Hacker News Reader

Comment by eitland | Hacker News Reader

Who else has been allowed to advertise on the front page of Google?

None as far as I am aware of. Not even - again AFAIK - disaster relief after the biggest disasters we have seen after Google was founded.

I'd argue that is quite clearly the same league as Microsoft pre-installing Media Player and Internet Explorer: taking advantage of a niche that they completely dominates and abusing it to wedge their way into another ecosystem and then completely dominating that too.

View on HN

When you try to change the default browser on Windows (a setting ignored by some Microsoft apps, which will always use Edge btw.), you can't just change it, you get a pop-up going like:

You SURE you wanna do that? Edge is better you know. And more secure. And shit.

[ BIG BLUE CONTINUE WITH EDGE BUTTON ]

Arial, 6pt grey on white, "Use my choice" link

Edit: You also can't move or remove the Edge symbol from your desktop without admin privileges. So for a normal, unprivileged user there's just two things you can't remove from your desktop, recycle bin and Edge.

What does that have to do with Chrome?

Nothing, but it has to do with Microsoft, which the comment they were replying to talks about in its latter half.

Are you complaining about Google advertising its own products on their own websites?

If Microsoft could get in trouble for bundling its own product (IE) on its own OS (Windows) then IMHO this can in fact be seen as abusing monopolistic market power in the search market to benefit in the browser market.

How is that even in the same category?

Google does not force you to install Chrome in order to use Search.

Both cases they're abusing market power in one category to compete unfairly in another market. Apparently this is called "monopolistic leveraging" and is a somewhat unsettled area of law in the US. [0][1]

Here's another example. Amazon using its market power as an online marketplace to benefit in both the logistics market and its own-label goods market. [2]

By not allowing anyone else to advertise on its front page, it could also be said that Google is practising "Refusal to deal", which is also forbidden, although I admit that case is somewhat weaker. [3]

> Google does not force you to install Chrome in order to use Search.

I believe that just means they aren't practising tying, which is yet another abuse of monopoly power.

[0] https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...

[1] https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1304...

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54887650

[3] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

> Here's another example. Amazon using its market power as an online marketplace to benefit in both the logistics market and its own-label goods market. [2]

This is vastly different from advertising a product in the company website. Amazon got caught peeking into their own partners data, then leveraging that knowledge to unfairly compete with them.

> By not allowing anyone else to advertise on its front page, it could also be said that Google is practising "Refusal to deal", which is also forbidden, although I admit that case is somewhat weaker. [3]

Again, not the same. "Refusal to deal" means that Google would prohibit Microsoft from advertising Edge, their Chrome competitor, in their ad network, which is not happening.

But it's worth noting that Microsoft does the same with Bing and Edge, displaying a modal if you are using any other browser. They also got caught displaying large banners in the Chrome download page, which I personally think is even worse [0]

[0] https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-is-now-injecting-full-...

I admit, the cases are different, and I may be more stating how I think it should be than what a court would decide. But yes, Microsoft is doing even worse now, because the government failed to act previously.

Google does force me to use Android to use certain tools of theirs (eg manage their Google wifi pucks), as opposed to just using a local admin page like every other system.

Google owns Android.

You could also use iOS.

Here's the thkng you are missing:

Google, like Microsoft before them, pushes their own products in ways that no others are allowed to:

- Microsoft pre-bundled IE and Windows Media Player when no one else could bundle anything.

- Google pushed ads against Firefox and for Chrome on the front page of Google search (i.e. before a search was typed) something I am not aware if anyone neither humanitarian or commercial entities with the worlds largest marketing budgets being allowed to do.

For me, this example alone is enough to demonstrate behind reasonable doubt that Google, like Microsoft before them (and after them with Teams and Edge) have abused their position in one market to crush all competition in another market.

Everything else like the very convenient issues showing up in Firefox on major Google properties like Search, Calendar and YouTube is just icing on the cake.

Again, not the same.

Google did not cripple their products to work only on Chrome. It did not force customers to install Chrome on their computers, nor had partnerships with OEMs to preinstall its browser.

> Google pushed ads against Firefox and for Chrome on the front page of Google search

I highly doubt that Google, one of Mozilla main sponsors, had ads against Firefox in their Search homepage. They do promote Chrome in Search and Gmail, but not in YouTube as far as I know.

But that is beyond the point. Google uses its own real estate to promote their products, exactly like Mozilla does with Firefox and their VPN and Relay services. Mozilla also bundles Pocket within Firefox, by the way.

It's not great, but I think that a company should be allowed to promote a product in their own spaces, always respecting the autonomy of the user, and without aggressively pushing it.

Which is exactly why Microsoft is and should be in trouble. They not only bundled Teams in Office 365, but also defaulted to or pointed at Teams for every single operation coming from any other Office application.

> Google did not cripple their products to work only on Chrome.

Without defending Microsoft, they deserve a visit from relevant authorities, at least Calendar, the search results page and YouTube have had "funny" issues with other browsers and sometimes they have went away if one changed how the browser identified itself.

> I highly doubt that Google, one of Mozilla main sponsors, had ads against Firefox in their Search homepage.

I saw it.

"Download a better browser" it said when I was already using Firefox.

Yes, that's how anti-competitive practices look like.

Do you think one should be able to advertise Macbook on microsoft.com page or a Pixel phone on apple.com ?

how about a giant banner when you enter a Walmart store that reads "Just buy it on Amazon" ?

If you had to pass through Wall Mart drive through multiple times a day, would it be ok if they hassled you if you used anything but Walmart cars?

Is it OK when Microsoft force install Teams across every installed machine?

You have to realize google.com isn't just the corporate website of Google, it is their main product.

Google+

Seriously? Before any search was entered?

I'll take your word for it. Also it would just be another example that Google tried to enter social media as well using this tactic.

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-is-running-a-massive-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com