I feel like the more blatant monopoly abuse by Google is how they use the Google search homepage to shill their other products. They effectively give themselves billions of dollars in free advertising
Search results include: "Explore maps of Detroit on HERE[0], Google Maps[0], OpenStreetMap[0] [...]"
[0] insert link
how the heck is google's " 'giving' themselves something for free", considered wrong? even if it is billions of dollars?
in which alt world is it wrong of you to 'give' yourself a 100 dollars? or even billions? of your own money? or even billions worth of advertising space? both the giver and the receiver are you, right? you are not stealing anything from anyone.
then what the heck is the problem? maybe I am dumb, but I fail to see it.
in your own words, they are giving it to themselves, right?
they are not taking that money away from anyone else.
and note: I am not a Google shill. I criticized them, with some justifications that I gave, roughly about a day ago. check my comments. I try to be objective, though of course I may sometimes fail at that.
interested to hear what you have to say about all this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
>A monopoly (from Greek μόνος, mónos, 'single, alone' and πωλεῖν, pōleîn, 'to sell'), as described by Irving Fisher, is a market with the "absence of competition", creating a situation where a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular thing.
how is Google a monopoly according to the above definition in Wikipedia?
they have competitors like bing, duckduckgo, kagi, and some others that i have read about here on hn recently.
and I do not know about the others, but at least bing and duckduckgo have existed for many years.
so again, how are they a monopoly?
to repeat, quoting from the Wikipedia definition of monopoly:
>A monopoly (from Greek μόνος, mónos, 'single, alone' and πωλεῖν, pōleîn, 'to sell'), as described by Irving Fisher, is a market with the "absence of competition", creating a situation where a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular thing.
(italics mine)
can you really not see the difference between 90% search share held by Google, which means 10% share held by others, vs. absence of competition? it is blindingly obvious.
I am leaving this thread. I don't argue with people who either don't get it, or seem to be operating under false pretences.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-05/google-lo...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/20/google-...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-google-has-a-mon...
[4] http://www2.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/eco211f/lectures/monopo...
half the links (i.e. 1 and 2) you quoted above don't work for me. paywalls or signup required? clever you, eh? not!
and link 4 is too long and verbose. I searched for the word effective, but did not find it in the initial part on the screen.
aaannnddd ... you are quoting journalists (!) as though they are automatically competent authorities? and even judges' decisions sometimes get reversed by higher courts. so effectively you have no point. hee ... hee ... hee ...
looks like, in your arguments, you thrive on appeals to faux authority, and nothing else, particularly not on reasoning.
so, tata, bye bye, dude.
this sort of argument is below me.
bless you. you need it.
they are because a judge just ruled they are. answering questions like this is the reason the courts exist, and they just answered this question.
or they might not actually be a monopoly, there's still a possibility of appeal, but there's really no more definitive answer than a judge's ruling. antitrust law is fuzzy, and depends a lot on the courts to interpret it.
but they are not a monopoly according to the Wikipedia definition that I cited in another subthread, and linked to above, though.
and courts can be packed, which, i have been reading, has happened with the us supreme court.
if you're asking how they're a monopoly, i answered you. if you want to debate whether the judge was right or wrong, maybe phrase your question less like a question.
okay, i will. in fact, i also answered you, so I'll just link to my other answer again:
and judges are human, and therefore fallible.
and that judge's ruling can be overturned by an appeals court. and the appeals court's ruling can again be overturned by an even higher court.
such things have happened many times in the past.
so that means that the courts are no more reliable than Wikipedia.
qed. case dismissed. ;)
is it against the law?
IANAL, but I would think not.
I mean, many people put links to their other products or services on the web page of one of their products or services.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....