Isn't the other 60% basically just (Google's) Android?
And I think these days, search engines aren't just developed by someone coding up a clever algorithm in their garage; they improve based on data from being used a lot. So yes, it would be an obstacle to competitors.
> And I think these days, search engines aren't just developed by someone coding up a clever algorithm in their garage; they improve based on data from being used a lot. So yes, it would be an obstacle to competitors.
Wait, now we need to make sure others can develop a good search engine? That's what fairness in competition is?
That's a whole new level of argument. I cannot imagine a court wanting to step into that territory.
A monopoly does not mean literally zero competition; it need only mean no competitors that are good enough to be viable.
Not only does a Google or Intel or whoever need to not artificially prevent competition, it has to ensure that its competitors offer actually good alternatives? How can you put a responsibility on a party for the capabilities of someone else?
Definitionally, companies without viable competitors are monopolies. Microsoft still has a defacto monopoly on PC operating systems as Linux isn't a viable choice for 95%+ of PC users. This market situation is extremely detrimental to consumers but isn't illegal.
Linux has many more features than Windows, gives the user more control, respects privacy better, and is free even, yet consumers choose not to use it.
How far must a company or government go to create competition where the behavior of both the suppliers and consumers indicate otherwise?
I just think it's a whole other level of argument to say that someone not having access to the same data and only being able to develop an inferior search technology = anticompetitive. (where the "not having as good data" part is not done by denying other competitors access to some resource that they should have a right to, or could equally gather on their own)