Re: What is the point
It's not really a matter of winning or losing though is it?
At least one would hope it was about promoting competition that would end up giving customers (consumers) the best product.
Google has the best search engine - fine. They've "won", because they currently hold a huge majority of online searches.
The problem comes when they begin using that search engine to give their own other products an edge over competitors. This means that the product they're peddling might not be the best, yet it'll still out compete the others, because it has an advantage (Google's superior search engine).
That's what we need to find a way to balance. Some would argue that Google should be free to display any search results they like - it's their search engine. And to large degree I concur.
However because Google control such a huge share of internet searches them displaying any search results they like does create anti-competitive circumstances.
I am interested in a few things when I search the web. I want an answer to my question, but I also have an interest in the company that provides the best answer to that question to be allowed to outcompete it's competition.
If Google simply funnels people to their own services, then those services can survive on a bare minimum, without having to actually compete, because their competition has no chance of gaining a customer base.
Let me attempt an analogy (which is surely bound to fail).
I have a company that has gained a huge market share in the competitive business of city-planning. I have proven myself good at creating flowing streets and easy to understand traffic situations.
Recently I have started a store selling cheese. There's already quite a few shops similar to mine, so competition is rather fierce. However instead of trying to compete with the other shops on an equal footing, I simply replan the city slightly, so as to maximise the traffic going to my shop, whilst making it harder and more bothersome to get to the other shops. The cheese is pretty much the same, but the knowledge of the staff, the quality control and other things are better in my competitions stores (or at least it might be), however that doesn't matter because now it's a lot simpler to simply drive to my shop, than take the extra detour to get to the other shops.
Other than city-planning obviously not being an open market venture (at least not to the degree it is in the analogy) I reckon you can see my point? You could argue that because they've gained a majority of the city-planning business (totally a legit thing), they get to plan the city however they like. And again, I would agree to some extent. And again it is clear that there's a real opportunity to create anti-competitive circumstances.
Re-reading what I've written, I think I'll just stop now, because this response and spun out of control, and now there's cheese everywhere. Please do tear down my analogy, I wager it isn't that good at all.
End note: I do not like Google. (The only services of their I use is translation, because that's simply the best I've found for that job (anyone have alternatives?)). This post is probably skewed because of this.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
