[Ygg2]

Google used its influence via Web Search to expand into the field of Web Browsers. So Google used it's Web presence to recommend Chrome.

Additionally, Google used it's Web Services (e.g. Google Mail, Google Docs, YouTube) to nudge users in the direction of Chrome. If YouTube works best with Chrome, people will flock to it.

Finally, Chrome might be the popular choice, but the most popular choice can be quite heinous in other ways.

[ShrinkingWild]

Yes, Google promoted themselves on their own services, what's the problem with that? The influence gained from their prowess in web search was legitimate, I don't see a problem with them leveraging that. If chrome was garbage it wouldn't have helped.

And yes, Google's products and services work best inside Google's browser. There's no problem there either, they can stop you using them in other browsers completely if they like, it's their property to do with as they please.

You're free not to use chrome or any of Google's services, there are other options, so Google is not a monopoly.

[Ygg2]

> Yes, Google promoted themselves on their own services, what's the problem with that? > And yes, Google's products and services work best inside Google's browser.

So, you're saying that you think what Internet Explorer is a great browser? Because everything Google did, Microsoft did (modulo monopoly lawsuit) back in its day.

Back in its day, IE was the freshest kid on the block. Now the history repeats itself with Chrome. And I won't be surprised if in ten-twenty years Chrome will be treated like IE today.

> You're free not to use chrome or any of Google's services, there are other options, so Google is not a monopoly.

This doesn't make a monopoly. A monopoly doesn't need to own 100% of the market. What defines a monopoly is omnipresence and leveraging existing market imbalances to expand into other markets.

[ShrinkingWild]

Back in its day, yeah. Then Microsoft got sued for providing it free with their OS instead of people having to wait for a long download or buying a browser. Internet explorer didn't keep up, so now it's not as good as it could be. Things change over time and that doesnt change the monopoly issues.

This is the definition used by regulators so they can leverage government regulation against companies, pretty much because monopolies don't exist. The actual definition of a monopoly is a company that has exclusive control over a supply of a commodity or service, which Google doesn't have.

Leveraging your existing, earned, market power isn't bad and wont work if the product it's being leveraged for isn't fit for purpose. Google's omniprescense has been gained by providing a service that everyone likes and wants to use. I don't see what's wrong with any of that.

[Ygg2]

> The actual definition of a monopoly is a company that has exclusive control over a supply of a commodity or service, which Google doesn't have.

By strict economic definition yes, but not in terms of legality. Sometimes it's enough for a company to have 35% of the market, for it to consider to be in a monopolistic position or to wield monopolistic power.

Also, Google has definitive monopolies when it comes to services such as video hosting, phone OS, email and even commodities such as a browser. A monopoly doesn't need to provide a service or a commodity at high price for it to be considered as abusing its position.

> This is the definition used by regulators so they can leverage government regulation against companies, pretty much because monopolies don't exist.

It is not. If that was the case, Microsoft couldn't be sued for anti-trust because it didn't own 100% of either desktop or web browser.

While Quora isn't a perfect source, I'd consider it more authoritative than your opinion. https://www.quora.com/When-do-you-consider-a-company-a-monop...

[ShrinkingWild]

I mis-worded my comment there so this misunderstanding is my fault. I meant the definition you provided is used to leverage government regulation and in fact your Quora link is exactly what I meant. It's used as a legal definition because otherwise they wouldn't be able to use the monopoly excuse for regulation. Either way this is only semantics and not particularly productive.

I'm yet to get anything substantial explaining why Google shouldn't be allowed to push chrome on their web search page or only allow YouTube from inside chrome. These services are their property, so they have the right to do whatever they like with them.

There are lots of email services that aren't Google, Apple are directly competing with android for phone OS and there are definitely other video hosts. Just because they're not popular doesnt mean they aren't competing. It just means Google is winning. Even in search there's competition, it just isn't as good as Google is.

[Ygg2]

> I'm yet to get anything substantial explaining why Google shouldn't be allowed to push chrome on their web search page or only allow YouTube from inside chrome.

Because it's leveraging huge existing monopolistic power. I'm not a lawyer, but it's the abuse of power that's the problem.

What's the problem with that? Simple, let's say you dislike <X>. Now Google wants <X>, but knows some or even most consumers don't like it. All Google needs to do is implement <X>. Disliking <X>, you switch to Firefox.

Google now has <X> and sites start using it. Suddenly, sites that require <X> don't work in Firefox. Firefox loses market share because it doesn't support <X>, Firefox now implements <X>.

Disliking Firefox, you change to IceFox++, which dies after it's lone maintainer dies in a sky diving accident.

Enjoy your options.

> There are lots of email services that aren't Google

Sure, and if you don't have a Gmail address and send it to a Gmail address, good luck getting past the Gmail filter. Why not join Gmail, for the supreme mail experience? Sure you can use FastMail but your friends all use Gmail.

Why worry whether your mail will get a pass from Google. Just join it. It's the optimal choice. In fact, it will soon be your only choice.

[dragonwriter]

> So, you're saying that you think what Internet Explorer is a great browser? Because everything Google did, Microsoft did (modulo monopoly lawsuit) back in its day.

But not vice versa, which is among the reasons the analogy is flawed.

> a monopoly doesn't need to own 100% of the market. What defines a monopoly is omnipresence and leveraging existing market imbalances to expand into other markets.

No, that's wrong. What defines a monopoly is absence of competition in practice (the common test for which is pricing power, which demonstrates whether the market sees “competitors” in a named market segment as actual competitors or players in isolated adjacent markets), not mere omnipresence. The leveraging you refer to is abuse of monopoly if a monopoly exists, not part of the what defines a monopoly.

[Ygg2]

> No, that's wrong. What defines a monopoly is absence of competition in practice (the common test for which is pricing power, which demonstrates whether the market sees “competitors” in a named market segment as actual competitors or players in isolated adjacent markets)

Are you saying in practice Chrome has competition? Safari doesn't count by your definition since it's essentially an isolated adjacent market (with is also shrinking due to Android expansion).

[dragonwriter]

> Are you saying in practice Chrome has competition?

Well, pricing power is a hard test, even in principal, to apply in a category of free products, but it does appear on first blush that feature changes between Chrome and it's competitors do induce movements of users between them, in both directions, so it does appear that there is competition in both directions even if Chrome over time is generally, on balance, winning. Actual competition analysis, though, would take lots of work.

What I was saying upthread, however, was not anything about UI a conclusion on whether Chrome has competition, but just a correction to the inaccurate definition of monopoly that was proposed.