While I do think that incident was questionable, one relatively minor, fairly ancient incident in 10 years is not really compelling in terms of Google's current practices. If Google is seriously abusing it's market dominance there should be much more serious, larger scale and recent examples than that. The fact that there aren't suggests to me that Google's market abuse here is relatively indirect. Which doesn't make it non-existent, but the idea that Google is exploiting its market dominance in any sort of explicit manner doesn't seem to hold water to me. It is all about the much more subtle question of whether their market offering implicitly results in monopoly abuse because it links their services together through the incentives in the offering.