6 ms·
Exclusive deals can present antitrust issues, but the kicker is that this isn't even an exclusive deal, it's a default deal! Users can still can still use other
by lvzw 3y ago
Exclusive deals can present antitrust issues, but the kicker is that this isn't even an exclusive deal, it's a default deal! Users can still can still use other search engines on iOS devices.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoDefaults matter. Google's internal communication indicates that they know this. Microsoft testified that defaults matter and that unless they (or anyone else) could put up more money than Google then they had no shot. You could innovate and make a better product and it doesn't matter because you can't outbid Google.
- ion1c 3y agoIn Europe Androids have had user decided default browser/search engine selection in the out of box set up for years. Google still wins massively because users know it is simply a superior product.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoPart of the antitrust issue is that Apple never developed their own search engine because of these payments. Google paid Apple to not compete. I doubt that the same number of people willingly choose Google, otherwise they wouldn't be paying so much money to be the default. That's a lot of money to throw away.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoThere would be no choice without that deal either, Apple would simply sell its users to the next highest bidder.
- matthewdgreen 3y agoOr Apple would develop a search engine instead, which is exactly what they did with Maps.
- creato 3y agoHow is this different from any typical outsourcing arrangement other than the size? Outsourcing arrangements many different motivations, it’s not just money. Otherwise, basically any outsourcing arrangement can be said to be “throwing away money” for one party.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- aaomidi 3y agoRight, which is also arguably why we’ve seen competition from other search engines.
- ankit219 3y agoIt's a widespread assumption that defaults matter. But to what degree? I came across it first when I saw Dan Ariely's talk and his work on defaults (may not be the proponent)[1] but my takeaway is that it matters when you don't care about the as much. For everyone with Windows, you start off with Edge/IE and then Bing as a default search engine. Yet, most switch to Chrome + Google almost instantly. People care about their browsing experience more than we give them credit for. Remember in 2009-10 when Chrome was new, it managed to win market share cos of superior product when it was not the default on Windows/Linux/MacOSX. On mobile too, the behavior is likely going to be there to a certain degree. While Google pays Apple a massive fee, there was an admission earlier in the trial that both Mozilla and Apple would still go ahead w Google (even without the deals) because of superior UX. Not sure if both said it, but one of them certainly did. [1] https://danariely.com/the-power-of-defaults-in-how-we-eat/ https://danariely.com/the-power-of-defaults-in-how-we-eat/
- dmvdoug 3y agoMaybe look at some of the trial exhibits that have been posted on the DOJ website. Google sure as hell thinks defaults matter a lot. And intent matters at trial.
- ankit219 3y agoFrom the trial itself, Google has argued and questioned the expert witness from DOJ if defaults really matter. Whole Microsoft question was raised by them too. Exhibits are good with context, but without supplementing the context they are misleading. Hard to argue for something DOJ did not think would make their case stronger and did not refer to in the trial.
- layer8 3y agoMicrosoft lost cases against the EU because they made Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player the default on Windows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission
- Clubber 3y agoI believe it's because they were using their monopoly power to give that software away for free, while their competitors couldn't and ended up selling or going out of business. The DOJ should really be looking at things like YouTube, which doesn't make any profit (I don't believe) but since Google proper supports it, no one can compete with it. That might be why Google is pushing so hard against ad blockers, they need to make YouTube profitable to avoid prosecution.
- andrewinardeer 3y agoOr you know, revenue growth to serve the only stakeholders that means anything to them - their shareholders.
- Clubber 3y agoGoogle bought YouTube in 2006. Coincidence they care about YouTube ad revenue so much all of a sudden? I guess they were getting around to it eventually.
- Aerbil313 3y agoHow come YouTube doesn't turn a revenue? Is it even possible, it uses so much bandwidth? Any sources?
- saagarjha 3y agoYouTube makes a profit. Or it did at least, not sure what’s going on with the adblocker stuff.
- brainbag 3y agoYou can change the default of Safari, but not for Siri. "Search the Internet" voice command always uses Google. I'm personally hoping that either part of this lawsuit or part of their Siri upgrade allows us to change it.
- tantalor 3y agoDoes Siri show ads?
- davidodio 3y agousing Kagi is pretty clumsy. We iOS users get to pick from a pretty limited list. In reality we should be able to set search to any endpiont that handles the ‘q’ param