Actually, I'm not sure you get it. It's not about being big, it's about using a monopoly position in one field to gain entry to another.
If you're big but not a monopolist, and you do the exact same thing, then way less of a problem. Hence Apple could bundle Safari with iOS but Microsoft couldn't bundle IE with Windows XP in the exact same way.
I avoided the word "monopoly" for a reason. The internet isn't a finite natural resource, Google doesn't own it, there are other players in the field, and nothing stops new players fron entering.
You're also interpreting the word "big" perhaps too literally. In your example, Apple is not big in the sense I mean. Microsoft might be, but that doesn't mean I agree with the judgement against them.
If people like your product so much that 95% of the market uses it, I don't see the abuse.
> it's about using a monopoly position in one field to gain entry to another.
It's not about Google dominating the search market. It's about Google leveraging their dominant position on the search market to promote their comparison shopping service, which is a different product for different market.
Think of the competition laws as nerfing your ability to leverage domination of one market into immediate domination of other markets. Companies don't have natural rights, there are only the arbitrary rules of the market game, that are intended to promote general prosperity in the society.
Controversial way to look at this, but surprisingly close to the truth: markets exist for the people. Companies have only one purpose: to serve the people. Their profits are merely incidental. Any type of regulation (or lack thereof) can be traced back to this rule.
Freedoms exist only to let companies thrive insofar as that then lets them sell goods that benefit the people. Once that stops, the freedoms stop.
I'm being slightly dry cut, but this is a good rule of thumb when looking at society. It's easy to forget about the bigger picture and think that companies have any type of inherent right to exist. They don't. They're here for us. Of course, theory vs practice, yada yada. but again: rule of thumb for regulations.
> Companies have only one purpose: to serve the people.
That seems completely backwards. Governments have only one purpose—to serve the people.
Companies have only one purpose—to serve its shareholders. Of course, purely pursuing this purpose can lead to perverse outcomes so we have regulation to keep it in check.
> Companies [don't] have any type of inherent right to exist
Huh? In so far as individuals have a right to engage in trade and commerce, and in so far as they have a right to engage in this in coordination with other individuals, companies do have a right to exist.
Integration of services and software could best serve the people. Promotion may do so too, especially when it comes to software that relies on network effects.
If anything, punishing a big company for its potentially big effect on markets values 1) markets above people and 2) competitors' ability to participate on the market above the people.
Banning integration or self-promotion could very well result in a worse product overall that serves people worse.
The 3 statements you made here are completely illogical and foreign to me. Can you provide sources for why you believe this kind of monopoly is beneficial to the people?
For example this is my view and the view of most EU citizens:
"punishing a big company for its potentially big effect on markets values 1) people above markets and 2) competitors' ability to participate on the market which is to the benefit of costumers (people)"
The problem is not being big but the effect you have on the market. And that effect is naturally a lot bigger if you are a defacto monopoly ergo why there are a different set of rules. It can't be all party if you are at that position.
If you would not have that kind of control (and fines when they break those rules) it would be virtually impossible to beat these kind of entities or they can use their weight to strong-arm them-self in a lot of markets. See what happened in the past with Microsoft.
runaway free market ends with standard oil. regulators need to keep it within bounds where competition is possible. it's doubly important in the internet where geography doesn't matter most of the time and winner takes all pretty much globally, because there's no other option really.
