[rmacqueen]

> Case in point, DuckDuckGo etc

You're missing the point. The anti-competitive behaviour isn't harmful against other search engines - it's against companies in the other domains where Google can leverage its nigh total search engine dominance to push its other products, e.g. Google Flights and Google Shopping. How is a flight booking service supposed to fairly compete with Google Flights when Google owns the top of the funnel where users go to search for these services? It's exactly the same thing that Microsoft did with Internet Explorer in the 90s: leverage their control of the platform (in that case, an OS) to exclude competitors for their other products (web browsers).

[three_seagrass]

Despite the EU ruling, Google Shopping is essentially search ads with pictures. And despite being in search results, retail companies have more platforms than ever before to sell through, such as Amazon, Ebay, Instagram/Facebook, and others.

[scarface74]

The top of the funnel is the url bar. People choose to go to Google.

[rmacqueen]

And people 'chose' to have a Microsoft operating system in the late 90s. What's your point?

[scarface74]

No people didn’t choose to have Microsoft. Microsoft forced OEMs to bundle Windows with all of their computers. Even if the OEM decided not to bundle Windows, they still had to pay a license fee.

No personal computer comes with Chrome installed by default unless the OEM made a deal with Google to bundle it along with other crapware. Users have to explicitly download Chrome.

It’s a lot easier to change your default search engine than change your operating system.

The proof is in Google’s dominance. Google became popular when IE was the default browser on PCs and Safari was the default browser on Macs.

[rmacqueen]

The issue isn't how Google achieved its search engine dominance - it's what it is doing with that dominance. No one denies Google became the search platform of choice because it is genuinely better. That doesn't change the fact that Google is now using that position of near total dominance to stifle competition in other areas, such as e-commerce. That's the (sound) basis for the anti-trust charge.

[scarface74]

I’m saying that government intervention through anti trust actions were useless the last two times in the modern era - MS and IBM.

Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Google came to prominence by being able to execute. Even MD stayed relevant while the other four were growing through better execution.

Why would anyone think that the government has all of the sudden become competent when it comes to regulating tech when we have forty years that shows just the opposite?

Did you see the dog and pony show when it the government trotted out the 4 tech CEOs? Would you really trust them to be both competent and not corrupt.