Microsoft's Bing ready to step in if Google pulls search from Australia, minister says
Microsoft’s Bing is ready to swoop if Google makes good on its threat to remove search from Australia when the mandatory news code becomes law, the government has revealed.
The communications minister, Paul Fletcher, said Google dominated in Australia with a market share of 93% but there were other players, including Microsoft and DuckDuckGo, that were talking to the government about replacing it.
“Microsoft, a giant American corporation, an information technology powerhouse, is very significantly interested in the market opportunity in Australia, should Google choose to withdraw its presence in search in Australia,” Fletcher told the ABC’s Patricia Karvelas.
Fletcher played down Google’s threat, saying it “don’t always follow through”, and reiterated that the government would not back down.
“What Google and Facebook say they intend to do is really a matter for them,” he said. “We made it clear we very much prefer them to stay in Australia, they’re an important, significant part of the ecosystem, but ultimately these are business decisions.”
“The Microsoft CEO reached out to the prime minister and proposed a meeting, accompanied by senior executives, I was able to join that meeting, and we had a very informative discussion about Microsoft’s interest in the Australian market. At the moment they have a small market share in search, but they’re interested in expanding that, they’re interested in developing the presence of Bing here.”
Fletcher said the prime minister told Facebook’s global CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, that he would not “change from the path that we have set out”, which is based on “a very thorough public policy process”.
“Look, ultimately, at the end of the day, if you want to do business in Australia, you need to comply with the laws of the sovereign government of Australia.”
The second day of public hearings into the code heard that any funds raised from Google and Facebook should be funnelled into the “newsroom and not the boardroom” of big media companies.
The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance warned of the danger of not specifying where the funds should be spent.
“It would be a perverse consequence of the years-long digital platforms inquiry and code development process if funds raised via the code were directed to purposes other than sustaining and increasing news content that serves the public interest,” Meaa’s director of its media section, Adam Portelli, said.
Smaller media companies, including regional newspapers, Crikey and the New Daily, told the Senate they supported the code but had reservations about some aspects.
Country Press Australia does not want the ABC and the SBS included in the code because it would diminish the pool of money available for them, and Crikey publisher Eric Beecher supported Google’s push for its product News Showcase to be a mechanism for paying news companies.
Beecher said Google had not “stolen content” from media companies or “stolen advertising” and it was a “crazy concept” to suggest otherwise.
He proposed the digital giants pay a “social licence”, which would be used to fund public interest journalism.
Facebook and Google’s threats to withdraw services should send a chill through those who value democracy, the Centre for Responsible Technology’s Peter Lewis said.
“Let’s be clear: what Google and Facebook are really terrified of is the existence of this legislation, because this will provide a global model for addressing the impact of their market dominance of the advertising industry,” Lewis said.
“Capitulation will be a recognition that big tech is now more powerful than our elected government, a proposition that is just not sustainable.”
Officials from Treasury repeatedly refused to answer questions about their contingency plan should Google and Facebook withdraw some services from Australia.
According to the latest Guardian Essential poll, more people are concerned about the prospect of not being able to use Google search and Facebook news if they are removed than those who aren’t concerned (57% vs 43%).
Those aged 18 to 34 are most concerned (73%), followed by those 35 to 54 (63%). Those over 55 are not as concerned compared to younger cohorts (38%).