• MimicJar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Being a monopoly and engaging in negative monopolistic behaviors are also different things.

      For example if the only two burger joints in the world were McDonalds and Burger King, and Burger King decided to replace their burgers with literal shit, actual human and animal feces, would McDonalds be a (I hope and assume) monopoly? Probably. Are they engaging in negative monopolistic behavior? Not necessarily.

      Obviously, as a quick aside, fuck Google for their shitty software decisions, their cancelling of great products and their enshittification of a majority of their applications.

      However simply having 90% of the market does not technically mean they have done anything wrong. You can’t say they have 90% of the market therefore they have done something illegal or have abused being a monopoly.

      You have to be specific. You have to call out payment to companies to be the default. But even that isn’t quite enough because companies sold access. Can a company be at fault for buying access as the default? It was for sale. It’s a weak argument, or at least an incomplete one. You need to prove they abused their position. Or you need to make a case that the industry they are in requires additional regulation as a whole.

      I say this because although it sounds like I’m defending Google I’m not. There is a difference between something feeling illegal and something being illegal. Technically, although a recent judgement would disagree with me, they haven’t done anything wrong. It feels like they have. I agree it feels like they have. But they haven’t (or there are further pending results which will prove otherwise).

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Ok. But you usually don’t get to 90% market share without doing something “wrong”.

        • MimicJar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes but PROVE IT. Define what wrong they did. That’s my point.

          Take a look at the recent monopoly trial, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/05/technology/google-antitrust-ruling.html

          They claim that spending $18 billion per year to be the default search engine makes them monopolistic. That’s it? That’s all they got?

          So the result will be Google stops paying $18 billion and device/browser manufacturers have to put up a Browser Choice dot EU type option.

          Go back 10 years and put that law in place. AFAIK Apple has always defaulted to Google. Samsung probably would have sold out to Bing to be the default (although in this case Bing wouldn’t reach a monopoly, so I guess that’s ok for some reason).

          I’m not saying paying to be the default didn’t help, but is that the reason they have 90% of the searches? No.

          Did they do some else? Maybe. Someone should prove it and we can have an actual change.