I think his point though is that the premise that these companies achieved their success through domination and monopolistic powers is inaccurate because they r

I think his point though is that the premise that these companies achieved their success through domination and monopolistic powers is inaccurate because they rose to prominence while not being dominate or possessing any monopolistic powers. Facebook beat out MySpace by making a better product at a time when MySpace had a huge lead. So through innovation and creating a better product alone a company can theoretically compete as the examples she cites did at one point. In fairness, he does go on to say that they have now reached a critical mass such that in the ad space nobody can compete because they throw off so much cash that they can deploy that into acquisitions or developing free products just to maintain their leads and steal share from up and coming companies. It's a complex issue. One thing I didn't get about Warren's comment was her assertion that if you provide the store for others to sell in you aren't allowed to sell because you have access to data and product placement that gives you an unfair advantage. Okay according to that line of reasoning Wal-Mart and all major grocery chains should be broken up because they all sell private label merchandise. Or none of them should be allowed to sell private label merchandise because they can give it the best placement and know which products are best to make. Obviously that argument quickly falls apart because a consumer who goes to a grocery store is quickly going to become frustrated and go elsewhere if all they can find are the store's own versions of products that they are shopping for. Amazon and Google have demonstrated a very clear understanding of this since they started, knowing that giving the customer what they want quickly and conveniently is the most important thing. If it happens to be Amazon's own brand of duffel bag or Google's own restaurant reviews based on the search then so be it. But I seriously doubt Google is withholding Yelp results to be anticompetitive. The far more likely explanation in my mind is that a searcher would rather see a Google Map with all of the restaurants and pictures and reviews quickly and reliably and Google knows that. That they might profit by it is a happy accident not because they control the means of search. Sooner or later the better product experience is going to win out regardless of whether it is made by Google or somebody else. Google has tried for a decade to compete in social and has failed despite having far greater resources for most of that time. In short, I think "monopoly!" is a convenient scapegoat for the Yelp's of the world so they don't have to admit that Google simply built a better product experience than they did.