That's precisely the issue. It can be illegal to use your market dominance in one area (search) to reinforce or create market dominance in other areas. Microsoft had the best operating system and a browser that they wanted people to use. People preferred Netscape, but Microsoft used its OS dominance to kill off Netscape.

It is ok to be dominant in a product. You aren't, however, allowed to use the dominance in one product to gain you dominance in other products. Google has dominance in search, but using that to kill off competitors for their lesser-liked products isn't fair.

> They have achieved their dominance because their services are viewed as "best" by the majority of folks out there.

Their search service is viewed as "best" my most, but that doesn't mean their reviews service is. That's what's at issue. Being the best at one thing shouldn't allow you to stifle people that are better at another thing. That is certainly not best for consumers.

If Google were 20% of search traffic, they could do many things because there's no dominance at issue. Since Google is the vast majority of search traffic, they can effectively eliminate most competitors. Starting a reviews site? Your listings will fall below our own regardless of their merit. Starting a videos site, YouTube alternatives will always be shown first even if it's not what the user is looking for.

YouTube should be popular on its own merit, not based on Google using its search dominance to choke competitors. Google's reviews should be popular on their own merit, not based on Google using its search dominance to kill off Yelp.

I do want to clarify that I'm not saying that Google is guilty of doing this, but that when you get to a certain market dominance, you can kill off competitors that are better than you by starving them rather than by being better than them. It's important that third-parties can compete with Google's non-search services without having Google's search service unreasonably favor Google's non-search services.

I think it's a stretch to say that searching for HVAC business listings and searching for HVAC business reviews are really different markets. If google had an HVAC subsidiary and they suppressed all search results and ads for competing HVAC companies, that would be abusing their dominant position in the search market to create dominance in another market. But is it really monopolistic behaviour to use their web search dominance to succeed in a slightly more specific sector of the web search market? You can use google to find reviews of products and services. They advertise alongside those search results. That is their core business. Yelp is a straight-up competitor. "Google is better than us in the market we compete in" isn't a valid anti-trust complaint.

And the query specifically included the word Yelp.

A big part of why tech users don't understand why Google is being subject to antitrust action is that a lot of people in the tech industry literally have no idea how everyone else uses their computers. Like not understanding that people tend to go to Yelp by Googling "yelp" and clicking the first link. (Which is sadly, usually a malicious Google Ad imitating Yelp, but I digress.)

... half serious?

Unfortunately there are countless counterexamples. It's an interesting ideal, but without court action it's toothless. And court action risks having a chilling effect on certain kinds of positive forces.

If I put a competitor (eg. yelp, angie[slist], etc) into my search query, I get only results for those competitors. Leave the qualifying term out, and I get a SERP of all non-Google review sites. But again, I enter "yelp pizza" and get all Yelp results. Hell, I enter "pizza reviews" and get Yelp as the top 3 links of my SERP.

This links to the Google comparison shopping site, which Google receives affiliate income for. The Google comparison shopping site is ok, but no better than many others.

I generally like the work Google does, but I think that there are some questions around using their dominant position in organic web search to move into a new market. To be clear, I'm not absolutely opposed to this, but I can see problems.

As far as I know it's only illegal when there is harm to consumers. Antitrust laws are meant to protect consumers, not competitors.

Microsoft: "An OS should include everything. Third party apps aren't needed. It's only good for consumers."

Google: "A search engine should include everything. Third party websites aren't needed. It's only good for consumers."

I'm yet to see any malicious actions by Google that comes close to the Halloween Documents or the licensing shenanigans. I don't know if you're looking back with rose-tinted glasses, but at it's peak, Microsoft was capital-E Evil (or ruthless if you're against moralizing): comparing Microsoft then to Google today seems foolish to me.

Edit: I naively think Google works with the principle that "What's good for the web is good for Google" and works to improve the web (and to my benefit). 90's Microsoft principle was "What's good for Microsoft is good for Microsoft. Destroy anyone who tries to mess with that"

I can choose not to use an Android phone. I can choose not to use Google search, block Google domains in my hosts file, etc. While the alternatives are probably not as pleasing or convenient, I can definitely get by without Google.

I can also get by without Microsoft. I've used Linux almost exclusively for 15 years now. But choosing to stick on Linux has been made harder with Microsoft's monopoly. It's easier now but I can remember when it was very difficult to find good hardware to run Linux and not have to pay a premium or pay for a Windows license even if you never wanted Windows (and definitely didn't want to pay out of principle).

As far as I know, Google's dominance on search doesn't affect my experience when I use other services. I haven't seen a "Halloween documents" event out of Google's camp.

It's really hard for people to realize that times have changed and the tables have turned.

What? MS was all about third party apps and encouraged the vendor lock in they provided. Windows was absolutely spartan compared to what you'd get with a linux distro at the time.

