Except that Google Places was not better. Google utilized its (well-deserved) virtual monopoly in search to promote its own service above everyone else. Plus the services was integrated into Google Maps. Even then it took at least a year before they got everything working right.

I doubt they threatened anyone. They did *not*, however, provide a better experience. In fact, their review services were pretty unreliable which is one of the main reasons why they bought Zagat. They've been using their search monopoly to promote their service and, when the service failed to deliver, they used their cash reserves to buy similar companies to better the experience. Nothing wrong with the latter but the former (placing Google Places results over everything else even if the quality of the result is questionable) does strike me as being anti-competitive.

No they didn't and I fail to see where I claimed that. Google tends not to conspire. It just buys whatever it can't reproduce. Remember, before they bought Zagat they tried to buy Yelp themselves.

Yes they did. I don't understand the reason for saying "somehow", however. Look up any local restaurant, for example. Google not only places its service above all other results but it also takes up the entire sidebar to give you information about the restaurant. It utilizes its own monopoly to market its other services. This is the same case for Google Flights which places itself above all organic search results (as opposed to sponsored search results).

They are a lot better now. It took a few years, however, and during the entire time they've been promoting their service on their search results pages over all other services - not because of quality but because it's a Google service.

Only ads come up before Google Flights so odds are you were seeing an ad instead of a search result. Furthermore, Google Flights places all the data you would need without needing to go to any other site. It pre-empts clicking on anything else.

The problem with that sentiment is that Google's rivals aren't other search engines. Their rivals are any business whose model Google finds favorable, then copies copies, and then promotes it using its own search engine. For example, let's say you want to fly to Toronto from NYC. If you google "nyc to toronto", one of the first and biggest search results is from Google Flights showing you a wide range of flights and prices. In this case, Google's rivals are Orbitz, Expedia, Travelocity, etc. Same thing goes for review services. No matter what one thinks of Yelp, they were one of the first few place review services around. Then Google tried to buy them and, when that failed, copied their business model and turned it into Google Places which held top place in any location search.

The latter is the European way. Hence, you're agreeing with the parent post.

Of course it could be argued that the Use Tax is unconstitutional since it's a state tax on interstate commerce.