4 ms·

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 po

by jowea 3y ago

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.

manuelabeledo 3y ago
How is that even in the same category? Google does not force you to install Chrome in order to use Search.
- jowea 3y ago
  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=1062&context=umblr https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... [1] https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1304&context=lawreview https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1304... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54887650 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54887650 [3] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    > 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-size-ads-on-chrome-website-to-make-you-stay-on-edge/ https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-is-now-injecting-full-...
    - jowea 3y ago
      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.
- ThunderSizzle 3y ago
  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.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    You could also use iOS.
- eitland 3y ago
  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.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    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.
    - eitland 3y ago
      > 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.

by jowea 3y ago

manuelabeledo 3y ago

How is that even in the same category? Google does not force you to install Chrome in order to use Search.

jowea 3y ago
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=1062&context=umblr https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... [1] https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1304&context=lawreview https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1304... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54887650 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54887650 [3] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > 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-size-ads-on-chrome-website-to-make-you-stay-on-edge/ https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-is-now-injecting-full-...
  - jowea 3y ago
    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.
ThunderSizzle 3y ago
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.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  You could also use iOS.
eitland 3y ago
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.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  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.
  - eitland 3y ago
    > 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.