I know the included certain apps that were contentious, like a browser, but Balmer wasn't kidding when he made that "dvelopers, developers, developers" speech.

Unlike iOS you can install different browsers on Android directly from the Play Store. These can actually be different browsers with their own rendering engines not just alternative UIs on top of Chrome. Firefox on Android for example uses the actual Firefox rendering engine, not Chrome.

The reason Microsoft got in trouble is because it was not only found that they had a monopoly in a particular market, but that they obtained some of that market share illegally through shady contracts effectively forbidding OEMs from offering alternative OSes, etc... They were then found to have used that illegally obtained monopoly to take over a completely different market in part by bundling IE with Windows and punishing OEMs who sought to including alternate browsers and completely disallowing the removal of IE.

you may install firefox and still will have a lot of time links opened in built-in chrome, on android

Android has over an 85% global market share. And for OEMs, there is NO other game in town, since iOS isn't licensable.

Google got their monopoly fairly enough, maintain it through a mix of fair and questionable practices, and definitely uses their monopoly now in ways that are anti-competitive.

But is it? Because right now I basically can't stop using Google services at this point because they pushed out many others from the market. I would however greatly prefer some competition in the field.

Gmail is taking over the world over here. Most local mail solutions are irrelevant at this point and the only real alternative to gmail even intentionally is outlook now.

Chrome effectively took out the rest of the bunch as well, at least on desktop and Android.

Lastly Google's ad business is something nobody can avoid.

The question of this thread is: did Google unfairly push out their competition. If you can't argue that, then this is just pointless Google hand wringing.

Google may have achieved it's dominance legally, however, it's conduct since then is illegal.

I don't think that's true.

They leveraged their search engine dominance to push Chrome on people with banners stating that the user experience would be better on Chrome.

They bundled the Chrome installer with a load of other app installers and users would immediately find themselves with a new, default browser, because Google knew most users never explore advanced installer options to discover they needed to opt-out.

Google maps is far worse than OSM and HereMaps in my opinion, but it is far more pervasive because it is the go-to mapping service when users perform a search.

Some ad blockers can block Google AdSense.

Vimeo and Firefox are trying but the trajectory has not been good.

That was the problem: in search, Google effectively has no competition. The fact that there are other areas like social networking doesn't change the fact that if you're a website operator you have to work well with Google even if you can write off everyone else.

DuckDuckGo isnt one?

except it has been shown that the organic search results rank Yelp listings higher than Google's Local listings thus they are, in fact, displaying worse results at the top. Unless you believe Google's search product sucks I think this proves they aren't doing what's best for customers at all, they are doing what's best for them.

Keep in mind they are trying to develop Google Maps into a social review platform where you can write reviews, order delivery, etc. that seems similar to Yelp. Is it not clear they are using their Search monopoly to get more content on their own, currently worse, local reviews platform to have it become more dominant in the long run?

Unless you think Google shouldn't be allowed to run their own advertising systems?

Filter bubbling.

really? isn't the use of their search engine to squelch competition in local reviews support that they are a monopoly?

It's hard to be a web browser company when it comes bundled with the OS. Do you really want a world where you choose Apple, Google, or Amazon once for everything everywhere and that is the only choice you get? Or do you want Unix philosophy for businesses and mix and match however you feel?

So, sure. The fight to destroy all competitors is good for consumers while it lasts. Once it's over and there's a monopoly or cartel (as in the case of last-mile internet), the consumer is at the mercy of the monopolist. History indicates the monopolist will not be benevolent.

History also indicates the monopolist will leverage their increased power to manipulate the legal environment to prevent new competitors from springing up. In addition to the telcos, the fossil fuel industry is an example of that lately; despite renewables being cheaper and creating more jobs, more than half of our elected officials in the US are working hard to ensure another decade of fossil fuel energy dominance.

Once the competition is beaten, they may change their priorities from giving the customer and the partners what they want, to doing what is best for Google. Compare youtube of five years ago to now. There are many more ads and many more restrictions on how partners can place ads. If youtube had started with those rules and that much advertising I think it would have been less successful.

There is a pattern for all internet companies where they say to users and partners: look how great our platform is. And then when they achieve dominance they change the rules. The best protection is competition.

Google does have some investment in its data centers, but people never make the explicit argument that the $11 billion/year in data centers is what causes them to be a monopoly. They make the much more abstract "market dominance" argument that I don't buy.

The only thing that I'd consider a monopoly in the same spirit would be the ISPs. It's stupid to dig up the streets twice just for "competition", so there's a natural monopoly. And it'd probably cost untold billions to rebuild it.

The typical argument is that Google can do that because it is their search agent. But they did not express it explicitly in their terms of service.