4 ms·
Yes, but we need more anti-trust for all of them. Edge has been repeating the old Explorer tricks and Google pay-for-play is even worse (if Apple didn't get a c
by jjoonathan 3y ago
Yes, but we need more anti-trust for all of them. Edge has been repeating the old Explorer tricks and Google pay-for-play is even worse (if Apple didn't get a cut, would they be as willing to push the increasingly ad-infested google search?)
- robertlagrant 3y agoGoogle's thing is just a default, no? Consumers can change it?
- colonwqbang 3y agoYes it is, so it isn't really comparable to what Apple is doing.
- robertlagrant 3y agoApple is doing it. Google is paying Apple to set a default.
- 728ee0f3 3y agobut most dont
- threeseed 3y agoExcept this has all played out before. Consumers do what they are told to do. If a website says install this app in order to use it they will. If an app says approve this permission to use this app they will. And so you will inevitably end up with websites that only support Chrome which will increase its market share up until the point it is an IE style monopoly. And aspects like the cost of testing apps/sites on multiple diverging browsers will further entrench this monopoly. People go on about how this is great for competition as they can finally install Firefox etc. No. This is going to cement Google's control over the browser market and wipe out third party browsers like Firefox for good. And then we will end up with pro-advertising features that are built into the browser that you can't block.
- robertlagrant 3y agoSorry - I don't see how this relates to Google paying Apple to be the default search engine.
- jjoonathan 3y agoKickbacks cause enshittification. Kickbacks: Apple chooses Google so long as Apple's cut is greater than ad-driven UX degradation. No Kickbacks: Apple chooses Google so long as result quality is greater than ad-driven UX degradation.