"It doesn't matter what the market effect was, only that Google engineers meant well" is certainly an argument, but it both contradicts the question you originally asked (are customers better off), and also (to be blunt) is a really heckin bad argument.
I'm just kind of blown away by the rapid shift from "this helped consumers", to "actually, no, the effect was minimal", to "actually, it doesn't matter if anybody was harmed, the result is immaterial." :)
"Google should not use a near-monopoly position in the browser to privilege it's own sites and services" is a very simple standard, and this really is not a complex case.
It only becomes complicated if you start trying to rephrase a simple principle as: "Google shouldn't privilege their sites unless they mean well, and then the result is immaterial, but no wait actually I didn't mean immaterial, I meant minimal, and anyway it's not like Zoom isn't still popular so-"
Or... Google could also just not ship invisible extensions as part of Chromium's build process that privilege Google-owned services with extra API access in direct contradiction to the principles of an independent Internet. Because the effect of casually breaking that contract isn't minimal. It does actually matter that the web be a neutral platform. If businesses expect that Google can get away with privileging Google platforms in the core browser, that perception and allowance of interference degrades the entire Internet as a commercial platform - and of course emboldens Google to go even further in the future.
I... what? Today I learned that the Federal Trade Commission is a figment of my imagination.
I'm sorry, your argument has devolved to the point where you're now saying that Chrome privileging Google sites isn't anticompetitive behavior because antitrust isn't a natural law? I can't believe I have to say this, but that's not the standard that the FTC or courts use.
Google is literally being sued right now for, in part, using browsers (both its own and others through browser deals) to privilege it's own services. No, the FTC was not created for the purpose of the Internet, but that is not a thing that anyone said, and I very genuinely believe that you are smart enough to understand that I was talking about the provably false claim that a neutral Internet that doesn't exist to privilege Google is some fantasy that only tech nerds have rather than a repeated principle in multiple current antitrust efforts by multiple governments around the world, including the US.
That being said:
> You keep moving the goal posts.
You're right, and I apologize. We weren't discussing whether or not antitrust was a natural right. That's off-topic, and that's on me. We started this out discussing, in your words:
> Anti competitive behavior is generally perceived to be about doing things that put the company in question in a better position without improving the product.
Which I hope at this point we've established is just straight-up wong, that's just not an accurate evaluation of antitrust. Then of course you went on to say there was no effect, and that if there was an effect it didn't matter because "result = immaterial" (which is also absurd, even the most conservative, limited perspective on antitrust in the government does not say that the results of a company action aren't relevant to antitrust). And then you went on to imply that having a neutral platform on the web isn't something anyone should expect anyway, which... yeah, okay, absurdities aside you're correct that now we're starting to get off topic.
The on-topic response to this as far as I can tell is: I don't think you understand what antitrust is, how it works, or why we have it, and everything you're saying here is absurd.
But it's very easy to get caught up in minute rhetorical debates: part of what's been wild about this conversation has been watching you make even more indefensible claims that you never had to make, just to avoid the appearance of one contradiction. And it's worth resisting that impulse, taking a step back from this and looking at the original questions: was anyone harmed? Is this anticompetitive behavior?
You say no, but you also say that no one should have any expectation of an Internet that exists independently of a single company's monopoly hold over its standards and APIs. So you're not really in a position to know if anyone was harmed because where competition on the Internet is concerned, you appear to reject an entire category of commonly understood harm.
So just taking a step back and looking at these ideas: are people overreacting over Google? Does this cause harm? Was the purpose of this to make people's lives better, or was it to privilege Google's services over competitors? If you believe absurd things about antitrust, competition, corporate intentions, and the Internet itself -- it doesn't really mean much when you say that Google's intentions are good and everyone is over-concerned.
If you tell people not to be concerned about the loss of a neutral, independent Internet, and it turns out you don't believe in a neutral, independent Internet, then... surprise, people aren't going to listen to you.
Materiality matters, in practice. This is a tiny thing.
The result of the action matters, in practice. Meet is an also ran.
The intent/motivation matters, in practice. They were trying to do the right thing, improve their product.
Using a dominant positing in one market to promote/dominate in another market via distribution is where regulators tend to push cases. And, people tend to (rightly, mostly) get upset. Improving the product via another product? Find me a list of cases.
Have you considered some people actually deal with anti trust on a day to day?
On whether platform APIs (like those in a web-browser) can be anti-competitive:
> Apple has used one or both mechanisms (control of app distribution or control of APIs) to suppress the following technologies...
[...]
On the need for neutral API access as a tool to increase competition:
> Messaging apps that work equally well across all smartphones can
improve competition among smartphones [...]. Apple makes
third-party messaging apps on the iPhone worse generally and relative to Apple
Messages, Apple’s own messaging app, by prohibiting third-party apps from sending
or receiving carrier-based messages...
[...]
On the suppression of APIs for third-party services:
> By suppressing key functions of third-party smartwatches —including the ability to respond to notifications and messages and to maintain consistent
connections with the iPhone—Apple has denied users access to high performing
smartwatches with preferred styling, better user interfaces and services, or better
batteries, and it has harmed smartwatch developers by decreasing their ability to
innovate and sell products.
[...]
On the use of privacy as an excuse restrict 3rd-party APIs that are not restricted for 1st-party services:
> In the end, Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple’s financial and business interests.
[...]
If you need it stated even more clearly:
> Apple selectively designates APIs as public or private to benefit Apple, limiting the
functionality developers can offer to iPhone users even when the same functionality is available
in Apple’s own apps, or even select third-party apps.
This is directly analogous to what Google is doing here. Shipping a by-default extension which takes advantage of a distribution channel (Chrome's list of default extensions) that is not available to 3rd-party developers. That extension grants Google access to a private API that benefits Google while limiting the functionality that third party sites can offer their users, and I quote: "even when the same functionality is available in [Google]'s own apps."
You do not know what you are talking about.
> Have you considered some people actually deal with anti trust on a day to day?
