9 ms·
I still am confused as to whether or not Google would be happier if these types of payments were banned for everyone. It seems like the only reason Google paid
by fasthands9 3y ago
I still am confused as to whether or not Google would be happier if these types of payments were banned for everyone.
It seems like the only reason Google paid 8B, is because another company would have paid 7B otherwise. If Samsung was told "You can't let anyone pay you - have to show a screen with four competitors and let the user pick which one they want as default" I assume the vast majority of people would just pick Google?
- healsdata 3y agoDoesn't the EU require a selection screen? And the manufacturers hold auctions to win space on the selection screen instead? Because listing 100+ options wouldn't be good UX either.
- jaynetics 3y agoWould one selection screen do or how many would you need? It seems like no other single competitor offers everything people want on their Android phone (app store, browser, calendar, cloud storage, contacts, payment, maps, mails, translation, ...).
- fasthands9 3y agoPerhaps more - but the point being it seems like most people would pick Google if there was no default/they were given options of default. I feel like the manufacturers are the one holding Google hostage, threatening to give users a different/less popular default option if Google doesn't pay up.
- dangus 3y ago> I assume the vast majority of people would just pick Google? The vast majority would pick Google because Google has been paying to be the default for years. That consumer preference isn’t exactly 100% organic.
- mrweasel 3y agoRight, Google has already bought the current generation of users, it's the future they have to worry about. If they don't pay for the next crop of users they have very little to offer that users can't get else where.
- fkyoureadthedoc 3y agoSeems like then rather than an above board monetary transaction you'll just have some other quid pro quo and Google will end up at the top of the list of four choices. It would also introduce a lot of friction into onboarding if you have to choose provider for the several different categories of default app. People already pick iPhone (at least partially) because of the simple and "it just works" perception.
- bhelkey 3y ago> Seems like then rather than an above board monetary transaction you'll just have some other quid pro quo and Google will end up at the top of the list of four choices. In the EU, android phones ask the user to pick a search engine from a list on startup. The list order is randomized [1]. [1] https://www.android.com/choicescreen/ https://www.android.com/choicescreen/
- kllrnohj 3y ago> I still am confused as to whether or not Google would be happier if these types of payments were banned for everyone. Then Samsung would just use its own apps more than they already do. Banning payments doesn't get the outcome you're suggesting of a mandatory set of multiple apps from multiple companies.
- fasthands9 3y agoI suppose I mean the "banning defaults" would include Samsung itself here. Microsoft was stopped from playing favorite with its own Internet Explorer. Samsung is playing favorites here under both these scenarios (having itself as the default or having Google as the default)
- bad_user 3y ago> Microsoft was stopped from playing favorite with its own Internet Explorer. And how's that working out? Samsung doesn't have a monopoly with its Android devices, and doesn't stop alternative apps from being installed. Stopping device makers from installing whatever the hell they want, on the devices they produce, is nuts.
- ffgjgf1 3y agoI’m sure most normal people would be very happy if there were no default apps preinstalled on their new phones. Also where do you draw a line? e.g. can you have a preinstalled camera app (with custom features) or is that also not fair.
- kuchenbecker 3y agoI think exactly the opposite. No one cares. This is important because most people accept the default.
- ffgjgf1 3y agoTrue, that it was supposed to be sarcasm. But now that I’m reading it I did not really make it that clear..
- autoexec 3y ago> If Samsung was told "You can't let anyone pay you - have to show a screen with four competitors and let the user pick which one they want as default" People would just start paying Samsung for being one of the four competitors. Otherwise who gets to decide who those four are?
- gtirloni 3y agoIn some spectrum, that's arguably better than the current system.
- justinpombrio 3y agoThis is a good general point: it sometimes makes sense to be against X, while simultaneously participating in X. For example: in a country where you need to bribe people to carry on a normal life, you can do so while advocating for anti-bribery laws. It doesn't make you a hypocrite.
- sa46 3y agoThat is the definition of a hypocrite. Reasonable hypocrisy remains hypocrisy. From Oxford Languages: > the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform
- justinpombrio 3y agoSure, call it "reasonable hypocrisy", so long as we don't castigate people doing it. How about wanting to legally abolish tips, because it's unfair and leads to subminimum wages for workers? Must you refuse to tip a waiter, lest you be called a hypocrite?
- ffgjgf1 3y ago> because it's unfair and leads to subminimum wages for workers? That’s generally not really true though? Especially in many states like CA, NY etc. where there is (almost) no tipped minimum wage. Anyway, sounds like a hypocritical position because in general consumers would benefit more from abolishing tips than waiters/other tipped workers.
- jabradoodle 3y agoThis is a strawman. OPs example was someone who held a belief that it isn't beneficial to the worker.
- httpz 3y agoThere are far too many people who doesn't even think about the concept of a default app, let alone know how to change the default app. If you showed 4 apps all named "Calendar" with slightly different icons to someone like my dad, he wouldn't know what to pick or the fact that Google made one of it and Samsung made the other one. Google probably has data on what percentage of smartphone users are like this and determined that $8B is worth it.
- 6510 3y agoI always explain this puzzle by asking which is the best linux distro.
- gtirloni 3y agoIsn't it more efficient to just say Slackware? ;)
- Obscurity4340 3y agoThat bitch: but he hasn't thought of the EFFICIENCY!?!
- salawat 3y agoI'm reminded of a scene in a movie where a guy obsesses over efficiency in a workshop where a guy reaches out full extension, and ends up destroying the place by moving the box of parts closer.
- Obscurity4340 3y agoSounds about right. I wonder if there's a correlation between outrageous efficiency obsession and lack of sexual release...not even, like, just sex, anything really...
- Obscurity4340 3y agoThis happened in South Park with Randy's obsession with the Food Channel or whatever it is. At the end, Sharon gives him an "ol'-fashioned" and by the end, he's like, "screw all this, imma sleep now"
- cheriot 3y agoGoogle is more profitable in ads and search than anyone else so they can rationally bid higher for access to users. It's part of the moat. Banning these payments is bad for Google because then Apple and Samsung will ship their own apps.
- cgb223 3y ago> If Samsung was told "You can't let anyone pay you - have to show a screen with four competitors and let the user pick which one they want as default" What if I’m the 5th messaging app? How do I get a place over the first 4? How does Samsung decide? What if I’m the 20th or 50th? Do I deserve a shot? If not where is the cut off? How do I become a winner and not a loser in this situation as the first N shown will have a huge growth advantage
- ffgjgf1 3y agoThat’s an unfairly over complicated thing to ask an EU bureaucrat to think about. They are much to busy thinking about much more important things like finding ways to snoop on their citizens private messaging.
- LargeTomato 3y agoThere must be a cutoff somewhere. If you're the 5th... Well that's how the cookie crumbles.
- pengaru 3y agoIt's a whole lot easier to transfer a mountain of money than actually compete, if you can afford it. Google can afford it.
- deepsun 3y agoWhy four? How about mine as the fifth, I wrote it back in college, it almost works.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y agoBut then Apple, e.g., is testifying it chooses Google not because of payment, or its amount, but because Google is the "best". As such, this analysis falls short. Assuming Google really does provide a valuable service, then why aren't Apple and Samsung paying for it. Instead, they are getting paid to use it.