5 ms·

It really feels like the DOJ has it out for Google here. Apple's behavior is far more monopolistic, and Microsoft is no saint either.

klysm 2y ago
Maybe? Any regulation is very welcomed in this area
- infotainment 2y ago
  Weirdly selective regulation that punishes one company arbitrarily while ignoring others feels like a step in the wrong direction. We need actual laws about this, not various capricious enforcement of haphazard existing regulations.
  - mu53 2y ago
    They need wins, and once the ball starts rolling, they can shift their focus. Government departments are restricted by budget. Going after 4 behemoths at the same time is not practical. If google gets restrictions, then it makes apple look even more monopolistic. Like a trimming the hedges
- myworkinisgood 2y ago
  Actually not. Punishing the smaller company while allowing big company to run amok is essentially making things even worse.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    > smaller company That's a weirdly specific way to label the 5th largest public company on the planet, by market cap. ... yes, it is smaller than the 2nd largest public company.
    - adrr 2y ago
      2nd one has screwed over consumers in the past and continues to screw over consumers. Can you even buy MS office any more or do you have to rent it now? What’s with putting ads in the software you purchased?
    - creato 2y ago
      It's not just apple, basically every company that is bigger than google is going to benefit from this. Apple, Microsoft, even Nvidia is getting their only real competitor and the biggest company that isn't dependent on them (google TPUs) kneecapped.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        I look forward to running my searches through Saudi Aramco.
        creato 2y ago
        You joke, yet a Saudi PIF company will probably try to buy Chrome if Google is forced to sell it.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        It does make one wonder if "sell Chrome" is the opening offer and "place Chrome in a multi-party foundation" might be the eventual compromise.
strongpigeon 2y ago
But there is an antitrust lawsuit against Apple and Microsoft is getting probed by the FTC regarding their cloud business.
lolinder 2y ago
The DOJ can go after more than one company at a time. And they are, in fact, doing so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024)
- dazilcher 2y ago
  The DoJ does not have unlimited resources, nor does it have unlimited time - see imminent regime and policy change. Priority matters, and picking Google as the first high profile target is bizarre.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Why is it bizarre? Google has near-monopoly market share in search and in ads and Apple is the only thing standing between them and a monopoly on the browser. Furthermore, they've demonstrated anti-competitive behavior in all three markets. The only market where Apple has a monopoly is the marketplace that they created for themselves, and a high profile case already tried and failed to use that definition of the market to argue antitrust. The DOJ is trying again anyway, but it made perfect sense for them to wait until Epic vs Apple was decided before starting work—why waste time on something that could be moot by the time they finish?
wbl 2y ago
In order to say Apple is a monopoly you need to define a very narrow market. The search market is obviously relevant and very dominated by Google.
- tremarley 2y ago
  Google claims their in the ad market. Not the search market.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    Facebook is on a similar scale in the ad market, Facebook makes even larger share of their money on ads and aren't making that much less money.
ezfe 2y ago
That's why they're also suing apple
TheDong 2y ago
I remain utterly confused how apple's rule that you can't link to a purchase page, and can't mention the 30% tax in-app, hasn't had its day in court yet. Like, you can have a free app in the store, with a website where you can purchase premium, and then in the app have an "upgrade" button that just displays the error "You cannot upgrade to premium in the app" and hope users find your website. You aren't allowed to have "You can upgrade to premium using our site, at https://site.com https://site.com" message because if you can pay money on site.com, having that error message is seen as evading the app store tax. In both of those cases though, apple did the same amount of work, so the justification you sometimes hear, that "30% is fair because you're paying for app store resources and apple to advertise your app", seems like it doesn't really apply. Like, spotify is a perfect example of this. They don't let you upgrade on iOS because paying 30% to apple would mean they'd lose money on every sell (music has very thin margins), and spotify isn't even allowed to display a good error message because linking to their webpage, or mentioning the app store tax, would be against app store ToS. And then apple music also exists, and ignores the 30% tax. It seems so blindingly obviously harmful to consumers. This all applies to the google play app store too, but at least on the google play app store, there's no "thought crime" of informing your users they can go punch in a credit card on the web.
- lolinder 2y ago
  All of these things did have their day in court in Epic vs Apple. Apple won on most counts but lost on the anti-steering provisions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple
  - TheDong 2y ago
    > lost on the anti-steering provisions Also from that article: > Apple allowed developers to include [information about other payment methods] but required that developers give Apple 27% of all sales made within seven days of being directed to these sites That doesn't really sound like losing, a 27% penalty if you "steer users" is effectively the same as steering not being allowed.
tivert 2y ago
> It really feels like the DOJ has it out for Google here. Apple's behavior is far more monopolistic, and Microsoft is no saint either. As others have mentioned, the government can do more than one thing at a time. Here is a list: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/business/antitrust-case-tracker.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/business/antitrust-.... Perhaps Google's case had just progressed faster, and perhaps it was more clear-cut or easier to prove. Google's records retention policies were also over the top and perhaps hurt it: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/technology/google-antitrust-employee-messages.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/technology/google-antitru...: > But Google has faced the broadest criticism for its actions, with the judges in all three antitrust cases chastising the company for its communications practices. And they engaged in some pretty sketchy practices: > If using the right words and deleting messages did not keep Google out of the courthouse, the company concluded, invoking the lawyers would.... > A message surfaced in the Epic trial in which a Google lawyer identified the practice of copying lawyers on documents as “fake privilege” and seemed rather amused by it. Mr. Walker said he was “disappointed” and “surprised” to hear that term.... > Last month, three advocacy groups, led by the American Economic Liberties Project, asked for Mr. Walker to be investigated by the California State Bar for coaching Google to “engage in widespread and illegal destruction” of documents relevant to federal trials.
- frognumber 2y ago
  <--- This. And specifically: > Google's records retention policies were also over the top and perhaps hurt it: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/technology/google-antitru https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/technology/google-antitru...: If you're intentionally hiding things from government investigators, the legal presumption is there's a good reason. Judges are allowed to impute things from destroyed evidence. Otherwise, everyone would destroy evidence.

