This is such an odd argument. It assumes that search is a largely solved problem.
But search is not solved, and the web (and human knowledge) is an evolving corpus.
> A user can then scroll through the search results, and below the amazon result is a horizontally scrolling list of results from Amazon, the Google Maps and the Here Maps results both have miniature maps, etc.
And this is even weirder. Who actually wants this?
No, it’s pretty simple. The search ordering algorithm should get as inputs only your query, and the linked page.
Currently, Google manually special-cases a handful of pages. That should simply end.
> And this is even weirder. Who actually wants this?
As I explained in another comment, I live in a city where Here Maps is vastly superior to Google Maps (Google Maps has maps material from ~2009, and, until 2 weeks ago, their satellite imagery was from 2004, so they frequently route you to non-existing roads, or so on, and they have no transit integration and bad traffic data, while Here Maps has data for roads and satellite from this week, and has transit integration), yet everyone uses Google Maps, simply because it is already preinstalled and shows up first in Google Search, despite worse results.
So, for at least a city of 280k people, Here Maps should probably show first. Or at least be equally integrated as Google Maps is.
Because currently the worse product is winning just because it is bundled.
I understand this way of thinking but the only trouble I have with this is that unlike ISPs I can switch to bing in a heartbeat.
How does a website owner "switch" to Bing? They have to use Google. They have to be findable on Google. Tell me how I get access to users if I don’t have my site findable on Google, please. Tell me how I can get the same placement in Google results as Google’s own pages.
It’s not about users being able to switch. That’s entirely irrelevant for this discussion. It’s as relevant as being able to replace the website logo with a browser addon.
When the consumer has the free choice to switch, there is no justifiable cause to violate the liberty of the company. Though apparently the EU disagrees.
> Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States."
Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
It treats most sites the same, but provides an advantage for some that cooperate with it or are owned by it, just like Zero Rating happens in the ISP situation.
And, just like in the ISP situation, users (at least in the EU) can easily switch at basically zero cost (in fact, switching ISPs actually gives users a bonus usually, many ISPs give you actual cash for switching to them).
Now, the question is why Google should be able to change the ordering in the search. I think they shouldn’t.
What should be done is that Google replaces, or expands, the existing search result for Google Shopping, for example, with the rich content they used to show at top.
Same with all other of their content.
In a next step, they should allow competitors via an API to also provide embedded content. A user can then scroll through the search results, and below the amazon result is a horizontally scrolling list of results from Amazon, the Google Maps and the Here Maps results both have miniature maps, etc.
This allows rich content, easier finding of results, it ensures a fair market, and it ensures that users can easier find out where Google’s content is sourced from (very often the Google Knowledge Graph rich text snippets quote wikipedia without attribution)
This is, basically, just applying the principles of Net Neutrality to Google.