If Google's Upstart Competitors Aren't Afraid Of Google, Why Is Washington Upset?

from the it's-all-political dept

With Eric Schmidt in DC today to be grilled by a Senate commission about antitrust issues, it’s interesting to see that Rich Skrenta, the founder/CEO of an upstart competing search engine, Blekko, come right out and tell DC to keep its hands off Google:

We don?t need federal intervention to level the playing field with Google. Innovation and competition are far more powerful instruments to battle companies that have grown powerful and influential. Which has been more detrimental to Microsoft’s business? The lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice in the 90s, or the innovative products Apple has brought to the marketplace?

The success of Google should be applauded on Capitol Hill, not derided.

Let?s let entrepreneurs, technology and good old-fashioned innovation deal with Google. Consumers will always be the winners in that scenario.

If a company is holding back innovation through market control, I’ll be the first to worry about it, but I’m at a loss to see where Google’s choices have directly harmed consumers. It’s nice to see Skrenta making this point when it would be easy to score a cheap political point by jumping on the bandwagon. No doubt that a broken up Google would present an opportunity for Blekko to take more marketshare — but real entrepreneurs know that getting the government to attack your competitors is no way to build a truly innovative company.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: blekko, google

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “If Google's Upstart Competitors Aren't Afraid Of Google, Why Is Washington Upset?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
out_of_the_blue says:

So many wrong premises.

First, capitalism isn’t just for corporations, so premise that only competitors can object is wrong. For all we know, Google has funded fake startups to present the illusion of competition, just as NFL is split into teams, or pro wrestlers are actually enemies and not actors. Phooey.

2nd, it’s not a question as: “Which has been more detrimental to Microsoft’s business? The lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice in the 90s, or the innovative products Apple has brought to the marketplace?” — It’s whether any given company is TOO BIG and controlling, period. Just because apparent “good” is resulting is no guarantee that the situation is optimal, either. Without some action sheerly because large, we’ll never know what might be better.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: So many wrong premises.

The difference here is that the NFL benefits from the government establishment of monopoly power.

In order for me to start my own sports league and to broadcast it over public airwaves and cableco infrastructure, I must go through a government established monopoly gatekeeper (broadcasting monopolies and cableco monopolies). That’s not free market capitalism by a long shot. The existing status quo has a government established advantage.

Google has no such government established advantage. They play on a level playing field, if anything, the government doesn’t like them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: So many wrong premises.

What the government wants to do, and about the only thing it ever does when it comes to these sorts of regulations, is to minimize social benefit in favor of creating centralized benefits.

It’s why the government has established monopoly power in so many other industries. Government established monopolies minimize social benefit in favor of creating centralized benefits.

Google’s innovative endeavors have created plenty of socialized benefits. The public benefits. The government sees this and angers. So what does it want to do? It wants to find ways to minimize the social benefit provided in favor of creating more centralized benefits into the hand of a few government established monopolists.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Face it this has nothing to do with google being a monopoly. It has to do with Microsoft losing market share in every arena to google, android, search, web apps, cloud computing, cell phones and tablets.

Microsoft is pushing at the state level, the federal level and the international level to stop microsoft. The SCO Unix lawsuit, EU antitrust, US antitrust, and state level laws banning imports into the US can all be traced back to microsoft.

RichWa (profile) says:

MS Lawsuit

Actually the fed’s lawsuit was very effective against Microsoft and would have been even more effective had the Bush administration not dropped it. Apple would not be where it is today, (most likely there would be no Apple,) without the fed lawsuit as the tactic Gates employed would have driven Apple out of business just as countless of other companies with superior technology were. Apple was used by MS for a very long time to justify it’s untrue claim of not being a monopoly and that is why Apple survived in it’s niche.

Now if we can just get rid of software patents.

Ben Edelman (user link) says:

Re: the real Ben Edelman

Ben Edelman here — the author of the article linked above (7:26am post) but interestingly *not* the author of that 7:26am post. Who posted it? Not me! I’ll check with Techdirt site operators to see if they logged IP address or other information that can help us figure out who’s impersonating me.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: the real Ben Edelman

Indeed. The original comment was most likely not from Ben Edeleman, and we’ve changed the name on the comment to “Pretended to be Ben Edelman.” We don’t reveal IP info on a commenter without proper court authority, but in this case all I can say is that whoever left that comment did so via a proxy, which likely makes them untraceable. In theory, that could actually be Ben using a proxy, but I find that to be highly unlikely.

Gordon (profile) says:

Re: Re: the real Ben Edelman

I haven’t read into how Google writes their policies, so I won’t comment on most of the points in your article.

