Google used it's search engine dominance to expand into analytics, advertising, e-mail, maps, mobile apps, browser, and probably more things I can't think of off the top of my head. Take maps for example. They drove (or bought) their competitors out of business to become the dominant player and then dramatically raised the cost of their API. That's classic abusive monopolistic behavior.
Or look at the browser. Adblockers have been the number 1 extension since browser extensions were a thing. It doesn't take a genius to see why they aren't built into Chrome/FF. It's another classic abuse of a monopoly. They used search to bully their way into being the dominant browser and they use that dominance to protect their ad business.
> They drove (or bought) their competitors out of business to become the dominant player and then dramatically raised the cost of their API.
You mean maps? The Maps API is still far cheaper than what you'd have to pay to license and deploy maps from a 3rd party before them.
Hard to argue that things are worse now...
PS: Even then, there are a lot of other map APIs available in the market, and users have been switching. That is literally the antithesis of a monopoly...
>You mean maps? The Maps API is still far cheaper than what you'd have to pay to license and deploy maps from a 3rd party before them.
You mean the API is cheaper now than what other companies offered 13 years ago? That's irrelevant even if it's true.
>Hard to argue that things are worse now...
It's clearly worse. Instead of being able to choose from competing vendors you're effectively stuck with Google and your business depends on their whims.
>No, it isn't. How can you prove consumer harm if there's more choice at lower prices?
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or really don't understand. To be extremely clear, the important comparison would be the market as it is vs a hypothetical one where Google didn't abuse it's position. Comparing now to what was 13 years ago is meaningless in the tech world.
>There are plenty of other vendors to choose from. Did you miss all the "we switched from Google Maps to XXX" posts on Hacker News?
There's really not. At best there's plenty of vendors reselling Open Street Map. And they don't really match Google Maps. Which is why they have a tiny market share compared to Google Maps.
> To be extremely clear, the important comparison would be the market as it is vs a hypothetical one where Google didn't abuse it's position. Comparing now to what was 13 years ago is meaningless in the tech world.
No, that's not how it works. You can't compare to a random, made up scenario. Go look up antitrust cases...
Seriously, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or really don't understand.
> And they don't really match Google Maps.
Your product sucking is not a antitrust issue, it is simply your incompetence.
Asking that Google or Coca-Cola be punished for having a better product isn't only naive, is ignorance.
Or look at the browser. Adblockers have been the number 1 extension since browser extensions were a thing. It doesn't take a genius to see why they aren't built into Chrome/FF. It's another classic abuse of a monopoly. They used search to bully their way into being the dominant browser and they use that dominance to protect their ad business.