I live in a city where Google Maps has, until one month ago, had basically no traffic data, satellite imagery was from 2004, and even today still supports no transit.
Here maps has up-to-date imagery of highest quality, has traffic and transit data.
Yet, many people use Google Maps, even if that provides worse results, sends them on roads that don’t exist anymore, etc.
When one recommends they switch, they say "but Google Maps is preinstalled, installing Here Maps would be so much effort, and it doesn’t work with Ok Google".
This is literally the effect shown IRL.
So, a Unix Philosophy view of anti-trust law? Do one thing and do it well?
Product Listing Ads are like AdWords (text ads) in that they are advertisements placed by a particular merchant for a price. They are graphical ads in that they include a picture, but the picture must show a specific product that's available for sale.
Any merchant can sign up and place Product Listing Ads at the top of search results, just like how merchants can sign up to buy AdWords.
Can you clarify what you think is problematic about Product Listing Ads? Can you clarify your stance on AdWords? What do you think Google should do differently?
Product Listing Ads are already open to all merchants, just like AdWords. They show up at the top because they are advertisements, and showing up at the top is precisely what the merchant is buying. Why should product ads be treated any differently than AdWords? I don't see why one should be allowed and the other prohibited.
Or are you just saying that you don't think Google should be allowed to offer any advertising whatsoever alongside their free search?
I'm asking these questions because the criticism of Google's actions in this space does not seem sensible or consistent to me. If you agree that Google should be allowed to show advertisements in its free search, then I don't see what objection there can be to Product Listing Ads, or why someone would object to PLAs and not AdWords, given that both ad platforms are open to everyone. If they were specifically prohibiting their competitors from placing ads, or raking their ads poorly, that would be one thing, but what they seem to be accused of is, as best as I can understand it, offering ads at all. The logic is tortured.
(This current behavior seems to be what the EU investigation objects to; I didn't see a mention in the press release about Google having already stopped the practices they objected to, so I assume they object to the current search behavior. It may have worked differently in the past, like pre 2012.)
If they're treating people equally, then that's not a problem. Priceline can buy adverts like anyone else.
> Why should Google be able to make any money at all?
Google should make more money by being better at hotel bookings and better at product aggregation and better at each of their other offerings. They shouldn't make money purely because people already use google and google put their (possibly sub-par) offerings right at the top. This would make it much harder for anyone else in the field to come in and offer a better thing, because a high proportion of people will never go down even lower on the first page of results.