I think the basic question is whether "vertical search" (products, maps, ...) is a different product from generic web search. If that's the case, then Google is clearly using its dominating position in generic search to push forward its vertical search products.<p>If that's not the case, i.e., products search is so close to generic web search that a distinction doesn't make sense, then Google is not abusing its monopoly but just enhancing its product.<p>I remember a blog post from the creator of "sushikartan.se" complaining about Google Maps entries being displayed on a search for "sushi stockholm" above his own website. That caused him a major loss in traffic, and he quite convincingly argues that his own search results and reviews are much better than Google's, so Google was (at least in that case) not really working in the user's best interest.<p><a href="http://www.tedvalentin.com/2010/05/google-content-producer.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.tedvalentin.com/2010/05/google-content-producer.h...</a><p>I personally think its legitimate behaviour from Google. They are not pushing some entirely unrelated product of theirs (e.g. GMail) but really trying to enhance their product (not always successfully, see sushikartan example above). And I'd be very surprised if they manually modified rankings of competitors like ciao on purpose. But I think it's a valid question to raise.
The European Commission should be very careful in distinguishing between illegal activity and success as a good service that people overwhelmingly prefer.
A company (just like an individual) should not be expected to sabotage itself by promoting competitors' products. It is only natural that a company supports and advertises its own offerings first and foremost, and any attempt to force it to do otherwise (given that the company has not acted illegally) is unethical.
In a related article on the BBC site, the founder of Foundem (a firm that filed a complaint against Google) says "We just want a level playing field." The proper response to that would be: "Well, go out and create a compelling product that people want to use." Nothing in business (or in life) is on a perfectly level playing field; you have to work hard to create opportunities for yourself. Asking the government to hinder a competitor is morally questionable and certainly not a viable long-term strategy. An even bigger problem is asking the government to provide "level playing field[s]" that go beyond the existing anti-trust laws.
I hope the EC will be prudent enough to punish Google if and only if clear law violations are found, and not because some competitor is unhappy with the Google's size and customer engagement.
<i>For example, it said, Foundem "duplicates 79% of its website content from other sites."</i><p><i>"We have consistently informed webmasters that our algorithms disadvantage duplicate sites," the firm said.</i><p>Search engines duplicate content by necessity, so this isn't really a very fair test when it's applied to Google's competitors (i.e. sites providing search for specific areas and industries).<p>It's entirely unreasonable to state 'these are the rules, we're simply sticking to them', when the rules have been set by the organisation in question.<p>No matter how much desire there is to project (and enforce) a healthy, non-stifling culture - when an organisation reaches a large size, the stake individuals are responsible for grows, and (some) people will act recklessly and aggressively to provide gains for the organisation in question.<p>When an organisation or company grows to a very large size, I think it can become analogous to a large pike in a small pond, consuming almost everything it can.<p>Our economic system isn't the pure system many people wish it was - it's not perfect. As much as I like the idea of a free-market, I think intervention is necessary.
Last time this was up, some people pointed out that the two companies didn't deserve high google rankings. That may or may not be the case.<p>The last complaint is correct however. Googles user requirements for its adservices prohibits webmasters from placing other contextual ads on the site. I wonder why nobody has complaind before (its not exactly a secret, it was written in the agreement).
I do think that Google search by definition "manipulates search results". A tautology? If it didn't, then there wouldn't be results.<p>Curious that legal threats and regulatory challenges came up in an interview discussion...
Framing the conversation in the context of ranking always bothered me, a search engine is a question answerer not a traffic pump.
Google has different verticals to handle different query types, geographical, financial, etc. After sending a query you are presented with the results on the Google SERP from one or more of these verticals, that is the whole concept behind the ‘universal search box’.<p>Google’s obligation is to user experience not to to self-proclaimed ‘competitors’, it should provide answers not send users sifting through another set of results or to conduct searches elsewhere.<p>And what if in the future search engines evolves beyond the ranking of blue links will the EU force Google not to change anything? And what about personalized search?<p>This is all quite ridiculous.