> I know that Google is super powerful and has great products but what exactly are (if any) examples of Google showing anti-competitive behaviour?
At least at one point, they nagged you incessantly to install Chrome when you used Google Search. I would attribute Chrome's current dominance [1] to that fact, and that fact alone. That's uncannily like the anti-competitive behavior Microsoft was judged to have used to push Internet Explorer into a dominant position and drive Netscape out of the market.
[1] If Chrome had been allowed to grow its market share organically, I think would have still been popular, just not dominant. Firefox would have a bigger market share than it does now, for instance.
That is such BS. Microsoft is making it increasingly harder to use a different browser on their OS. No mention of that. When they do it, "it's their OS, it's fair". Google is not forcing anyone to install this browser nor does it auto install when you navigate to Google search.
> That is such BS. Microsoft is making it increasingly harder to use a different browser on their OS. No mention of that. When they do it, "it's their OS, it's fair".
What's with the attitude? I listed Microsoft as an example of anti-competitive behavior. How did you get from there to thinking I'd penned some kind of endorsement of Microsoft?
> Google is not forcing anyone to install this browser nor does it auto install when you navigate to Google search.
The problem is that they're using (or used) their dominance in one area as leverage to gain dominance in another area.
> Google is not forcing anyone to install this browser nor does it auto install when you navigate to Google search.
Making it so that a number of the worlds largest properties only work in your own browser comes very close to "forcing" in my opinion.
When should a company be forced to make sure its products works with other companies products? Thats not for me to decide but personally I think there's some extra responsibility for very large companies and personally I'm surprised they haven't been hit with one or two major lawsuits over Chrome yet.
In the IBM antitrust case, IBM was forced to separate their OS and App businesses. Their OS business had to publish all of their APIs and was not allowed to communicate non-publicly with their App business. This was to prevent IBM from using their OS monopoly to gain an App monopoly.
Once you are a monopoly, you can expect such restrictions.
What Google is really good at is evading FTC regulation by staying within FCC jurisdiction. The FCC has historically been hand in hand with industry. The FTC has real teeth.
> What Google is really good at is evading FTC regulation by staying within FCC jurisdiction. The FCC has historically been hand in hand with industry. The FTC has real teeth.
This is nonsense. You're insulting the intelligence of everyone reading this.
I'm talking about the US where google is also protected by the first amendment and not the bizarro world logic the EU uses to justify their protectionism (how are shopping ads different than any other search ads?!).
"The Sherman Act broadly prohibits (1) anticompetitive agreements and (2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market."
For example, squashing competition by deleting your competitors search results might be interpreted as an attempt to monopolize the market.
In the context of providing a marketplace (i.e. the App Store), we aren't really looking at "private free speech" any more and so the first amendment does not apply here.
The "or" in the question is a false dichotomy. Many historic examples of monopolistic abuse originated from market power that was initially acquired via excellence in innovation or execution.
Also many anti-competitive behaviors, like certain pricing/tying/bundling/cross-subsidization strategies, are perfectly legal for a small operator, but become illegal when a firm gains immense market power. And there is rarely a "bright line" for when a firm crosses that threshold, and the things it used to do become illegal. The firm pretty much has to wait for pushback via prosecution – actual or threatened – and of course will keep denying there's anything wrong with their habitual practices indefinitely, as a matter of corporate culture.
Exactly. Also being a monopoly isn't illegal. That was talked about a lot at the time of Microsoft anti-trust case. What's illegal is using your monopoly position to get unfair advantage in other markets.
When I worked at Google as an intern, there were lots of people internally that were very aware that most of their core products don't have a locked in monopoly like Amazon, Facebook, or Apple do. For example, after the Cambridge Analytica stuff, lots of people wanted to leave Facebook, but mostly aren't able to due to network effects. In contrast, using Bing instead of Google Search is so easy that I do so occasionally when I'm having trouble finding something through Google. If their product was suddenly worse than the competition, they could lose their entire user base in days, because the network effects of personalized search are nowhere near the network effects of Facebook. The same is true for Maps, Gmail (data export is allowed), Drive, Photos, Chrome, Ads (for websites) and most of their other core products.
