4 ms·
There's a more insidious implication at play, that the payment constitutes an armistice between Google and Apple so that neither will directly compete with each
by speak_plainly 3y ago
There's a more insidious implication at play, that the payment constitutes an armistice between Google and Apple so that neither will directly compete with each other further than they already are (avoiding a lose-lose situation where Google is making desktop computers and Apple is developing search engines).
And I think additionally G7 governments see the tech industry as being dangerously too powerful and are picking at scabs in hopes that this industry falls into line before they take more drastic measures, which would be a lose-lose scenario for both the tech industry and governments.
- elicash 3y agoThis is a better argument, as opposed to the "power of defaults" stuff that has dominated this case. There's a contradiction, though: Is google OVERPAYING so that apple won't start their own search engine? Or is google UNDERPAYING because the power of defaults is so incredibly high?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- elicash 3y agoAlso, Apple denies there's any agreement that they can't do search. If Apple isn't telling the truth, I haven't seen any evidence of it. Attorney: “Sir, are you aware of Google restricting Apple’s ability to design its software products?” Eddie Cue: “I am not.”