9 ms·

Would Apple be a monopoly if they did enter the 'search' business? Google at least can leave Android free, and people that ship it able to customize as well as

Would Apple be a monopoly if they did enter the 'search' business? Google at least can leave Android free, and people that ship it able to customize as well as customers able to switch search providers. Apple would have a very vertically integrated stack, and would they allow anyone else making a phone equal access?

mnd999 5y ago
Android isn’t free. There is a free kernel but so much of what is useful and expected by users is now wrapped up in play services.
- awestroke 5y ago
  I've never paid to use play services. If you did, you were scammed
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    You do not understand how it is not free: It's sold to OEMs in exchange for control of their devices and mandatory placements. In countries who have working antitrust law, Google now charges OEMs for Play Services access per device, where they cannot legally force the OEM to default to Chrome and Google Search. And you, as the consumer, pay for it with literally all of your privacy.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - danielheath 5y ago
    Phone manufacturers incur costs to get it installed. Do you imagine they decide not to pass those on?
    - bagacrap 5y ago
      really? What cost? Is that public information? My understanding was that play services was no longer part of Android core because Google didn't want phone manufacturers mucking with it (creating an inconsistent and frankly worse experience on some devices), not because they were trying to charge a fee for it.
      - teh64 5y ago
        Google has a certification process to allow play services to be installed: https://www.xda-developers.com/how-to-fix-device-not-certified-by-google-error/ https://www.xda-developers.com/how-to-fix-device-not-certifi... Google forces phone manufacturers to install some google apps to get certification: https://www.kamilfranek.com/how-google-makes-money-from-android/#:~:text=Conditions%20that%20phone%20manufacturers%20need%20to%20comply%20with%20to%20get%20a%20free%20license%20to%20install%20Android%20with%20Play%3A https://www.kamilfranek.com/how-google-makes-money-from-andr... And in the EU, companies actually need to pay, if they do not install some google apps: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17999366/google-eu-android-licensing-terms https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17999366/google-eu-andro...
        bagacrap 5y ago
        From your own link: "a free license to install Android with Play" The question was about monetary cost, i.e. "free as in beer", not "free as in speech" or "free of effort".
- colordrops 5y ago
  While not perfect, MicroG [1] + Aurora [2] on LineageOS [3] is good enough to get by without Google Play. I've got every app I need running on it, and haven't run into any major issues. [1] https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/ [2] https://www.aurorastore.pro/ https://www.aurorastore.pro/ [3] https://lineage.microg.org/ https://lineage.microg.org/
tmalsburg2 5y ago
How can they be a monopoly with a 15% market share in smart phones (Q2 ‘21 sales) and similarly low market shares in other areas?
- wumpus 5y ago
  Apple users are richer, so Apple users' share of search ad revenues is a lot bigger than Apple's apparent 15% market share.
  - laumars 5y ago
    I used to think this way too but recent cases against the iPhones App Store have shown that some courts are willing to look at the iPhone as one market. What that means is that Apple entering search doesn’t by default make them a monopoly nor anti-competitive. But if they then change iPhones to only support “Apple Search” with no option to change that default, then Apple could be liable for claims including abuse of monopoly.
mrtksn 5y ago
Apple is a monopoly in tech just like Louis Vuitton is a monopoly in luggage, so no. Okay, maybe for US it's Samsonite but for the rest of the world Apple is more like Louis Vuitton - a premium brand that is one of the leaders in design that everyone else follows. Just being popular in some circles doesn't change the fact that they hold a minority share in the market. Maybe people in Orange County might believe that Louis Vuitton is a monopoly but it's not. Apple do control the reach of search engines to their customers in a similar manner of LV might choose to allow Cartier sell bracelets in their shops instead designing and selling their own bracelets. The point is, people can always go to Chanel if that arrangement doesn't fit them. At worst, it could be a situation where the clients of a company are not happy with the recent products and they need to start buying from another shop. I don't see how regulators should intervene in this. If not happy, go buy Samsung or Google pixel.
- laumars 5y ago
  Except there is already precedence regarding their App Store. So if Apple defaulted to their own search engine and didn’t allow a way of changing that default then the courts might well find that anti-competitive too.
  - littlecranky67 5y ago
    You don't need to disallow changing the default search engine because the average user doesn't even know or bother how to change it. That is the reason Google pays everyone (Apple, Mozilla, Android OEMs through GService allowance) a buttload of money to be the default.
    - hnlmorg 5y ago
      While that is true, offering the option to change the default might still be enough to avoid any anticompetitive claims (which I think was the point the GP was making). That said, Microsoft were still forced to present a randomized list of browser options to the user upon first install so there is also precedence of changeable defaults not being enough to satisfy complaints of anticompetitive business. This is all hypothetical though because it's still far from clear that Apple have ever wanted to enter the search market, let alone got paid not to, let alone what might happen to the iPhone if they did.
teekert 5y ago
As long as I can choose DDG and that will be the end of Apple Search on my iDevice, I don't see the problem.
- littlecranky67 5y ago
  DDG+Apple user here, in the past days there were several threads on poor/SEO-spammed search results on Google and DDG. Unfortunately DDG is not really better in avoiding SEO spam than Google, so another competitor (even if its Apple) might be beneficial to everyone. Especially since google does not really have broad competition. Another poster correctly commented on why Google's results have become so bad: "Google is not making money by presenting you with the best result, it is making money by keeping you searching".
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cryptica 5y ago
They're all an oligopoly. Together, they monopolized government and reserve bank money printers. It's a scheme, people take loans to buy Apple shares, then future generations will take even bigger loans to buy Apple shares from the previous people for 10x the price, then repeat ad infinitum. They don't even need to do any productive work anymore. Just busy-work, like Bitcoin is doing using ASIC miners to burn electricity.

