The funny thing is that Google Maps is even worse than the shopping comparison IMO. But I think the shopping thing got traction as a few competitors bundled their forces and sued them.

I like it and hope that Google will stop promoting their services without listing alternatives for lots of things that they promote on the search page (Google Maps, Android, Chrome, Youtube, ...). See 'other cases' in the document that could be next potential steps (ads, Android)

My hope is that they provide an opt-in method to bundle in google services.

I want google maps, youtube, shopping links, and largely view the search as a portal to the google platform. Removing this is removing a feature customers and the company wants, because other companies want to compete on individual products that may or may not be better while google is providing a platform with products you want integrated to simplify your life.

I'll take simplicity, trust and reliability over a dozen disconnected services from different companies that I don't know what their motives are. I know googles motives, and as a user of their platform otherwise this service is exactly what I want.

Ultimately my argument is if another company came along and did the exact same thing from the start (integrated platform with search etc...) no one would have an issue. the "Issue" is apparently google's existing search dominance. This is why i think it should be opt-in for users, and by default off. I don't think google is wrong for offering the service to users who want it, competitors have to provide a benefit or product that is so clearly better it offsets the benefits of a more integrated platform. That's the market/competition, not the EU's role.

Ah, yes. Sure, opt-in would be fine too. And yes, competitors should fight, not just trust the government :), but the problem is exactly like you say: Google search is too dominant and they use this dominance to advertise their (not always better) services.

It's exactly the same logic as the Microsoft antitrust case.

Microsoft had a dominant position in operating systems. Then they developed a web browser, and rather than compete against other web browsers, simply bundled it into the operating system. This meant they got an instant dominant position in web browsers. But they didn't get it by being better than other web browsers, they got it by being just good enough that people wouldn't bother going to the effort of evaluating other options, since their browser came with the operating system. This effectively ended the competitive market for web browsers.

Google has a dominant position in search. Then they developed a lot of other products and services, and rather than compete against other companies offering those products/services, they simply pushed their own versions to the top of search-result pages. This meant they could get an instant dominant position in the other markets. But not by being better than competitors; they could get it by being just good enough that people wouldn't bother going to the effort of tracking down other options, since Google's version was right there in front of them already. This could effectively end the competitive market for many types of products and services.

Any time a company uses a dominant position in one market to subvert or outright end competition in another market, that's bad. And in many places, including the US and the EU, is also illegal.

I have to say that's a good question about maps. not sure why you're getting down voted.

That's another case that's being worked on.

The preferred solution of the EU would be that there would be a standardized API between search engines and map providers, shopping providers, etc, and you could simply choose which map provider you'd want, and that'd be shown in every search engine.

This is still being discussed, of course, as no solution has been found yet, but in general the idea is based on Android's Intent system, where this concept works quite well.

That sounds horrible though. Another abomination in the making. The effort to align all those map providers is probably quite significant. Such a massive waste of efforts and engineering time.

I don't think so. Google is actually in a perfect position to do that. They could just unilaterally announce they'll support other map providers if they conform to a specified Google API, and guess what, map providers will do it, forced simply by power of competition.

If I ran a mapping website I'd bend over backwards for a chance at that embedded sidebar Google spot. Everyone would.

Interesting problem though.

How would Google differentiate between a search and an address without having the Maps product deeply integrated ? Sure they could identify the address and then render the map using say Apple Maps. But what if Apple Maps didn't understand the address or if their API implementation didn't match up.

Seems like it would very much hurt the overall experience.

Apple maps would have to implement Google defined api and respond with some sort of failure.

So if Spotify creates a music recognition feature that competes with Shazam, would they need to create an API that allows you to choose your music recognition service from within Spotify? This a very slippery slope!

Probably not. Someone using Spotify and their hypothetical music recognition service is more like someone using Google Search and Gmail which isn't a problem. This is more like is someone would search Spotify and artists from their own record label (or promotion company) were at the top of the search results.

That really helps my understanding of the matter. Thanks :)

If spotify is the only app used by 97% of all users, then yes. At that point, spotify also couldn’t refuse to list an interprets album.

Spotify is close to the 50 or 75% threshold. So would they also need to include Shazam's advertisements within their own app? Cause otherwise Shazam would still fail. I'm not understanding how this can work practically.

You usually don't buy stuff from maps view.