I guess the question of whether they "are a monopoly" is largely dependent on what your definition of monopoly is, but the lack of lock-in means they aren't able to exploit their market dominance in most of the ways that traditionally make monopolies problematic.
Google Play / Android is a good example where this is less true, although alternate Android app stores and OS's do exist (see Amazon's attempt to make Fire OS)
Monopolistic behavior and strong product development practices are not mutually exclusive.
Google can put in the effort to make a great new product, but use its market dominance to make sure that it’s products have a better chance to succeed vs it’s competitors.
Regardless of whether they abuse their monopoly power or not, it is undeniable that Google is either a monopoly or member of an oligopoly in several areas, including: search, advertisement (adwords), email (gmail), cloud infrastructure (GCP), navigation (google maps), SaaS productivity suite (google docs), mobile operating systems (android), web browsers (chrome), etc.
Google certainly isn't as bad at abusing its monopoly power as it could be, but, well, it certainly isn't perfect either.
In search, there have been instances where they've put their weight behind some products (Yelp vs Google reviews).
It is also under scrutiny in the EU. Their antidote seems to be creating Alphabet and styling Google as an advertising company rather a search engine.
That said, I for one, think they haven't put out and succeeded with subpar products by the sheer force of their control over search (Google Plus, Google Buzz, ...).
One definition of a monopoly is the Sherman Antitrust Act - 75% or more market share.
Google has a monopoly in search (90% or more share) and they also control north of 60% of internet ad revenue, and they have a monopoly in browsers.
Google repeatedly has leveraged monopolies in one area to gain monopolies in other areas.
They also store tons of data on all of us, whether we want to use them or not. Since that data is not on devices we own, it is easy pickings for law enforcement to get ahold of as the traditional protections do not apply. If NSA or some government agency collected this data with so little oversight or protection, it would be outrageous. They wouldn't get away with saying "We promise not to be evil".
If Google cuts off service to you, good luck. You have little recourse.
Google enters markets, dominates them with a product, and then drops the product, destroying the market.
Google is also highly partisan, overwhelmingly backing a single political party. This is unhealthy to say the least.
Their position allows them to distribute their products to a larger audience, quicker than others for sure, but I don’t believe that’s a formula for success per se.
Successful products like Gmail, grew like a scrappy startup working on a great product would grow.
The first version Paul made was just a search engine for his own email. He then shared it with some friends/colleagues.
Gradually more features were added to improve the product and now we all have Gmail.
I’m sure the Google brand helped with distribution at some point later on, but users aren’t stupid. They pick the product they love using (unless they’re forced in an enterprise type of environment)
You write about Gmail as if no one had email before that. GMail doesn't have a single meaningful feature that other clients didn't have before. And those clients didn't completely redo the UI every 3 months whether you want it or not.
> GMail doesn't have a single meaningful feature that other clients didn't have before
That's an objectively incorrect statement. It had:
1. 1GB storage when every other email provider offered like 50 MB at best
2. Superior search
3. Conversational/threaded view for emails
4. Better spam filtering
5. One of the first "dynamic" web applications to use that newfangled "AJAX" stuff to be more responsive and seem faster
Every other email provider was forced to start offering these features and now they seem commonplace. Reminds me of that old joke where someone goes to see a Shakespeare play and complains it was just one cliche after another.
In the beginning, when Gmail was only accessible by invitation, the killer feature was the relatively huge amount of free storage it offered. 1 gigabyte vs 20 or 100 megabytes at other providers.
When Gmail came out it was also a gigantic money incinerator into which Google shoveled search ads revenue. It is easy to show that Google used one product line to break into another line of business. It would be harder to convince me that this harmed consumers.
