You may have heard that the FTC has launched an antitrust investigation into Google’s search-advertising business, as Thomas Catan reported last week. Google contends that it does not behave in an anti-competitive manner, and I am inclined to agree. 

In a spirit of fairness, however, I’ll note that Google has occasionally indulged in double standards with regards to its own competitors. In February, Ben Edelman of Harvard Business School noted that Google’s criticisms of Microsoft could just as easily apply to its own practices regarding the collection and use of consumer data. And Edelman, who consults for Google competitors, has warned of the dangers of “hard-coding,” or privileging Google services over the offerings of competitors. He has also proposed remedies for hard-coding bias:

The prospect of legal or regulatory oversight of search results has attracted skepticism. A search industry news site recently questioned the wisdom of investigating search bias by arguing that, even if bias were uncovered, “it’s not clear what any remedy would be.” James Grimmelmann last month critiqued the suggestion that search engines can be biased, and he argued that even if such bias exists, the legal system cannot usefully prevent it. Discomfort with the prospect of legal intervention extends even to those who ultimately see a need for oversight: For example, Pasquale and Bracha title a recent paper Federal Search Commission?, ending the title with a question mark to credit the immediate shortfalls of an overly bureaucratic approach. Meanwhile, Google’s caricature of regulation warns of government-mandated homogeneous results and unblockable web spam, offering a particularly pronounced view of search regulation as intrusive and undesirable.

I found Edelman’s proposals interesting. Among other things, he draws on an analogy to Microsoft and the notion of integrated services:

Taking the “browser choice” concept to search results, each vertical search service could, in principle, come from a different vendor. If a user prefers that her Google algorithmic search present embedded maps from Mapquest along with local search from Yelp and video search from Hulu, the user could configure browser preferences accordingly. Furthermore, a user could make such choices on a just-in-time basis. (A possible prompt: “We noticed you’re looking for a map, and there are five vendors to choose from. Please choose a logo below.”) Later, an unobtrusive drop-down could allow adjustments. The technical barriers are reasonable: External objects could be integrated through client-side JavaScript – just as so many sites already embed AdSense ads, YouTube player, and other widgets. Or Google and contributors might prefer server-to-server communications of the sort Google uses in its partnerships with AOL and with Yahoo Japan. Either way, technology need not stand in the way.

I credit that many users may be content with most Google services. For example, Google Maps enjoyed instant success through its early offering of draggable maps. But in some areas, Google’s offerings have little traction. Google’s Places service aspires to assess quality of restaurants and local businesses – but Yelp and Angie’s List draw on specialized algorithms, deeper data, and longstanding expertise. So too for TripAdvisor as to hotel reviews, and myriad other sites in their respective sectors. A user might well prefer to get information in these areas from the respective specialized services, not from Google, were the user able to make that choice.

Google often argues that competition is one click away. But here too, the E.C.’s Microsoft litigation is on point. Users had ample ability to install other browsers if they so chose, but that general capability was not enough when the standard operating system made one choice a default. Furthermore, at least Windows let other browsers truly immerse themselves in the operating system – as the default viewer for .HTML files, the default application for hyperlinks in email messages, and so forth. But there is currently no analogue on Google – no way for a user, even one who seeks this function, to combine Google algorithmic search with a competitor’s maps, local results, or other specialized search services.

Speaking only for myself, I can think of only a handful of examples of choosing a non-Google service over a Google service, e.g., Places. Moreover, I tend to find that Googly doesn’t hard-code enough for my taste, e.g., there have been times when I’ve had to endure a non-Google services to find movie listings when searching via Google. 

I wonder if Google might preemptively embrace some of Edelman’s suggestions as the FTC probe gets underway.