microsoft and Google blood brothers from now on…
It’s been a long time coming – “Is it time to set up Ofsearch, a regulator of search engines asks technology consultant Bill Thompson”… my BBC column in February 2003.
oops – forgot link – http://news.bbc...ogy/2786761.stm
Google is a great facilitator in my Internet/Real life. It does not impose/enforce anything evil yet on me and you. So why fear Google?. This whole Anti-Trust things are better targeted at businesses with low ethics; Not Google. If you ask me, Firefox is like Wikipedia. They both need money to run/grow. Google helps them. Even a court judge would know there is no real quality alternate for the Google search. Why just Pre-Install search engine options?. In firefox, you have a post-install drop down search-provider-selection box.
Alright. Yet another great post on TechCrunch.
Google’s going to be the (d)evil. Btw, default search engine in brows IS A BIG DEAL. Lazy people don’t bother to change search engine and go with the default one. Anyway, if Mozilla uses Google, let Microsoft use Live in Internet Explorer. Why is everyone against Microsoft?
Google is a great search engine, no doubt about it. I admit sometimes I use live – and get better results!
We need a serious competition!
@Michael: i am a insomne. so if you want someone to work at night.
@all: comparing Google Monopoly to Microsoft is not anywhere alike. one controls the platform (windows) but you can do whatever you want in it and even go against it by offering products that replace everything in it.. the other controls the information and the way you get to consume it. not the same.
Been a long time coming. No company should get a free pass because it’s well loved.
But Google’s never going to be a Microsoft – they are just better at self-marketing
but their motto is do no evil…
Schoebel-
you’re right on. That’s why, along with “freedom of the press” comes certain limitations and requirements.
Google now controls the soapbox. You can shout all you want, but you will not be “heard” if Google wants to hide you. Democracies should be paranoid over that sort of control, and should begin regulating it. The best way to regulate it is in a passive sense, by ensuring that there is competition. If there is no competition, then Google should be stripped of their position of “controlling the press”. And no one wants that. So competition is good for democracy.
moores law at work… on culture: it took us a decade to hate MS, only 3 yrs for google…
Three thoughts from reading this post:
1)Google doesn’t really “control” 60% of the search market. Every individual that uses Google can quickly switch to one of the many search engines on the market. I know that I’m nitpicking at the language here, but when the word “control” is used, it conjures up the image that Google uses force…that’s not the case at all.
2)I see no reason why Firefox should be forced into what it offers as a default search engine….After all, I’ve never heard this complaint from an actual “user”. Firefox owns their browser and has every right to make a deal with Google…At the same time, Microsoft owns Internet Explorer and has every right to make their search engine the default.
If “users” were really the ones with the problem here, we’d surely know about. I’ve never heard a peep.
3)Is it really “society” that likes to tear down companies who’ve succeeded? I think a little thought into that reveals that the answer is no.
Since Google launch it’s GMail I’m talking about it… Google today handle with it’s good products and services, almost the entire world… so… they have more power than US goverment… also, they have the money to make it’s monopoly grow even faster… so… Google wasn’t inocent… never was… you just can see how they works and how they think… MS never said diferent of theirs ideas… they want to sell it’s OSes, and they want it to be installed in every computer in the world…
They should’ve dumped that “do no evil” mantra when the guy who invented that term went to Friendfeed. Time for a new one !
“But society loves to tear down their heroes just as quickly as they supported them as underdogs.”
I call b.s.
Drink.
Blasphemy! :p
when those big fat kick back checks stop then google will have a problem with big government
keep those check coming google
Dear Michael, you were talking as if you are a ‘big judge’
I think it’s only a matter of time before Google dethrones Microsoft in the best-company-to-take-a-punch-at category. We simply love hating companies that have too much power (i.e. market share).
Eric Schmidt talking to Ken Auletta:
>> “Don’t be evil” is misunderstood. We don’t have an evil meter…the rule allows for conversation. I thought when I joined the company this was crap…it must be a joke. <<
as quoted by Dan Farber http://news.cne...9966025-80.html
I think the FF/Google integration is much different than the old Microsoft/IE one. For one, Firefox and Google are not the same company. So why should Firefox suffer by offering a different search engine (which won’t bring FF as much revenue) during their install?
I think it’s a little early to give Google monopoly status. They don’t control a majority of web traffic or even advertising impressions. They just monetize it better. They shouldn’t be punished for that.