Anti-monopoly law is not meant to prevent companies from investing in different product lines. Monopoly law is meant to prevent companies from using one product to force customers to buy into another product.
The storage limits gmail offered for free was unprecedented, and in my experience they were suddenly far more reliable than their competition. I find it's ability to pick events out of natural language emails and add them to your calendar, remind you if you forgot to attach something but it sounds like you meant to, etc. very useful, and I never saw those before despite continuing to be a regular user of Yahoo and Hotmail.
> GMail doesn't have a single meaningful feature that other clients didn't have before.
I'd say that its search-first paradigm to mail handling (and related to that, labels) was rather unusual at the time, and for the most part it still is.
Disclosure: I work at Google and get my regular exposure to GMail from there. I run and use my own mail server for everything that is not work.
I think it was the extremely high storage quotas (for the time) and the fact that the UI was ajax’y and didn’t reload the whole page/frame when you clicked.
Spam filtering on gmail has always been OK, but it was fine (for me) on other products for many years before gmail came out. I doubt it was much of a differentiator, but who knows? Maybe the #1 provider before gmail really sucked at it or something.
They were Yahoo and HotMail, and they both had significantly worse spam filtering than gmail. They also had relatively poor security, reflected in bugs that made it common for even relatively careful users to have their accounts hijacked (at least, that’s what I heard from users at the time; I didn’t really use either one much myself.)
Google is pretty monopolistic. They have shown anti-competitive behavior with local, maps, etc. Would create a more competitive marketplace if Google has broken up into separate publicly traded entities (ie like Waymo)
I think part of the problem with our current framing of what is "anti-competitive" or "monopolistic" focuses on consumers. A classical monopolist artificially limits supply and drives up prices to maximize profits (see, for example, the business practices of Standard Oil). That's completely orthogonal to Google's business model for two reasons:
1) For consumers, most products have no downward mobility in price from competition. The search is already free (ie. literally the lowest price possible). How can something be bad for consumers if it's free? Similar things can be said of gmail, maps, etc.
2) Google doesn't limit supply of its products within reasonable use (when's the last time you got a communication from Google demanding you do fewer searches?)
I think the question you should perhaps ask is "when we consider regulating behavior of large firms, is regulation that's good for consumers actually good for society?"
Wow, your comment is far better cited than mine. Also, Bork wasn't necessarily wrong for the era he lived in.
I think we don't yet have a good vocabulary to describe the kind of bad behavior we see in large tech firms. People use "monopoly" because it's the first word that comes to mind when a large firm is acting badly, but Google's/Facebook's/etc behavior does not fit our current definition.
The rest of the world is more easily bought and paid for by Google lobbying because every Politician needs to use Google Ads+YouTube Ads+Android Apps to get elected.
Personally I find the cases the EU has against Google to be, well pathetic. Absolutely without merit. The sites that felt disadvantaged, whom the EU worked on behalf of, were scummy comparison shopping sites.
The other complaints, the "right to forget" legislation had similar scummy people behind it. Politicians that had committed fraud on multiple counts and wanted to hide this.
That pretty much leaves the android case ... I don't know too much about that, I must say. I might add that android is not entirely free for device manufacturers. Probably cheaper than any other option, yes, but not free.
That's an argument for them being a monopsony, not a monopoly. And since they were colluding with other companies, it fits the definition of a cartel better.
Nothing. But that's not what Google usually does. Much more often, Google tries and succeeds. People begin using the product because it's good, and then Google arbitrarily kills it [0]. I've been burned by this behavior enough that I now avoid Google products whenever possible, no matter how great they seem.
I'm no expert but I believe to move from "great product builder" to "monopoly" you have to actively block others from competing or doing things that would prevent their success.
Why do you believe Google is "really good at building useful products"? Would you buy any of them if they didn't have the Google brand (or pay for any of the free ones for that matter)?
