[mdasen]

> If they stop doing that, they'll lose their market dominance.

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.

[notatoad]

>It can be illegal to use your market dominance in one area (search) to reinforce or create market dominance in other areas

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.

[simion314]

I think the point here is that Google is not returning the best results but pushing it's own other services on top of the list even if in this case other review services are better.

[notatoad]

It's displaying ads above the search results. That's what google does. It's their whole business. It's not pushing their own review services over yelp, it's advertising alongside search results.

[simion314]

What about when they put a Chrome ad even if you are not searching for replacing your browser? So the main point with the EU antitrust is not about yelp but about Google putting it's own stuff on top , not about the ads.

[Canning]

This one should stand out to most people so it's no surprise to me that EU took note as well.

[tyingq]

That's likely the crux of the complaint. It's not alongside, it's on top of...and "over" Yelp.

And the query specifically included the word Yelp.

[quadrangle]

No, when Google just lists local businesses and puts them on a map, that's NOT ads. Businesses get listed at no charge.

[tyingq]

And even when the searcher is VERY specific that they want Yelp...it's right in the query.

[mattnewton]

..why didn't they go to yelp then?

[ocdtrekkie]

To a large percentage of Internet users, entering something into the Google search bar IS how they go places. (The address bar is a very strange mystery to plenty of people.) That's a big part of why Google is not permitted to act the way they are. They have become more or less the front door to the Internet, and hence, cannot unfairly prioritize their own products over others'.

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.)

[nindalf]

This behaviour is encouraged by Chrome. The address bar prefers to suggest searches over the user's own history, ensuring that even a website they visit every other day will likely trigger a Google search. Firefox, on the other hand, has a strong bias towards history, allowing the user to go straight to their destination.

[edoceo]

And in chrome the address bar is hijacked to be a Google search

[empath75]

They didn't google for 'reviews', they literally googled for 'yelp'

[wnoise]

"Yelp" is generic for "customer reviews"!

... half serious?

[adameast9000]

I couldn't agree more. Look at internet speed tests. I used the ookla speed test because it was the first result until one day Google had created its own, built right into the search results page. I don't know which product is better, but it's easy to see ookla getting starved out by this regardless of product merit.

[sillysaurus3]

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.

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.

[foota]

OP mentions it, but this was what bit Microsoft in United States v Microsoft (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C...)

[thezilch]

Can you provide a specific issue?

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.

[nl]

If I search for "9000 shimano derailleur" on Google, the top infobox link is "Shop for 9000 shimano derailleur on Google".

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.

[loceng]

Do you have any views on Facebook and their product line?

[ma2rten]

It can be illegal to use your market dominance in one area (search) to reinforce or create market dominance in other areas.

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

[WillPostForFood]

Consumers and competitor benefit are effectively intertwined. Consumers need healthy competitors to avoid being subject to monopolies, so antitrust laws protect competitors to benefit consumers.