The one point of it I will comment on is the bit in there where you’re talking about lock in. The Android platform most certainly NOT locking all customers into using Google search, as proven by Verizon using Bing search on the middle and lower tier Android phones almost from the beginning, and also not allowing you to choose to use another engine (may have changed since last time I looked).

The only VZN Android phones to use Google search by default were and I believe still are the “Droid” line of phones, and or any one of them using stock Android.

My 2 cents.

Ben Edelman (user link) says:

Re: point-by-point on Google's harm to advertisers

All right, now that we’ve cleared up the mystery of the original comment, it’s time to turn to substance —

Incoherent one: The question isn’t whether you know how to change Firefox defaults, but whether users actually do change search defaults. If users overwhelmingly stick with Google — and all evidence is that they do and that they have — then advertisers have to buy placements on Google; no competitor can offer a comparable service. Competition is not one click away from an advertiser’s perspective. What exactly is an advertiser supposed to do if the advertiser wants paid search traffic but doesn’t want to buy from Google?

As to Chrome favoring Google: One can suggest that that’s Google’s prerogative as maker of Chrome. But how much may Chrome favor Google? In one of the articles I linked, I showed Chrome autocompleting a direct navigation attempt in a way that turned the direct navigation into a search (at Google) — with a top-most listing being, predictably, an ad. The result is to confront a user with ads when the user tries to run a search. It’s clear why this is in Google’s interest — more ad clicks, more money. But I don’t know why this would be in users’ interest. And it’s clearly not in the advertiser’s interest; the advertiser would much prefer to get that user for free, than to have the user diverted to Google where the user may click an ad or even end up at a competitor’s site.

Anonymous Coward (7:49am) says I’m “wrong” about all-or-nothing placements in Search Network. AC, if you claim this is so easy, can you link to a screenshot or help page showing how an advertiser can buy just some of Google Search Network without accepting the undesirable parts of Search Network that I describe in my article? I think you’ll find that it’s truly not as easy as you suggest. Content Network has fine source selection, but Search Network does not.

Finally, Anonymous Coward (7:49am) suggests a manual export from AdWords to CSV (or similar) and then an import into a competing platform (like AdCenter/Yahoo). I agree that that’s possible. But one wouldn’t want to do that every day. Nor can that process readily be automated. In contrast, were it not for Google’s prohibition on use of AdWords API to copy/synchronize campaigns, advertisers could have easy one-click or even zero-click (automatic) copying between ad platforms. Makers of PPC management software tell me that this is the single most-requested feature their customers want. But Google specifically bans this feature. Do you see any plausible pro-competitive justification for the ban? As I mentioned in the article, a Google exec once told me “we don’t have to make it easy” — confirming my long-held suspicion that Google is intentionally making data portability difficult, in this area, in order to hinder use of competing services and strengthen Google’s market position. I believe that’s contrary to well-established principles of antitrust law.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: point-by-point on Google's harm to advertisers

Maybe people keep google as the default search engine because, wait for it…. Its a better search engine. At least for me and my searching habits, this is the case.

Also, why is it ok to tell a company how to design their own product? If google chrome wants to prefer google stuff, let them. It is their product to do with as they please. If I don’t like it, there are plenty of other great browsers out there to use.

I am sure no one is forced to use google products, ads, etc. They do so, in my opinion, because its better for them or makes them more money.

I believe the gov should not get involved. It is always tough to beat the #1. However, if you do it the right way. In this case through innovation, everyone wins.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: point-by-point on Google's harm to advertisers

1) That is a problem of the advertisers not Google and certainly not customers that are not forced to use Google they choose to use and every chance to chance the settings is given to them including the one most obvious you can just type the url of any search engine out there and it will show up on any browser that includes Google-Chrome. Natural monopolies do happen and the good thing about it is that they can disapear as quick as they appeared one just have to convicne the public that it is in their best interest to do so, is that what you are trying to do?
I don’t see it.

2) You do understand again that there are 2 versions of Google-Chrome, one is Chrome and the other is Chromiun the one which a lot of others use and can be modified, so Google is basically giving away the tools to others to compete with itself it is that not shocking?

3) Banning tools to help advertisers move elsewhere.
Really only the big boys can write a javascript line of code that would take 3 to 5 lines? Not to mention one can use Python, Bash, Batch(in Windows), it is not that hard actually.
Also for the programming challenged there are action-recorders in the market that do that(e.g. iMacros or the likes of it).