10 years ago I certainly would have purchased Google Search, Google Maps, Chrome and Gmail. I currently pay for Android. Nowadays there are a lot more alternatives that have caught and surpassed some of these products. I have switched back to Firefox and am currently switching to ProtonMail but yes Google has made quite a few amazing products that for years had no competition.
I'm sure the Google brand has helped adoption, but I do actually pay for G Suite and it's pretty hard to beat if you're starting a business and want a pretty no-nonsense productivity suite everyone can work together on.
The only reason Google has anything they have is their data and their user lock in.
The software and culture are nice, as are the lunches. But seriously, their data is the only thing that keeps them from becoming one player among many.
Google Ads isn't a monopoly. Most obviously Facebook runs its own ad networks, but also, I see tons of ads when I browse around that come from other ad networks. There are hundreds of the things.
There is no monopoly when your stuff is free, has virtually zero replacement cost and no lock-in.
The "google is a monopoly" trope was introduced and cultivated by Steve Ballmer's Microsoft and it's being constantly adopted and revised by anyone with an axe to grind.
I’d be interested in what you class as a monopoly? You can always expand or shrink a market definition to suit whatever agenda.
Using DeBeers as an example (from the Wikipedia article on monopoly), they could be argued to not have a monopoly, because diamonds are a sliver of the gifting market.
Search ads isn't the only way to reach people and it's not an impediment for new entrants as shown by Amazon's ad business.
As for the general matter, google has the right to publish and design their website however they see fit, it's a no brainer, the only reason this question keeps popping up is that google has very powerful enemies in basically all news and publishing companies (they blame it for their dwindling ad revenue), not to mention the oracles and yelps of the world and all of them are piggybacking on the infrastructure laid down by microsoft at the time.
Ok maybe monopoly isn’t the word, but what’s the word that describes how it is virtually impossible for anyone else to write a seriously competing search engine, given the resources, trade secrets and patents Google has.
Also can you give me an example of a true monopoly as per your definition. Even the US government doesn’t have a tax monopoly because there are other countries you can live in.
You are literally disincentivizing anyone making any company. Every company will have it's secret sauce. You're blaming Google for being "so good " that "it's no fair".
If someone were to invent a new method for information retrieval superior to a search engine they could thrive.
As for proper monopolies it's usually the power/water utilities, although I think that the breakup of at&t back in the day was ill advised because their monopoly sustained bell labs, possibly the greatest innovation hub ever, that being one example of these populist antitrust notions backfiring.
Google is really good at crowdsourcing ideas by reading your email surreptitiously; at getting those tasty IP treats by scanning your cloud documents; and by watching trends by sifting through billions of keypresses and mousemovements sent secretly by your chrome browser.
Also, since they were funded initially by the CIA and Darpa, they have access to unlimited black budget money (51T by some estimates now) so of course they can build the best stuff
and give it all away for FREE!!! (because they are mining all your data for profitizing potentialities among their backchannel services networks)
Yes in more than one area. The lowest hanging fruit (which will cause downvotes): Google Play. No one can release anything Google disagrees with on Google Play.... but google could. Google and Apple really should be separated from their stores. They know everything that happens on them and no one can compete against that.
Bundling Chrome with Android (and Apple apps in iOS) is no different than Microsoft bundling IE or Windows media player.
Except that the web is a completely different landscape than it was during the prime of IE6. If IE6 had been standards compliant like Chrome, no one would have bothered with Microsoft bundling it with Windows because you'd been able to switch browsers without every 2nd website telling you to use IE6.
Firefox and later Chrome continued to rise because they were faster, extendable and more open, not because Microsoft has to offer a browser selection in some markets.
> No one can release anything Google disagrees with on Google Play
Recent Android versions made it ever easier to install apps without using the Play Store: I have F-Droid installed and whitelisted (so no warnings every time an apk appears), which required toggling a permission switch the system pointed out to me.
As for Chrome, apparently various vendors ship their own browser as default although it seems they still have to ship Chrome as alternative.
