> Abusing a monopoly position to unfairly crush the competition is. I don't see Google doing that.
Really?! I see a ton of places where Google is leveraging their dominant position in search (which I agree they won because they are the best) into other areas. Remember when Google marketed Google Plus right on the search homepage? Android (at least the vast majority of Android versions that users use) is tightly interwoven with Google services.
In fact, I see a ton of parallels between Microsoft in the late 90s (where they leveraged their dominant OS position into lots of other areas) and Google of today.
MS took a paid for product in the market and used Windows to drive it's price to $0, basically killing Netscape. This was a position where they used their monopoly on the desktop to beat a competitive product that was, at the time, purchased at a store in a box.
For Google, while it does use its position to promote its stuff, it's also the kind of thing where you can avoid it by typing in duckduckgo.com or Yahoo.com. It's not a huge barrier to avoid Google. It's not as if Google has built the only train tracks west of the Mississippi, and is not allowing anyone else to use them. Rather, it's more like they built a balloon you sorta grab outa the air for free as you need it, with the ability to quickly try another balloon from a different manufacturer just by grabbing at the string next to it.
If Google was restricting Web Searches of paid-for items to only its stores, or making it so you could only read the NYT by paying Google to access that site's news, or some other thing where they were gatekeeping with a toll, they'd be acting as a monopolistic corp. But since you can always just type in another URL within a few seconds and be at another search engine, I see it as a fairly cut and dried sign that competition exists and is accessible, it's just shittier than Google.
Antitrust questions become much more stringent than people might realise.
Even if you are 100% "fair game", if you happen to be in a dominant position then you have a responsibility to not use your huge clout to win in other markets. Even advertising Chrome on the Google homepage is a very tricky legal question (and the wording on the page!)
The MS case is interesting too. Even after basically all browsers became "free", MS is still obligated to offer a browser choice screen in European Windows. Despite basically no barriers to entry, the fact that IE is packaged in by default is still too much for some regulators.
It's as if Google has built the only train tracks west of the Mississippi, and nobody else has bothered to build them. Sure, you can get to the bus stop still (or whatever), but the fact is Google is dominant in web access, and must give competitors a fighting chance. Even if it means hobbling their own efforts.
Really?! I see a ton of places where Google is leveraging their dominant position in search (which I agree they won because they are the best) into other areas. Remember when Google marketed Google Plus right on the search homepage? Android (at least the vast majority of Android versions that users use) is tightly interwoven with Google services.
In fact, I see a ton of parallels between Microsoft in the late 90s (where they leveraged their dominant OS position into lots of other areas) and Google of today.