>

My point was: would the MapQuest in your timeline where Google doesn't exist be a better product than Google Maps today? I am not convinced that MapQuest would have made an even as good product as Google Maps without having the Google Ad system to help develop it. 
I agree that Google seems to have a monopoly on internet ads. You are totally correct about that. But my point is that we need to be careful when we start "breaking up" tech companies since the unintended consequences can be dramatic for every day systems that we take for granted. The average consumer doesn't care about there being a competitive digital advertising market. The average consumer wants free services and will resent those services being taken away because the DoJ broke up Google. The government genuinely cannot afford to disrupt services hundreds of millions of Americans have come to rely on.
I remember when they talked about breaking up Google and Android, but then they changed their mind when Google said they'd actually start charging ppl for their services instead of making everything free. >

This is a legitimate issue regarding "breaking up" a lot of tech companies. You can use a ton of Google services for free in exchange for seeing some ads. Nobody wants to be responsible for forcing Google to have to charge a subscription for Google Maps for example. >

MapQuest was free before Google came along >

Yeah and you used to have to print out the directions on your home PC. You still needed to go to their website which had ads too. >

Many years ago that was true. My point is that without Google's influence and anti-competitive policies, it's likely MapQuest would have continued to be the dominant player for online mapping which was originally free and would likely continue to be free. The fact it's ad supported is immaterial - back then, it would have been supported by non-Google ads. It's a great example of why Google should be broken up.