> F-droid can't sell apps on the play store without using Google
"I can't sell my organic bananas at Walmart without dealing with Walmart"?
I can understand ideas that there shouldn't be a "default store" on devices. Or that Android's certification (whatever that is called) shouldn't require pre-installing the play store as only option. I may or may not agree with them.
But "I should be able to sell my wares at a store without dealing with its owner/operator" sounds strange to me.
Side loading is nice, but unless you can uninstall the play store and blacklist the google APIs without breaking your phone, you’re still forced to send them your data (or to switch away from Android).
So, they’re tying their market power in phone operating systems to their unrelated monopoly (duopoly?) in surveillance capitalism, and many peopfle unwillingly/unwittingly hand over their private information as a result.
If you consider the full suite of their products, you’ll find that all people that are on the internet (and some that are not) hand over such information, unwilling or not.
Yes, huge companies can make their own stores by levering a huge hit game, lots of cash and opening the gaping security hole that is sideloading apps. Firefox could also be downloaded from getfirefox.com. That doesn't mean Microsoft didn't abuse their monopoly with IE.
Btw. also the same Epic that paid a developer to pull their game off Steam and make it exclusive to the Epic store after the game had had lots of advertisement on the Steam store. That is twice Epic has abused one store to promote their own. They are even worse than Google. At least Google pretends not to be scummy.
At least at one point, they nagged you incessantly to install Chrome when you used Google Search. I would attribute Chrome's current dominance [1] to that fact, and that fact alone. That's uncannily like the anti-competitive behavior Microsoft was judged to have used to push Internet Explorer into a dominant position and drive Netscape out of the market.
[1] If Chrome had been allowed to grow its market share organically, I think would have still been popular, just not dominant. Firefox would have a bigger market share than it does now, for instance.
What's with the attitude? I listed Microsoft as an example of anti-competitive behavior. How did you get from there to thinking I'd penned some kind of endorsement of Microsoft?
> Google is not forcing anyone to install this browser nor does it auto install when you navigate to Google search.
The problem is that they're using (or used) their dominance in one area as leverage to gain dominance in another area.
Making it so that a number of the worlds largest properties only work in your own browser comes very close to "forcing" in my opinion.
When should a company be forced to make sure its products works with other companies products? Thats not for me to decide but personally I think there's some extra responsibility for very large companies and personally I'm surprised they haven't been hit with one or two major lawsuits over Chrome yet.
Once you are a monopoly, you can expect such restrictions.
What Google is really good at is evading FTC regulation by staying within FCC jurisdiction. The FCC has historically been hand in hand with industry. The FTC has real teeth.
This is nonsense. You're insulting the intelligence of everyone reading this.
Also see why: For leveraging a dominant position in one market (search) to intrude on another market (shopping).
This looks suspiciously similar. Google is leveraging a dominant position in search engines to intrude on the browser market.
"The Sherman Act broadly prohibits (1) anticompetitive agreements and (2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market."
For example, squashing competition by deleting your competitors search results might be interpreted as an attempt to monopolize the market.
In the context of providing a marketplace (i.e. the App Store), we aren't really looking at "private free speech" any more and so the first amendment does not apply here.
The worst thing about antitrust threads on HN is idiots trying to appear knowledgeable by skimming a Wikipedia article.
I think your attitude is suboptimal here.
Also many anti-competitive behaviors, like certain pricing/tying/bundling/cross-subsidization strategies, are perfectly legal for a small operator, but become illegal when a firm gains immense market power. And there is rarely a "bright line" for when a firm crosses that threshold, and the things it used to do become illegal. The firm pretty much has to wait for pushback via prosecution – actual or threatened – and of course will keep denying there's anything wrong with their habitual practices indefinitely, as a matter of corporate culture.
Google can put in the effort to make a great new product, but use its market dominance to make sure that it’s products have a better chance to succeed vs it’s competitors.