klysm 2y ago

Maybe? Any regulation is very welcomed in this area

infotainment 2y ago
Weirdly selective regulation that punishes one company arbitrarily while ignoring others feels like a step in the wrong direction. We need actual laws about this, not various capricious enforcement of haphazard existing regulations.
- mu53 2y ago
  They need wins, and once the ball starts rolling, they can shift their focus. Government departments are restricted by budget. Going after 4 behemoths at the same time is not practical. If google gets restrictions, then it makes apple look even more monopolistic. Like a trimming the hedges
myworkinisgood 2y ago
Actually not. Punishing the smaller company while allowing big company to run amok is essentially making things even worse.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > smaller company That's a weirdly specific way to label the 5th largest public company on the planet, by market cap. ... yes, it is smaller than the 2nd largest public company.
  - adrr 2y ago
    2nd one has screwed over consumers in the past and continues to screw over consumers. Can you even buy MS office any more or do you have to rent it now? What’s with putting ads in the software you purchased?
  - creato 2y ago
    It's not just apple, basically every company that is bigger than google is going to benefit from this. Apple, Microsoft, even Nvidia is getting their only real competitor and the biggest company that isn't dependent on them (google TPUs) kneecapped.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      I look forward to running my searches through Saudi Aramco.
      - creato 2y ago
        You joke, yet a Saudi PIF company will probably try to buy Chrome if Google is forced to sell it.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        It does make one wonder if "sell Chrome" is the opening offer and "place Chrome in a multi-party foundation" might be the eventual compromise.

strongpigeon 2y ago

But there is an antitrust lawsuit against Apple and Microsoft is getting probed by the FTC regarding their cloud business.

