2 ms·

But is it free if it costs them billions? That is, saying that customers /could/ switch is not necessarily relevant. There is evidence that they believe payin

by taeric 3y ago

But is it free if it costs them billions? That is, saying that customers /could/ switch is not necessarily relevant. There is evidence that they believe paying for the "default" billing is worth a ton of money. Not just to Apple, but to Mozilla, too. That they could lose access to revenue streams by losing default billing is very relevant when that is also a large portion of how they are able to make that payment. Could see it more as collusion with competition, I suppose? It isn't competing on the merits of their search, but more on their ability to afford default status. Which keeps Apple from entering search, and ostensibly keeps it more expensive for Microsoft to keep Bing. Consider, if Apple could get more from MS to make Bing default, why wouldn't they?

huitzitziltzin 3y ago
>> That is, saying that customers /could/ switch is not necessarily relevant On the contrary, it’s the whole ballgame in a case like this. Google’s claim will be: “we have high market share because our product is good. Look - customers could switch for free if they didn’t like it.” The government cannot make a monopolization claim solely on the basis of high market share in this case. It’s not remotely persuasive. (Indeed: who do you do your searches with??) >> “there is evidence…” Totally agree with this sentence. But it’s not going to be decisive for the government. It will not be remotely sufficient. Again - it’s not clear to me personally that this behavior is pro-competitive. But I’ve already told you what google is going to say. If you’re going to argue monopolization you have to define the market (here search) and then show it’s monopolized. Market share isn’t enough. >> could see it more as collusion… Not legally. Sorry. Not without some specific evidence of a conspiracy.
- taeric 3y ago
  All it takes is an email between Apple and Google saying they want to keep prices high for conspiracy. Isn't above them, either. Certainly inline with past of apple. Seems more a complaint against them, I grant. The discovery is what could kill Google, here. They will argue customers could switch, but any negotiations with apple to stay default are discoverable. If any of them note they fear losing share, that is pretty damning. Note I fully agree with you on difficulty of position. But you don't pay billions for status that you think you earn on your merits. Especially if you then charge other players to be top search spot for their own name.

by taeric 3y ago

huitzitziltzin 3y ago

>> That is, saying that customers /could/ switch is not necessarily relevant On the contrary, it’s the whole ballgame in a case like this. Google’s claim will be: “we have high market share because our product is good. Look - customers could switch for free if they didn’t like it.” The government cannot make a monopolization claim solely on the basis of high market share in this case. It’s not remotely persuasive. (Indeed: who do you do your searches with??) >> “there is evidence…” Totally agree with this sentence. But it’s not going to be decisive for the government. It will not be remotely sufficient. Again - it’s not clear to me personally that this behavior is pro-competitive. But I’ve already told you what google is going to say. If you’re going to argue monopolization you have to define the market (here search) and then show it’s monopolized. Market share isn’t enough. >> could see it more as collusion… Not legally. Sorry. Not without some specific evidence of a conspiracy.

taeric 3y ago
All it takes is an email between Apple and Google saying they want to keep prices high for conspiracy. Isn't above them, either. Certainly inline with past of apple. Seems more a complaint against them, I grant. The discovery is what could kill Google, here. They will argue customers could switch, but any negotiations with apple to stay default are discoverable. If any of them note they fear losing share, that is pretty damning. Note I fully agree with you on difficulty of position. But you don't pay billions for status that you think you earn on your merits. Especially if you then charge other players to be top search spot for their own name.