Google certainly isn't as bad at abusing its monopoly power as it could be, but, well, it certainly isn't perfect either.
It is also under scrutiny in the EU. Their antidote seems to be creating Alphabet and styling Google as an advertising company rather a search engine.
That said, I for one, think they haven't put out and succeeded with subpar products by the sheer force of their control over search (Google Plus, Google Buzz, ...).
Google has a monopoly in search (90% or more share) and they also control north of 60% of internet ad revenue, and they have a monopoly in browsers.
Google repeatedly has leveraged monopolies in one area to gain monopolies in other areas.
They also store tons of data on all of us, whether we want to use them or not. Since that data is not on devices we own, it is easy pickings for law enforcement to get ahold of as the traditional protections do not apply. If NSA or some government agency collected this data with so little oversight or protection, it would be outrageous. They wouldn't get away with saying "We promise not to be evil".
If Google cuts off service to you, good luck. You have little recourse.
Google enters markets, dominates them with a product, and then drops the product, destroying the market.
Google is also highly partisan, overwhelmingly backing a single political party. This is unhealthy to say the least.
Their position allows them to distribute their products to a larger audience, quicker than others for sure, but I don’t believe that’s a formula for success per se.
Successful products like Gmail, grew like a scrappy startup working on a great product would grow.
The first version Paul made was just a search engine for his own email. He then shared it with some friends/colleagues.
Gradually more features were added to improve the product and now we all have Gmail.
I’m sure the Google brand helped with distribution at some point later on, but users aren’t stupid. They pick the product they love using (unless they’re forced in an enterprise type of environment)
That's an objectively incorrect statement. It had:
1. 1GB storage when every other email provider offered like 50 MB at best
2. Superior search
3. Conversational/threaded view for emails
4. Better spam filtering
5. One of the first "dynamic" web applications to use that newfangled "AJAX" stuff to be more responsive and seem faster
Every other email provider was forced to start offering these features and now they seem commonplace. Reminds me of that old joke where someone goes to see a Shakespeare play and complains it was just one cliche after another.
1. _much_ better spam filtering
2. _much_ better searching
3. a _lot_ of storage (no need to delete old emails)
I'd say that its search-first paradigm to mail handling (and related to that, labels) was rather unusual at the time, and for the most part it still is.
Disclosure: I work at Google and get my regular exposure to GMail from there. I run and use my own mail server for everything that is not work.
Spam filtering on gmail has always been OK, but it was fine (for me) on other products for many years before gmail came out. I doubt it was much of a differentiator, but who knows? Maybe the #1 provider before gmail really sucked at it or something.
I think part of the problem with our current framing of what is "anti-competitive" or "monopolistic" focuses on consumers. A classical monopolist artificially limits supply and drives up prices to maximize profits (see, for example, the business practices of Standard Oil). That's completely orthogonal to Google's business model for two reasons:
1) For consumers, most products have no downward mobility in price from competition. The search is already free (ie. literally the lowest price possible). How can something be bad for consumers if it's free? Similar things can be said of gmail, maps, etc. 2) Google doesn't limit supply of its products within reasonable use (when's the last time you got a communication from Google demanding you do fewer searches?)
I think the question you should perhaps ask is "when we consider regulating behavior of large firms, is regulation that's good for consumers actually good for society?"
Earlier comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18436387#18436772
I'm liking Lina Kahn's take:
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...
I think we don't yet have a good vocabulary to describe the kind of bad behavior we see in large tech firms. People use "monopoly" because it's the first word that comes to mind when a large firm is acting badly, but Google's/Facebook's/etc behavior does not fit our current definition.
That's a longer story.
The rest of the world is more easily bought and paid for by Google lobbying because every Politician needs to use Google Ads+YouTube Ads+Android Apps to get elected.
EDIT: Here's one more useful link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google
The other complaints, the "right to forget" legislation had similar scummy people behind it. Politicians that had committed fraud on multiple counts and wanted to hide this.
