infocentre

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
As European regulators ponder Google's fate in a probe into the search giant's business practices, a Yelp-led group of competitors takes to the company's Chrome store to make a point.

The Yelp-led consortium argues that Google gives preferential treatment to Google in search results. Focus on the User/Screenshot by CNET

A consortium of Google's rivals -- including review sites Yelp and TripAdvisor -- is using the company's own platform to help further its cause against the search giant.

Focus on the User, a group united against Google's alleged anti-competitive practices, last week unveiled a software tool that works with Google's Chrome browser. The software uses Google's own algorithms to make sure more third-party sites are included in top search results when you're using Chrome -- Focus on the User claims that Google doesn't promote sites fairly in its search results.

That's not the only way the group is using Google's services: as of earlier this week, the software is available as an app that can be downloaded from Google's Chrome store. In order for the software to be distributed on the store, Google had to approve it.

Google didn't respond to a request for comment.

Focus on the User -- which also includes Switzerland-based travel site HolidayCheck and digital rights groups like Fight for the Future -- was formed last week in response to antitrust issues in the European Union concerning how Google displays search results. A spokesman for the consortium told CNET two new French reviews sites, Bebe et Tournevis and Allogarage.fr, joined the group on Thursday.

Their main complaint is that the company allegedly gives priority to search results based on reviews generated by its Google+ social network -- even when Google's own search algorithms would deem outside links more valuable. The Focus on the User tool forces Google's search engine to rank results generated by the "top local review sites" -- which includes sites like Yelp and TripAdvisor -- by running all of the results through Google's general search algorithm. This avoids what they claim is a bias toward Google+ offerings.

"Given we know it's both possible to power local answers with the organic algorithm and consumers prefer it, why is Google requiring users to install special software to get the answers they want?" a spokesman for Focus on the User told CNET.

The group's Chrome plug-in is now available for download at Google's Chrome Web store. Screenshot by CNET

In February, Google reached a tentative settlement with European regulators after a 4-year-old investigation into whether the search giant favored its own products and services over those of competitors in search results. As part of the proposed settlement, Google agreed to display search results for three of its rivals in a "comparable" way whenever it promoted its own services. Google's services include Google+ and YouTube. However, the search giant didn't have to pay a fine of up to $6 billion, or 10 percent of the company's global sales.

But Google's settlement proposals -- they've made three attempts so far -- have come under fire. Opponents include European politicians, competitors like Microsoft, and French and German publishers who say the response has been too lax. In September, EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia told Google that if the commission wasn't satisfied with its next settlement proposal, the company could face formal charges -- which includes the possibility of the $6 billion fine.

The investigation in Europe underscores a concern over Google's expansive reach, and its ability to use its position as the world's largest search engine to stifle competition. But its competitors use of Google services -- the group's informational videos are hosted by Google-owned YouTube as well -- highlights a philosophy that has guided Google since its founding: platforms should be open. (Google's Android, the most widely used mobile operating system in the world, is a famously open-source project, though it too may soon be the target of competition regulators in Europe.)

Focus on the User -- the name comes from one of Google's early mantras -- called Google's decision to distribute the software through the Chrome store "ironic." The group cites Eric Schmidt, Google's executive chairman, telling Congress in 2011 that the company tends to use its own data sources to drive search results "because [Google] can't engineer it any other way." But that isn't the case, Focus on the User claims.

"The truth is Google can organically power its local answers using data sources from across the Web," Focus on the User said. While the groups' Chrome plug-in isn't perfect, it does prove that the content in Google's display of search results for local businesses can be culled and ranked from sources other than Google+, the spokesman said.

Users who searched Google with the plug-in installed were more likely to click on other links beyond the ones for Google-owned services, the group notes.

Before the plug-in went live on Monday, the software was still available for the public to download, just not as easily. It was available on the consortium's GitHub site, a service where people can download open-source programming projects.

Meanwhile, the European review of Google's practices continues. The final decision will fall to former Danish economy minister Margrethe Vestager, who takes over from Almunia as the EU's competition chief in November. It's unclear what her stance on Google is, but she has talked about the commission's priorities.

"We have to make sure that there is a high degree of security in relation to personal data," Vestager told The Wall Street Journal. "That there is a high degree of confidence from the people that the competition rules and regulations on market fairness are actually being enforced."

