That's just like saying that car manufacturers can't use idle capacity to help start a new line of vehicles just because a new car manufacturer couldn't create a new car line.
Here we have Google using its dominant position in another market to prop up another activity through an advantage. That’s most definitely fall under anti-competitive law at least in Europe (I don’t care about the US. The modern interpretation of American antitrust laws is a complete joke).
It's silly to say that companies should never be allowed to branch out to other businesses.
Care to highlight exactly how Netflix used its dominant position in film renting in favour of its streaming business?
It would indeed be silly to say companies can’t branch out. Thankfully no one is so that’s fine.
Apple had a dominant position in selling music and in music players by 2006. It was the number one music retailer in the US. It very much used that to get into the phone market and part of its early success in the App Store was that it was built on top of iTunes and it already had more credit cards on file than any other company in the US besides Amazon.
If you're not arguing that a company shouldn't branch out, are you arguing that once a company gets a certain size, it shouldn't be allowed to invest those profits and resources into another industry?
By 2011, Apple was the most valuable company in the US. Should it not have been allowed to start selling watches, home stereo equipment and AirPods?
Is this true? My recollection being a netflix DVD customer is that brick and mortar rental stores were dominant until netflix streaming upended the DVD rental dynamic. Would love to see some data on it though!
https://hbr.org/2011/04/how-i-did-it-blockbusters-former-ceo...
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/22/how-netflix-almost-lost-the-...
YT isn’t a monopoly however. It might be dominant depending of how you define the markets but it does have competitors.