That pretty much leaves the android case ... I don't know too much about that, I must say. I might add that android is not entirely free for device manufacturers. Probably cheaper than any other option, yes, but not free.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-fi-tn-apple-google-co...
[0] https://killedbygoogle.com/
I'd say Google used to be a whole lot better.
> but what exactly are (if any) examples of Google showing anti-competitive behaviour?
Chrome:
- how they push it (massive advertising, bundling etc)
- how they use their massive web properties to make other browsers look bad
Search, Chrome, YouTube, Maps, Gmail, Android, Google+.
And it frequently ties these to requirements.
Data.
Data.
The only reason Google has anything they have is their data and their user lock in.
The software and culture are nice, as are the lunches. But seriously, their data is the only thing that keeps them from becoming one player among many.
The "google is a monopoly" trope was introduced and cultivated by Steve Ballmer's Microsoft and it's being constantly adopted and revised by anyone with an axe to grind.
Using DeBeers as an example (from the Wikipedia article on monopoly), they could be argued to not have a monopoly, because diamonds are a sliver of the gifting market.
Search ads isn't the only way to reach people and it's not an impediment for new entrants as shown by Amazon's ad business.
As for the general matter, google has the right to publish and design their website however they see fit, it's a no brainer, the only reason this question keeps popping up is that google has very powerful enemies in basically all news and publishing companies (they blame it for their dwindling ad revenue), not to mention the oracles and yelps of the world and all of them are piggybacking on the infrastructure laid down by microsoft at the time.
Also can you give me an example of a true monopoly as per your definition. Even the US government doesn’t have a tax monopoly because there are other countries you can live in.
As for proper monopolies it's usually the power/water utilities, although I think that the breakup of at&t back in the day was ill advised because their monopoly sustained bell labs, possibly the greatest innovation hub ever, that being one example of these populist antitrust notions backfiring.
Also, since they were funded initially by the CIA and Darpa, they have access to unlimited black budget money (51T by some estimates now) so of course they can build the best stuff
and give it all away for FREE!!! (because they are mining all your data for profitizing potentialities among their backchannel services networks)
Does that answer your question?
Yes in more than one area. The lowest hanging fruit (which will cause downvotes): Google Play. No one can release anything Google disagrees with on Google Play.... but google could. Google and Apple really should be separated from their stores. They know everything that happens on them and no one can compete against that.
Bundling Chrome with Android (and Apple apps in iOS) is no different than Microsoft bundling IE or Windows media player.
Firefox and later Chrome continued to rise because they were faster, extendable and more open, not because Microsoft has to offer a browser selection in some markets.
Recent Android versions made it ever easier to install apps without using the Play Store: I have F-Droid installed and whitelisted (so no warnings every time an apk appears), which required toggling a permission switch the system pointed out to me.
As for Chrome, apparently various vendors ship their own browser as default although it seems they still have to ship Chrome as alternative.
Yes I'm using it myself but how is that making Google Play less of a monopoly? F-droid can't sell apps on the play store without using Google.
"I can't sell my organic bananas at Walmart without dealing with Walmart"?
I can understand ideas that there shouldn't be a "default store" on devices. Or that Android's certification (whatever that is called) shouldn't require pre-installing the play store as only option. I may or may not agree with them.
But "I should be able to sell my wares at a store without dealing with its owner/operator" sounds strange to me.
So, they’re tying their market power in phone operating systems to their unrelated monopoly (duopoly?) in surveillance capitalism, and many peopfle unwillingly/unwittingly hand over their private information as a result.
If you consider the full suite of their products, you’ll find that all people that are on the internet (and some that are not) hand over such information, unwilling or not.
Btw. also the same Epic that paid a developer to pull their game off Steam and make it exclusive to the Epic store after the game had had lots of advertisement on the Steam store. That is twice Epic has abused one store to promote their own. They are even worse than Google. At least Google pretends not to be scummy.
But that is beside the point.