Anonymous Coward says:


Most of those are just wrong. Like the all-or-nothing placements, Google does allow you to specify URLs on which you want your ads to appear such as YouTube and NYTimes. And the Banning of Tools, to copy a Google ad campaign all you have to do is export it through AdWords itself then you can import to many different competitors.

anonymous says:

if any site is conducting customer tracking, it should be clearly displayed. Google’s tracking options should be disabled to start with. if a person doesn’t mind being tracked he/she should be asked first and then give permission. the tracking option should not be enabled by default, then the option to turn it off either be unavailable or so hidden that people dont look for it.
as far as ‘let entrepreneurs, technology and good old-fashioned innovation deal with Google’, the same should apply to the entertainment industries. what a shame they are so useless and have such an inferiority complex that they cant deal with any of these things, have to rely on paying out a fortune in bribes and lobbying to keep their old business models, withhold payments from those they are supposed to represent, whilst lining the execs pockets only.

Anonymous Coward says:

What the government wants to do here is to create a government established search monopoly.

Mark my words, just like what the government did for so many other industries (from government established taxi cab monopolies to government established broadcasting monopolies to government established cableco monopolies to government established mailbox delivery monopolies to government established electricity delivery monopolies with a company that pays no taxes, to government established intellectual property monopolies, to government established gambling and liquor monopolies and even its attempts to provide for the government establishment of online gambling monopolies), the government wants to do here exactly what it did to so many other industries. It wants to provide someone with a government established monopoly. It’s itching to do this, it’s been wanting to do this for a while, it can’t wait. It wants to do exactly this, it wants to provide for the government establishment of search engine monopolies. This is its goal, the same exact goal it accomplished in SO MANY other industries.

Anonymous Coward says:

I am slowly seeing the truth about how Washington who has fucked with us little guys for so long has also fucked with Big Business in so many screwed up ways that when you wonder why some rich CEO builds a plant in Vietnam instead of doing it here and helping us out I know think it is not him trying to gouge us for money but it is Washington who fucked us again.
Maybe those Republicans are right about Washington making it so hard to do business with their laws and rules it forces some to just go elsewhere.

Leave Google alone assholes !!!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

One example that sounds like a joke but it is not.

There are no American car manufacturers investing in self-driving cars at the moment, why is that the only prototype representing American business comes from Google?

Shouldn’t GM or Ford be the ones doing research on that crap?
Probably if it was not Google paying for that only Europeans would have that technology advanced enough to do something, along with the Chinese.

It is just mind boggling since the American government is trying hard to push down the throats of everyone that IP is the future and they need to be protected, but in reality what they are doing is giving others the tools to hammer down America even further since nobody in America seems willing to do even research and because of strong IP constraints little people can’t push into the market without great risks of liability.

Thanak you Washington you have destroyed America, you just didn’t realize it yet.

Anonymous Coward says:

It seems to me that bankers are the most desperate critics of credit unions, who largely offer the same services at a fraction of the price. The bankers feel that all those credit union customers would be THEIR customers (and resultant profits) if the credit unions would just go away.

This whole Google thing is similar — a company wants to give “product” away and make money around the edges, while all those competitors want to sell “product” and just want Google to go away so they can go back to making money selling tired old ideas.

Androgynous Cowherd says:

Another reason for Blekko to side with Google here is this: if the government meddles with Google for being “too big”, it would set a precedent and if in the future Blekko became The Big Search Engine then Blekko would be in the firing line. It’s a classic do unto others thing: if you wouldn’t want the government doing this to your search company if you made it big someday then you don’t want it doing it to Google.

Bnesaladur (profile) says:

High quality only

Personally I like Google. It offers us a well rounded collection of internet resources on top of Google search itself. Now, though, apparently they are a monopoly. idk if the government looked into it but Google works to create ad targeting so that you receive ads you will be interested in, at the same time allowing you to not get targeted ads if they make you feel uncomfortable (privacy invasion).

I really like the part in the list of “Benedelmans” that says that if Google was in a competitive marketplace they would have to provide “high-quality, trustworthy traffic.” Basically Google would somehow have to ensure that only people with money, willing and ready to buy would respond to ads; and somehow to ensure that all the people who filled that category would receive the ads. I don’t think I like the idea of anyone, especially advertisers knowing everything I want, how much money I have, and whether I am ready to buy. I don’t mind them knowing which ads I read though, but its a fine line between privacy invasion and doing their job.

Bnesaladur (profile) says:

Re: High quality only

Oh yeah, and if you really want to whine about Googles contracts, perhaps look into every telecommunication and ISP contract ever written.

Also complaining that Google isnt fair because they are good at what they do is a bad argument. It isnt default that cause this, IE is windows default browser and Bing is IEs default search engine. Guess what, first thing I do when I get new PC? I change it to Google because Google works best.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...