I think that's not a great argument… If the free Google Maps API put your company out of business, it didn't have a great product in the first place. If these companies did not provided added value, what was the justification for their existence in the first place?
Providing an embeddable map solution with developer friendly API used to be a great product. The fact Google disrupted the market with a free solution doesn't mean the product wasn't great up until that point, it just means someone also saw that product idea and undercut them on price.
Source: I was using mapping tools before Google Maps came to market.
If the store is able to continue to give away books for free, then obviously the first store that had to charge for the books isn't generating enough value.
Unless the end-game for the 2nd store is to price out every single book store, then obtain a monopoly. But then anti-monopoly laws should come into place.
But if the end-game for the 2nd store is to subsidize their cost via a different business - then it's the same as a newspaper using classifieds to subsidize their subscription business. You can't then argue that another newspaper that charge for subscriptions goes out of business is unfair.
Most people will take free and good enough over a superior product any day. Google basically killed the market for mapping products and now have started charging everyone for theirs when used commercially.