My opinion of Google improved dramatically when I figured out how to get them to pay my mortgage.
“There’s no getting past the fact that Google has out-competed everyone in the search game, and is justly collecting the economic rewards of that effort. But society loves to tear down their heroes just as quickly as they supported them as underdogs.”
Because we need competition on certain grounds–product and business model innovation.
@Luke Harvey Palmer
“The market will shift, and Google’s importance will be reduced – this is what happens in free markets; you don’t need regulation – free markets regulate themselves! (how do I know all this – easy, I Googled it!)”
You need to do a lot more research than a simple Google search of “economics” to know what the hell you are talking about. Free markets regulate themselves in Candyland maybe, but not the real world. Keep dreaming.
Michael Arrington said…
Microsoft is forced to offer users a choice when they install Internet Explorer. Given the longstanding financial ties between Google and Firefox, perhaps the same choice should be presented there as well.
Michael, have you gone crazy lately? You have had a few anti-Google articles here at TechCrunch in the last few weeks or so.
Man, you should act like a lawyer and think like one. I posted a link to the article from the Ayn Rand Institute on another thread about property rights issues regarding the Microsoft anti-trust case that should have been dropped, and I thought you were going to comment but none at all. Google deserved their position of being dominant in web-search which they achieved via a non-coercive manner and they should be applauded for that.
Most comments here tend to think that they somehow have God-given rights to have a say or interfere with what others own, in this case the Google search engine. If you don’t like Google cease using it, simple as that.
Michael Arrington said…
But society loves to tear down their heroes just as quickly as they supported them as underdogs.
Yes, that is what you call market forces. Voluntary action amongst consenting adults. I mean voluntary and not coercive. I bet you 200%, that the society won’t give a toss here. Society would still use Google with or without Google deal with Yahoo or Google acquisitions of other businesses. This means that the market approves Google’s conducts.
The similarities between the Google/Firefox relationship are curiously similar to the relationship Microsoft held with Compaq & Dell in the nineties.
Mozilla (foundation or company, I’m not sure which) gets nearly all (over 99%) of its revenue from Google due to the default search feature. Dell & Compaq, back in the day, had nearly the same amount of revenue proportion tied to Windows-based PC deliveries.
Much was made (in the anti-trust trial) of the heavy-handed tactics that MS laid on the PC makers, but make no mistake: Compaq and Dell did well, but they were sort of at the mercy of MS.
The Google/Firefox relationship might not be so tenuous, but the dominant/submissive relationship exists. Google doesn’t *have* to say anything to Mozilla. Mozilla knows that their “suGar daddy” would disappear if they were not the default search option, and they don’t want to jeopardize it.
It may feel different to all of us because it is “nice guys” vs. “bad guys”, but Google has Mozilla & Firefox over a barrel.
i agree – google is not what it used to be. It’s not ‘cool’ anymore…
I think it’s a little early to give Google monopoly status. They don’t control a majority of web traffic or even advertising impressions. They just monetize it better.
Michael Soebel said…
but that kind of almost-monopoly is not good for someone to have, who in effect controls access to information.
But who owns the information? You, your dad, your grandma or the government, or Google?
I can tell you, if you don’t know. The info that you get from using Google search is the property of Google. If you use LiveSearch the info belongs to Microsoft. Any search service that you use that is not your family property (mean that you didn’t produce it) belongs solely to the vendor which runs that service or its legal rightful owner/s.
Google CEO was on the list of 2008 Bilderberg Group meeting, that might be something of a hint to the Article’s question.
I love reading the people that keep saying, “if you don’t like it then don’t use it”.
So why does MS get slammed everyday over “controlling” everything? No one ever forced you to use MS products. If you don’t like it don’t use it.
As far as FF and Google integration as default search provider, I think it is ridiculous that MS is required to offer a choice at install time, but FF isn’t.
You say that Google doesn’t make FF so FF should get to pick whatever they want to use.
In that theory, if someone makes a product (ie MS) shouldn’t they have the right to say what the defaults are? It’s their application, if you don’t like it, don’t use it.
If MS gets restricted in one what, then all other companies offering the same service should be restricted the same way. Otherwise it’s like saying, since you are rich you can go ahead and speed, but if you are poor then you have to drive slower.
It simply makes no sense.