Is protecting fair competition "pointless"? I'd argue having one or two clicks extra as something that protects us from a monopolistic corporate overlord to be clicks well spent.
But your example is also excessively alarmist and obtuse. A competition-respecting voice search client would be configurable. Aka, that it should perhaps be illegal for Google Assistant to automatically play music from Google Play Music, but that it allow you to choose a provider, including Amazon Prime Music, Groove Music, etc. Once a user has indicated their preference, the regular flow would be automatic. This would likely be for product search as well, you might select that you want to look up products via Amazon or Walmart.
Surely piping data from one application into another is not new territory.
Why should a search engine send me to other search engines? Sending someone to Amazon Prime Music for the the query "Play me X" is like following a link from Google to a SERP result, which is what Google already does. I don't see a problem with that.
But that's different than the Product Search example of where Foundem wanted Google to send a query like "Headphone prices" to a SERP page which would include a link which takes the user to yet another SERP page. Users expect searches to yield answers, not more searches. When I want to buy headphones, show me 10 Amazon links if you must that directly link to the landing pages for buying them, but don't show me 10 links, each of which, is a link to another search product search product.
When I ask what the weather is, I don't want to be search to a search box on Weather.com. When I ask if my flight's delayed, I don't want a link to be taken to Flightstatus.com so I can re-run the query.
Actually, in the example here, you're wrong: Google Home/Assistant only works with proprietary Google products[1], like Play Music and YouTube Red, with the exception of Spotify... which isn't a competitor for the same type of music service. (And heck, Spotify is a huge Google Cloud customer[2]. Google's still feeding their own here.) It's an excellent example of how Google uses monopolistic design to prevent you from using say, a voice assistant with someone else's music service.
Google should be required, by law, to permit Amazon Prime Music, Groove Music (Microsoft), and Apple's iTunes to integrate should those companies so choose. Note that when you search for music on Bing [3], it offers up links to buy it Amazon and Apple as well as Microsoft's own service, whereas Google points you to YouTube [4]. Google is playing by a very unfair set of rules compared to most others.
In your weather example, maybe I can pick which weather site provides my preferred weather results. Or Google can pass my flight status request right into flightstatus.com and return information... again, leaving that option open for any of their competitors.
The problem here remains that Google primarily feeds into Google, which is, as the EU has clarified, illegal.
> Or Google can pass my flight status request right into flightstatus.com and return information... again, leaving that option open for any of their competitors.
From a consumer perspective, that is a one more extra step for me to take I would rather not take. Technology should be about making my life easier, not worse. What I want is reliable data about when the flight will be departing, arriving and if or if not it is delayed, cancelled or on time. I do not want to choose from a myriad of options of websites I do not know how current they keep their data.
From Google's perspective, now they have four thousand flight status websites, some more reliable than others, and each one will have a case to sue them that they do not get shown equally well.
The same can be said about your music example. If I enter an artist / song title, I do want to hear that song, I do not want to choose between different services, some of which require signup (and the one I already signed up for might appear on page three of that SERP). When I wonder if it is going to rain later today, I want a yes/likely/unlikely/no answer, not a choice between different websites who may or may not have the data for me/my location and today, filled with gigabytes worth of ads and self-playing videos.
Pruning worthless competitors (see: price-comparison websites which don't give you the cheapest option, but the option which gives them the most referal revenue) is not problematic, but the beauty in the eye of the customer.
Are you sure you're not eating your own seed corn?
If Google eats all those sites and services up, what stops them from doing all sorts of nasty stuff once they're in the dominant position later on?
How are the little guys supposed to compete with premium-space on Google's search pages? Nothing on this planet is a stronger marketing engine than that.
> If Google eats all those sites and services up, what stops them from doing all sorts of nasty stuff once they're in the dominant position later on?
And if I had wings, I could save me the airline fares. There is zero indication of Google actually being a Bondesque supervillain organization out to destroy the world.
> How are the little guys supposed to compete with premium-space on Google's search pages? Nothing on this planet is a stronger marketing engine than that.
Back in 1997, I used Altavista for search, sometimes Metacrawler, very rarely Yahoo. I got a hint from a friend about this new thing called Google - back then, they were the underdog. They surprised me with their vastly better search results. I never looked back to the "stronger marketing engines" that was Yahoo. Or Metacrawler. Or Altavista.
In truth, marketing engines mean shit if your product is bad. Google today is the company that gives people what they want, at a reasonable quality. If you are a little guy, you can compete if you are better than Google.
This morning appears to bring news that Alexa and Cortana will be able to call each other, bringing two entire sets of features and platforms together.
Where is Google? Working on raising those walls around its garden that much higher.
I think this difference continues to highlight how Google differs from other companies and warrants antitrust action.
But your example is also excessively alarmist and obtuse. A competition-respecting voice search client would be configurable. Aka, that it should perhaps be illegal for Google Assistant to automatically play music from Google Play Music, but that it allow you to choose a provider, including Amazon Prime Music, Groove Music, etc. Once a user has indicated their preference, the regular flow would be automatic. This would likely be for product search as well, you might select that you want to look up products via Amazon or Walmart.
Surely piping data from one application into another is not new territory.