What about academia? You mean new algorithms can’t be invented unless they can be immediately commercialized and profitable?

Also the Foundem guys tell a good story, but where’s the Hustle? If they had such good technology, why didn’t they pivot? Why didn’t they try to sell to Amazon or NextTag? In 1998 I met people that created a price comparison website scraping engine at a conference, they failed to get significant traction and sold for a ton of money to Amazon. The technology they created VDB or treating the internet as a virtual sql database, turned out to be backed by none other than Anand Rajaraman and someone most people will be familiar with Peter Norvig.

I mean, honestly, if these guys had something truly innovative, I’m pretty sure they could have arranged an acquisition.

Is there any scientific evidence at all that innovation is being crushed? This seems like an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence beyond a few anecdotes from losing startups. 95% of businesses fail to be viable for a host of reasons.

If you’re doing product search your main competitor these days is Amazon anyway.

Maybe Foundem held onto the technology stupidly when they shouldn't have. I don't think that's relevant to the question of whether regulators should be concerned about the shape of Google's search results.

New algorithms can certainly be invented. The question is whether they catch on, which is the only way they do any good.

> What about academia? You mean new algorithms can’t be invented unless they can be immediately commercialized and profitable?

We may have reached a point that a single improved algorithm, by itself, cannot provide a better search experience without a lot of expensive operationalization.

We reached that point in 1996.

>You mean new algorithms can’t be invented unless they can be immediately commercialized and profitable?

Look at it the other way: what's the impact of removing the massive incentives of commercialization and profit?

How is Google "crushing" them? They just aren't getting as much exposure from Google as they'd like to. There's always going to be people unhappy with where their product shows up in search. Without a search engine, they'd have no chance at all in the first place. I agree that it's unfair for Google to prioritize their own products in Google search, but they aren't doing anything malicious.

Perhaps I should have said "stifling".

Questions of malice, or of intent more generally, are irrelevant. Antitrust law is intended to promote consumer welfare. If consumers would be better off knowing about a service than not, and because it threatens Google, Google is relegating it to page 70 of their search results, that's bad for consumers. Even if Google is trying to make everyone happy, regulators can help society by stepping in.