mnd999 5y ago

Android isn’t free. There is a free kernel but so much of what is useful and expected by users is now wrapped up in play services.

awestroke 5y ago
I've never paid to use play services. If you did, you were scammed
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  You do not understand how it is not free: It's sold to OEMs in exchange for control of their devices and mandatory placements. In countries who have working antitrust law, Google now charges OEMs for Play Services access per device, where they cannot legally force the OEM to default to Chrome and Google Search. And you, as the consumer, pay for it with literally all of your privacy.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- danielheath 5y ago
  Phone manufacturers incur costs to get it installed. Do you imagine they decide not to pass those on?
  - bagacrap 5y ago
    really? What cost? Is that public information? My understanding was that play services was no longer part of Android core because Google didn't want phone manufacturers mucking with it (creating an inconsistent and frankly worse experience on some devices), not because they were trying to charge a fee for it.
    - teh64 5y ago
      Google has a certification process to allow play services to be installed: https://www.xda-developers.com/how-to-fix-device-not-certified-by-google-error/ https://www.xda-developers.com/how-to-fix-device-not-certifi... Google forces phone manufacturers to install some google apps to get certification: https://www.kamilfranek.com/how-google-makes-money-from-android/#:~:text=Conditions%20that%20phone%20manufacturers%20need%20to%20comply%20with%20to%20get%20a%20free%20license%20to%20install%20Android%20with%20Play%3A https://www.kamilfranek.com/how-google-makes-money-from-andr... And in the EU, companies actually need to pay, if they do not install some google apps: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17999366/google-eu-android-licensing-terms https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17999366/google-eu-andro...
      - bagacrap 5y ago
        From your own link: "a free license to install Android with Play" The question was about monetary cost, i.e. "free as in beer", not "free as in speech" or "free of effort".
colordrops 5y ago
While not perfect, MicroG [1] + Aurora [2] on LineageOS [3] is good enough to get by without Google Play. I've got every app I need running on it, and haven't run into any major issues. [1] https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/ [2] https://www.aurorastore.pro/ https://www.aurorastore.pro/ [3] https://lineage.microg.org/ https://lineage.microg.org/

tmalsburg2 5y ago

How can they be a monopoly with a 15% market share in smart phones (Q2 ‘21 sales) and similarly low market shares in other areas?

wumpus 5y ago
Apple users are richer, so Apple users' share of search ad revenues is a lot bigger than Apple's apparent 15% market share.
- laumars 5y ago
  I used to think this way too but recent cases against the iPhones App Store have shown that some courts are willing to look at the iPhone as one market. What that means is that Apple entering search doesn’t by default make them a monopoly nor anti-competitive. But if they then change iPhones to only support “Apple Search” with no option to change that default, then Apple could be liable for claims including abuse of monopoly.

mrtksn 5y ago

Apple is a monopoly in tech just like Louis Vuitton is a monopoly in luggage, so no. Okay, maybe for US it's Samsonite but for the rest of the world Apple is more like Louis Vuitton - a premium brand that is one of the leaders in design that everyone else follows. Just being popular in some circles doesn't change the fact that they hold a minority share in the market. Maybe people in Orange County might believe that Louis Vuitton is a monopoly but it's not. Apple do control the reach of search engines to their customers in a similar manner of LV might choose to allow Cartier sell bracelets in their shops instead designing and selling their own bracelets. The point is, people can always go to Chanel if that arrangement doesn't fit them. At worst, it could be a situation where the clients of a company are not happy with the recent products and they need to start buying from another shop. I don't see how regulators should intervene in this. If not happy, go buy Samsung or Google pixel.

laumars 5y ago
Except there is already precedence regarding their App Store. So if Apple defaulted to their own search engine and didn’t allow a way of changing that default then the courts might well find that anti-competitive too.
- littlecranky67 5y ago
  You don't need to disallow changing the default search engine because the average user doesn't even know or bother how to change it. That is the reason Google pays everyone (Apple, Mozilla, Android OEMs through GService allowance) a buttload of money to be the default.
  - hnlmorg 5y ago
    While that is true, offering the option to change the default might still be enough to avoid any anticompetitive claims (which I think was the point the GP was making). That said, Microsoft were still forced to present a randomized list of browser options to the user upon first install so there is also precedence of changeable defaults not being enough to satisfy complaints of anticompetitive business. This is all hypothetical though because it's still far from clear that Apple have ever wanted to enter the search market, let alone got paid not to, let alone what might happen to the iPhone if they did.

teekert 5y ago

As long as I can choose DDG and that will be the end of Apple Search on my iDevice, I don't see the problem.

littlecranky67 5y ago
DDG+Apple user here, in the past days there were several threads on poor/SEO-spammed search results on Google and DDG. Unfortunately DDG is not really better in avoiding SEO spam than Google, so another competitor (even if its Apple) might be beneficial to everyone. Especially since google does not really have broad competition. Another poster correctly commented on why Google's results have become so bad: "Google is not making money by presenting you with the best result, it is making money by keeping you searching".

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

cryptica 5y ago

They're all an oligopoly. Together, they monopolized government and reserve bank money printers. It's a scheme, people take loans to buy Apple shares, then future generations will take even bigger loans to buy Apple shares from the previous people for 10x the price, then repeat ad infinitum. They don't even need to do any productive work anymore. Just busy-work, like Bitcoin is doing using ASIC miners to burn electricity.