Richard Nieva Richard Nieva is a staff writer for CNET. He previously worked for PandoDaily and Fortune Magazine, and his writing has appeared in the New York Times and on CJR.org. See full bio

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Lego has succumbed to pressure from Greenpeace over its long-term promotional contract with petroleum giant Shell.

Screenshot by Michelle Starr/CNET

Since the 1960s, Lego has had a series of co-branding marketing partnerships with Shell, and children around the world could play with Shell-branded Lego sets. Today, this partnership comes to an end: Lego has announced its intention not to renew its contract with the petroleum giant.

"The long-term co-promotion contract we entered with Shell in 2011 delivers on the objective of bringing LEGO bricks into the hands of many children, and we will honour it -- as we would with any contract we enter," wrote Lego Group CEO Jørgen Vig Knudstorp in a statement.

"We continuously consider many different ways of how to deliver on our promise of bringing creative play to more children. We want to clarify that as things currently stand we will not renew the co-promotion contract with Shell when the present contract ends."

The move comes three months after Greenpeace launched a video condemning Lego's involvement with Shell in light of Shell's planned Arctic drilling expedition.

"We love Lego. You love Lego. Everyone loves Lego. But when Lego 's halo effect is being used to sell propaganda to children, especially by an unethical corporation who are busy destroying the natural world our children will inherit, we have to do something," Greenpeace said. "Children's imaginations are an unspoilt wilderness. Help us stop Shell polluting them by telling LEGO to stop selling Shell-branded bricks and kits today."

The organisation also launched a video parodying the hit song, "Everything is Awesome", from the Lego Movie, playing while oil engulfs a Lego model of the Arctic. This video garnered over 6 million views -- and the accompanying petition 1,019,500 signatures.

Lego initially resisted pressure from Greenpeace, and Knudstorp made it clear in his announcement to dissolve the partnership that he does not think highly of Greenpeace's methods.

"The Greenpeace campaign uses the Lego brand to target Shell. As we have stated before, we firmly believe Greenpeace ought to have a direct conversation with Shell. The LEGO brand, and everyone who enjoys creative play, should never have become part of Greenpeace's dispute with Shell," he wrote.

"Our stakeholders have high expectations to the way we operate. So do we. We do not agree with the tactics used by Greenpeace that may have created misunderstandings among our stakeholders about the way we operate; and we want to ensure that our attention is not diverted from our commitment to delivering creative and inspiring play experiences."

Leading climate scientist Dr Simon Lewis of University College London applauded the campaign.

"To avoid the most serious impacts of climate change most of the known fossil fuel reserves can't be used. That puts companies like Shell in a difficult position, as their value is linked to their ability to find and exploit reserves. They need a public relations fix," he said.

"The success of the Greenpeace campaign breaking the link between Lego and Shell shows that there is widespread public discomfort at the way fossil fuel companies try to get their 'don't worry about the future' message across by linking to other brands. This is a very positive development, as in my view society is better served by more transparency and less PR smoke and mirrors."

However, not all are scientists are in agreement with Greenpeace's methodology.

"It is all too easy to demonise the oil companies, but demanding this kind of disengagement is just too simplistic. It's also hypocritical because we wouldn't be able to live the lives we take for granted without the supply of energy these companies provide to us," said University College London professor of climate science Chris Rapley, who has participated in Shell Scenarios.

"We need a sensible, balanced and intelligent debate with the oil industry in which we critique bad things they do and embrace the positives. The people I talk to in the Shell Scenarios Team are bright, thoughtful people, trying to work out how to navigate a way forward to a better future -- accepting that climate change is real, driven by humans and not likely to be a good thing. It is scientists and engineers like these, not the activists, who in the end will deliver the alternatives to fossil fuels and are turning companies like Shell from oil companies into energy companies.

"10 out of 10 to campaigners like Greenpeace for wanting to provoke change. 0 out of 10 for this campaign, in my opinion, which might attract headlines and make them feel good, but does not address the real issues and will not deliver the changes we all need."

Michelle Starr Michelle Starr is the tiger force at the core of all things. She also writes about cool stuff and apps as CNET Australia's Crave editor. But mostly the tiger force thing. See full bio