I could see a similar argument being made by plantation owners in the past "we are lodging these guests from africa for FREE", they don't even have to PAY to live in the houses we offer them! There is only the small detail of the activities they will have to do in OUR fields, which will kill them off in 10-15 years, but that is another matter which should not be confused".
"Deals" of the kind google and facebook offer are not to the consumer's advantage. Insisting on not having a facebook account is akin to choosing not to use the paved asphalt roads the society makes available to you. I could "choose" not to have a facebook account, but it would lock me out of effectively both my friends group and my family's daily communication.
That is, in fact, what it means. "Free" (in the transaction sense) means you didn't pay money for it. Just because Krispy Kreme hopes you buy some donuts while you're in the store doesn't make the loss leader donut not free. Just because Google gets something other than money from the deal doesn't mean that the product isn't free.
I know you specified in the transaction sense but it's almost never a one-off interaction. The ecosystem and repeated interactions shape things.
Seriously?
> "Deals" of the kind google and facebook offer are not to the consumer's advantage.
Again -- explain how "splitting up" the "monopoly" would realistically get you out of this situation? Pointing to something and saying it's bad doesn't imply your solution would solve the problem.
All products which lose money and are propped up by money firehoses from other parts of their dominant owners, are products that enjoy an unfair advantage in the market leaving less marketshare (often strikingly less) for anyone who might be better.
Is it your opinion that every product is monetizable, and should be if that would make it self-sufficient? Do you not feel some would just get killed entirely if they couldn't be subsidized through other products?
I feel that when a company is in a super dominant, dare I say monopoly position (Google Search is the most obvious example) with one of its product lines, it usually is destructive to free markets when they aim the money firehose at another, money-losing product. It does this by driving out competition against that second product, which results in less choice for consumers.
I don't think it's necessarily a problem when a company that isn't a monopoly subsidizes another product. I agree that's pretty normal.
> It does this by driving out competition against that second product
Again, we come back to my question: what about when that product would not make money on its own?
Google has been the one pushing for getting rid of the v2 manifest for browsers extensions, which just so happens to seriously nerf ad blockers. Because so many browsers are forks of Chromium v2 will disappear from a majority of browsers. Meanwhile if you try to use a non-Chrome browser like Firefox a lot of websites are buggy and outright don't work. Opening images in issues broke in GitHub for firefox a year ago and they still haven't fixed it.
You are being *very* naive if you think that Google having this sort of monopolistic power over the web does not hurt consumers.
> You are being very naive if you think that Google having this sort of monopolistic power over the web does not hurt consumers.
No, I think you're being incredibly naive if you think the outcome you imagine would necessarily come to fruition without Google being a "monopoly" (however you define it). It didn't happen for Microsoft (Chrome is an angel compared to Edge), and nobody has managed to create comparable solutions for so many other products Google offers that have nothing to do with the browser or search.
Google was also caught giving special treatment to google-related domains in chrome, and had to revert the advantages around cookies that they gave to themselves.
It rather sounds like a great marketing opportunity for anyone trying to compete with Chrome, whether they keep the v2 or just implement ad-blocking themselves.
But in reality it just doesn't work out that way, the negatives from abusing their monopoly can be overshadowed by the power of the monopoly itself, for example Google promoting Chrome every time you you gmail, google search, or youtube. Or making their services not work well in non-Chrome browsers.
Or in the case of microsoft, their monopolistic behavior is overshadowed by the fact that too much important software only works on Windows. It's a tale as old as tech.
It was bad because it effectively ended innovation in the browser space for decades by pushing Netscape out of business (and discouraging others from entering that space).
Similarly, many consumers are unaware of alternative search engines, if Chrome pushes Google as the default. This kills innovation and puts more power in Google's hands as to what parts of the web get promoted.
Many a business owner can tell you that when Google changes their search ranking it can have an effect on the bottom line. This is also bad for consumers, as only bigger businesses which have the dough to pay for many Google ads get returned in a search.
Chrome is pushing ManifestV3 with extreme prejudice and Youtube pushes ever more malvertising by the day. Why can Google do this?
Because there is no competition.
Malvertising? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising
Also, have you missed how terrible e.g. Edge is for user privacy? It's trying hard as heck to compete, and even playing dirty to get there. What happened to competition making things better?
There are so many things I could say in response to this, and at the risk of getting off topic: is it your belief that if you put the average user (not you, but the average user) in front of a default install of all the major browsers and had them use the browsers for a while on completely unaffiliated websites, they would find Firefox better than the others based on its merits?
Even as a privacy-conscious techie (and former Firefox user) who has repeatedly tried to switch back, I've found Firefox to be objectively worse in general, regardless of the website.
Yes, malvertising. There is no such thing as non-malicious advertising in this day and age.
>Also, have you missed how terrible e.g. Edge is for user privacy?
I mean, Edge is Chrome.
The only saving grace is that it all goes to Microsoft instead of Google, which probably isn't as damaging because if you're using Edge you're probably using Windows already anyway.
Yes, enthusiastically yes. With the exception of maybe search, products like gmail, docs, and sheets are basic projects tossed out into the ecosystem for free to suck up all the oxygen for minimal dev cost. How is an upstart supposed to compete with a better mail/doc/spreadsheet app if the basic use case is covered for free by some loss leader funded from a different vertical?
Most of these classes of apps have been stagnant for decades.
Bad for consumers, how? Financially? How does that translate to the current situation? The average "consumer" here is paying $0.00 for Google, Chrome, Gmail, Maps, Flights, Docs, Sheets, Chat, Meet, Books, Scholar, Shopping, YouTube, News, Groups, Voice... how are you going to argue that this "monopoly" (?) is bad for consumers? Do you imagine Microsoft or Apple would've created better search, email, news, etc., or that the mom & pop shop down the store would've done that?
I can think of so many other arguments you could use to suggest the current situation is bad, but monopolies are bad for consumers seems like a really tough argument to apply here.
Edit: You need to argue more than "the current situation is bad". Because that in itself does not imply "removing the 'monopoly' would necessarily lead to the better outcome in my imagination." Exhibit A is all the behemoths trying to compete against Google and still offering objectively worse products.