lolinder 2y ago

The DOJ can go after more than one company at a time. And they are, in fact, doing so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024)

dazilcher 2y ago
The DoJ does not have unlimited resources, nor does it have unlimited time - see imminent regime and policy change. Priority matters, and picking Google as the first high profile target is bizarre.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Why is it bizarre? Google has near-monopoly market share in search and in ads and Apple is the only thing standing between them and a monopoly on the browser. Furthermore, they've demonstrated anti-competitive behavior in all three markets. The only market where Apple has a monopoly is the marketplace that they created for themselves, and a high profile case already tried and failed to use that definition of the market to argue antitrust. The DOJ is trying again anyway, but it made perfect sense for them to wait until Epic vs Apple was decided before starting work—why waste time on something that could be moot by the time they finish?

wbl 2y ago

In order to say Apple is a monopoly you need to define a very narrow market. The search market is obviously relevant and very dominated by Google.

tremarley 2y ago
Google claims their in the ad market. Not the search market.
- Jensson 2y ago
  Facebook is on a similar scale in the ad market, Facebook makes even larger share of their money on ads and aren't making that much less money.

ezfe 2y ago

That's why they're also suing apple

TheDong 2y ago

I remain utterly confused how apple's rule that you can't link to a purchase page, and can't mention the 30% tax in-app, hasn't had its day in court yet. Like, you can have a free app in the store, with a website where you can purchase premium, and then in the app have an "upgrade" button that just displays the error "You cannot upgrade to premium in the app" and hope users find your website. You aren't allowed to have "You can upgrade to premium using our site, at https://site.com https://site.com" message because if you can pay money on site.com, having that error message is seen as evading the app store tax. In both of those cases though, apple did the same amount of work, so the justification you sometimes hear, that "30% is fair because you're paying for app store resources and apple to advertise your app", seems like it doesn't really apply. Like, spotify is a perfect example of this. They don't let you upgrade on iOS because paying 30% to apple would mean they'd lose money on every sell (music has very thin margins), and spotify isn't even allowed to display a good error message because linking to their webpage, or mentioning the app store tax, would be against app store ToS. And then apple music also exists, and ignores the 30% tax. It seems so blindingly obviously harmful to consumers. This all applies to the google play app store too, but at least on the google play app store, there's no "thought crime" of informing your users they can go punch in a credit card on the web.

lolinder 2y ago
All of these things did have their day in court in Epic vs Apple. Apple won on most counts but lost on the anti-steering provisions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple
- TheDong 2y ago
  > lost on the anti-steering provisions Also from that article: > Apple allowed developers to include [information about other payment methods] but required that developers give Apple 27% of all sales made within seven days of being directed to these sites That doesn't really sound like losing, a 27% penalty if you "steer users" is effectively the same as steering not being allowed.

tivert 2y ago

> It really feels like the DOJ has it out for Google here. Apple's behavior is far more monopolistic, and Microsoft is no saint either. As others have mentioned, the government can do more than one thing at a time. Here is a list: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/business/antitrust-case-tracker.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/business/antitrust-.... Perhaps Google's case had just progressed faster, and perhaps it was more clear-cut or easier to prove. Google's records retention policies were also over the top and perhaps hurt it: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/technology/google-antitrust-employee-messages.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/technology/google-antitru...: > But Google has faced the broadest criticism for its actions, with the judges in all three antitrust cases chastising the company for its communications practices. And they engaged in some pretty sketchy practices: > If using the right words and deleting messages did not keep Google out of the courthouse, the company concluded, invoking the lawyers would.... > A message surfaced in the Epic trial in which a Google lawyer identified the practice of copying lawyers on documents as “fake privilege” and seemed rather amused by it. Mr. Walker said he was “disappointed” and “surprised” to hear that term.... > Last month, three advocacy groups, led by the American Economic Liberties Project, asked for Mr. Walker to be investigated by the California State Bar for coaching Google to “engage in widespread and illegal destruction” of documents relevant to federal trials.

frognumber 2y ago
<--- This. And specifically: > Google's records retention policies were also over the top and perhaps hurt it: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/technology/google-antitru https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/technology/google-antitru...: If you're intentionally hiding things from government investigators, the legal presumption is there's a good reason. Judges are allowed to impute things from destroyed evidence. Otherwise, everyone would destroy evidence.