[JAlexoid]

You're not understanding this.

A company can create a new search engine and Google Search isn't obligated to even mention it.

The issue is when achieving market dominance and new service is integrated into the dominant product.

You clearly haven't been around long enough to have caught a lot of discussions on this topic over a decade ago.

[brainwad]

But is searching for products a new product line, or just a natural extension of searching for webpages (many of which are about products)? Where do you draw the line between merely improving the monopoly product and abusing the monopoly?

[Hikikomori]

Showing your own product like google maps or shopping at the top of each relevant search result is likely over the line, maybe its ok if its down in the results, still high not always number 1.

But for example if they're behind a user choice like a click after your search is done, ie click shopping or maps because you want to use googles products in this case, then its likely not over the line. If its still over the line would they be required to unbundle products by for example using different domains? Would that also apply to things like facebook marketplace then?

[brainwad]

I don't really think of showing rich shopping results as preferring "Google's product". It's just showing links to merchants in a fancier UI. It's fundamentally still search, linking out to 3rd party websites.

FWIW, even what you think should be allowed is banned in Europe. On Google Search in the EU there is no "Shopping" or "Maps" tab.

[Hikikomori]

Did they remove them due to the case they lost in 2017 then? Products is still available, but doesn't work like shopping does which is much more similar to pricerunner.

https://www.google.com/shopping is still available, just no link to it, so about as decoupled as a separate domain?

[bevekspldnw]

No, you are the one not understanding this.

Google literally is a convicted monopolist in the Search antitrust case. The judge just didn’t impose any remedy or penalty.

Many of the arguments around that case had to do with bundling Search, nothing to do with other products. It was Search.

This is why the Firefox CEO gave Google the testimony they paid for, and retired shortly thereafter. It was quid pro quo.

Firefox was paid for years to include Search so one day they’d show up to court and say “we include Google because they are the best, not because they pay us”. The judge didn’t actually buy it, but that was the deal - we pay you millions, one day you show up and read a script.

The confusing part to the lay person is Google got away with it despite the prosecutions case holding.

Imagine if a person robbed a bank and was convicted. The judge then said, ok you robbed the bank, the prosecution proved it, I rule in their favor.

However, when it comes to the punishment, I’m just going to let it slide, you can go home now.

Also, keep the money you stole, and if you happen to walk by another bank…say Associated Investments (AI), just go ahead and rob that one!