[treis]

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.

[ucaetano]

> 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...

[treis]

>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.

[ucaetano]

> You mean the API is cheaper now than what other companies offered 13 years ago? That's irrelevant even if it's true.

No, it isn't. How can you prove consumer harm if there's more choice at lower prices?

> Instead of being able to choose from competing vendors you're effectively stuck with Google and your business depends on their whims.

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?

[treis]

>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.

[ucaetano]

> 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.

[treis]

>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.

You're wrong about this:

>The plaintiff must demonstrate that there is a likelihood that the scheme alleged would cause a rise in prices above a competitive level sufficient to compensate for the amounts expended on the predation, including the time value of the money invested in it

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-466.ZS.html

The test is "above a competitive level" and not more than prices before the scheme.

>Your product sucking is not a antitrust issue, it is simply your incompetence.

No, it's because your competitor is willing to spend more money than you and give their product away for free to protect their monopoly in another area.

>Asking that Google or Coca-Cola be punished for having a better product isn't only naive, is ignorance.

That's not what anyone is asking. If Google can make better maps for less cost than everyone else, bully for them. But that isn't what they do. They devote more resources than their competitors to make better products while giving them away for free. And they do it to extinguish competition and further cement their search/ad monopoly.

[ABCLAW]

>No, that's not how it works. You can't compare to a random, made up scenario. Go look up antitrust cases...

... That's exactly the issue with the current paradigm of monopoly enforcement. You can subvert a market, then if you fly under the radar for long enough, the competition bureaus have no ability to determine that pricing pressure is being exerted because the market is already non-competitive at the point of the comparison.

You conflate the limits of our current enforcement framework with the principles that underlie the effort in the first place throughout this thread.