Much of this debate centers on the premonition that Google highlights their own content and services in order to fight competition and maximize their own profits. They are acting intentionally and rationally. But their monopoly is hurting others, so we (er, the EU) convict(s) Google of malice.
However, another plausible position is that Google is merely behaving negligently. There are some studies (paid by competitors, sure) showing users dislike Google promoted content and products. Those products should probably have their A/B tests ended, but nobody has the guts to pull the plug (and willpower to evolve the effort into something else). Knowledge Base has sucked away ~30% of Wikipedia's traffic, which thankfully has not yet hurt donations. Google certainly doesn't want Wikipedia to fall apart.
If we want to draw a parallel to Microsoft's monopoly, we could point out how IE was initially a good product but then fell behind the competition. Pushing it on consumers not only hurt consumer choice, but (over time) locked users into a poor experience. But did we really need to carry out a lengthy (and ineffective) anti-trust case?
Building a legal case is expensive and highly political. If discovery doesn't uncover evidence of malicious intentions, then one must prove competitors and consumers were harmed. But if the monopoly has been held for so long, how can one prove those damages without resorting to small, expensive, and contrived studies?
We should begin to embrace an expectation that the producer of any successful product will eventually become negligent. Protecting consumer choice is not just about fair discovery, but ensuring the diversity needed for markets to evolve (for better or, perhaps in the short term, for worse). Why do we have to go to such effort to show how Google is specifically doing harm? Why can't we say they had their turn, and here are places where they have concentrated marketshare and thus places in need of diversity?
However, another plausible position is that Google is merely behaving negligently. There are some studies (paid by competitors, sure) showing users dislike Google promoted content and products. Those products should probably have their A/B tests ended, but nobody has the guts to pull the plug (and willpower to evolve the effort into something else). Knowledge Base has sucked away ~30% of Wikipedia's traffic, which thankfully has not yet hurt donations. Google certainly doesn't want Wikipedia to fall apart.
If we want to draw a parallel to Microsoft's monopoly, we could point out how IE was initially a good product but then fell behind the competition. Pushing it on consumers not only hurt consumer choice, but (over time) locked users into a poor experience. But did we really need to carry out a lengthy (and ineffective) anti-trust case?
Building a legal case is expensive and highly political. If discovery doesn't uncover evidence of malicious intentions, then one must prove competitors and consumers were harmed. But if the monopoly has been held for so long, how can one prove those damages without resorting to small, expensive, and contrived studies?
We should begin to embrace an expectation that the producer of any successful product will eventually become negligent. Protecting consumer choice is not just about fair discovery, but ensuring the diversity needed for markets to evolve (for better or, perhaps in the short term, for worse). Why do we have to go to such effort to show how Google is specifically doing harm? Why can't we say they had their turn, and here are places where they have concentrated marketshare and thus places in need of diversity?