>2.) Click the button in the bottom right of the mini map that says, "Open in Maps".

A lot of times actions like this are a lot harder on mobile devices even when they seem easy on larger screen. I know whenever I hit back on a youtube video or a google maps navigation and it turns into a little stamp instead of actually going back, it pisses me off because then I have try and hit a little X on the stamp sized video just to do what I wanted in the first place, which was 'go back to the previous app I was using'.

In many cases, a single extra action is known to cause pretty steep drop in discovery/engagement rates and it's the whole point of "default option" antitrust debates.

If that is what was needed to be compliant with DMA, then it makes a mockery of the whole thing.

All the wailing and gnashing of teeth, and it just takes another click to be compliant and everyone is happy? What a waste of everyone's time if it were really that simple and what all the fuss was about.

Where I am (France) there is no such button in the mini map.

The workaround I found, after at first assuming that the maps integration was broken, is to click the directions button underneath the map. This opens Maps and draws a route from my current location to the address you searched. Which you then have to dismiss and zoom to what you were looking for. So a few clicks + navigation.

It's the principle though. It's making my user experience worse and I think it's fair for Google to point that out.

It makes sense, though. Google doesn't want to send business to a competitor - that's giving them a leg up on you.

While the EU may punish Google, it shouldn't expect them to like it.

what this is showing is simply more of google abusing their monopoly. making linking to maps from search harder and inconvenient for users does not help the users, nor smaller independent companies, nor really anybody at all. but that's because even with complying with the law, google is purposefully using its monopoly to make compliance as annoying and unhelpful as possible.

what should be happening is that the provider of the maps app is nothing to do with google search and then if your favorite map provider can plug-in to the search results in a seamless way it wouldn't be an anti-trust issue at all. it would benefit all parties. instead google opts to, and who can expect different, maximize the annoyance to their already captive users and minimize their negative business impact (e.g. sending anyone to somebody else's map app).

but they certainly aren't going to voluntarily break themselves up because some regulation that can be implemented in a way that's annoying to their users. who still have no viable other options, btw.

the root cause of the annoyances the users are now facing is both caused by googles monopolistic behavior in the first place and then them weaponizing their own captive users to push back on any regulations trying to stem it. a significant contributing factor is regulations like these are do more harm than good.

the right answer for abusive monopolies is to 1) don't let them form and 2) break them up when they do. chicken-shit regulation like this will only have the predictable result - avoidance, annoyance, no-real-change. and, as you alude, simply make everything worse for everyone.

Presumably the affiliate links (including hotel booking links) would not be there to create a perverse incentive.

No the idea would be that the search would lose its ability to be a monopoly because Chrome + Search + Maps + Android... would stop artificially propping it up in the market. There would be many search engines and the ability for one to drastically impact other industries with UI changes would go away.

Other parties should succeed because it's good for me, the consumer. If I need to take a trip, it's not in my interest at all for Google to be in the value chain and for me to pay the monopoly penalty as a consumer.

> but to be effective, they must be measured

Google can't really be trusted to provide measurements proving that they should be regulated, though.

If they want the problem to be fairly studied, they're free to publish their datasets.

I think it's highly disingenuous of you to claim that the regulators in question are acting without any plan or purpose even if those might not be immediately clear. "If you don't like how the table is set, turn over the table."

I'll speak it. The law in question is reasonable.