They are switching their product, youtube, to av1. If youtube couldn't use av1 then it would be device manufacturers who are abusing their power. Can you explain the abuse here? AV1 is an open and royalty free standard.
They are not "switching youtube to AV1". They are "using their dominant market power to force everyone else to switch first to VP9 and then to AV1, or else"
Device manufactures couldn't care less about AV1. And yet, Google made AV1 support mandatory for Android, Android TV etc.
Or else... what? As you say, hardware manufacturers are holding back codec progress. It's google's product, they can force manufactures to comply, but it's not abuse because it's a better and open standard. All consumers benefit from this move.
>The mere fact of it being better or open doesn't make what Google is doing any less of an abuse of their position.
Except it literaly does. Abuse in the market it not defined by the loss of another company but by the loss of the consumer. Anti-competition laws are ultimately meant to protect the consumer. The consumer. "Abusing" a company in itself is perfectly fine: it's a free market after all.
Abuse of dominance occurs when a dominant business (or group of businesses) engages in activity that stops or substantially reduces competition in a market. These anti-competitive activities may be:
predatory (incurring short-term losses to eliminate a competitor and gain future market power);
exclusionary (trying to prevent a business from operating in a market);
disciplinary (trying to punish a business); or
intended to adversely affect competition (e.g., by making other companies want to compete less and denying consumers the benefit of competition)
