5 ms·

> One of the facts established in the verdict was that Google had been slipping Apple more than $20b/year in exchange for which, Apple forbore from making a com

> One of the facts established in the verdict was that Google had been slipping Apple more than $20b/year in exchange for which, Apple forbore from making a competing search engine. Didn't Apple say that 1) they weren't interested in being in the Search Engine business 2) (in testimony) Google was by far the best search engine that they were going to use anyway ? Certainly, $20B/Y weighs on the scale, but knowing Apple's negotiation tactics they could also have used their weight to do what they wanted anyhow and get paid handsomely for it (<waggle waggle> "if you don't pay us we might start using other defaults and you'll lose that lucrative iOS market") My point is, while Google is clearly at fault in this whole situation, it's not quite as moustache-twirling evil as Doctorow paints it.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
isleyaardvark 1y ago
His quote is stunningly disingenuous, I'm surprised to hear that coming from Doctorow. That Google has paid Apple to be the default search engine was a business deal that has been open knowledge for a decade or more. Other search engines could've paid to be the default. Apple didn't have a search engine when they created the iPhone, and why would they start? Ever? MS didn't do so well. And why would Apple want to make their own search engine? Even if Apple did, the reaction would certainly be that Apple was abusing their position to promote their own search engine and would be committing an anti-trust violation then. Also I think it's safe to say there is no actual testimony about a quid pro quo arrangement to get Apple to agree to not make a search engine.
- onlypassingthru 1y ago
  Can you explain why Google Android can use Google search but Apple iOS can't use Apple search because that would be an anti-trust violation?
  - b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
    Probably the same reason why iOS can have Safari installed as default but MS got in trouble for IE years ago. These laws are applied very inconsistently.
- rufo 1y ago
  > One of the facts established in the verdict was that Google had been slipping Apple more than $20b/year... While the payments were public knowledge and there was speculation about the amount being somewhere between $8B and $12B, the number had never been confirmed until unsealed in the case, was more than the previous speculation, and was something both Google and Apple wanted to keep under wraps: https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/2/24147007/google-paid-apple-20-billion-in-2022-to-be-safaris-default-search-engine https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/2/24147007/google-paid-apple... Thus, it's a fact that was established in the verdict. "Slipping" is possibly a stretch, given the deal itself was at least publicly known? - though the fact both parties wanted to avoid discussion of the deal since its inception makes it feel at least somewhat evasive, so I can see what the word choice gestures towards. > ...in exchange for which, Apple forbore from making a competing search engine. From https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1402141/dl?inline= https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1402141/dl?inline=: > Cutting off all search-related payments from Google to Apple would strongly alter Apple’s incentives. Rem. Tr. 3825:7–3829:2 (Cue (Apple)) (Apple’s SVP of Services “can’t say [he] would disagree” that “it was a disincentive for us to do a search engine based on the payments that we were receiving from Google”) > forbear: politely or patiently restrain an impulse to do something; refrain That seems like a reasonable description of what Eddy Cue stated to me. It certainly wasn't part of the wording of the deal, but if I were Eddy, I'd probably refrain from building a search engine in his shoes.
- rtpg 1y ago
  > Apple didn't have a search engine when they created the iPhone, and why would they start? Ever? I mean Apple Maps happened. Is it the same scale of problem? No, because Street View is harder than search in some sense! In all seriousness it's not the same problem, but it's something. $20B/year is real money, and I have a very easy time imagining that squashing the idea at all (even if the intent on Google's side is "simply" to maintain dominance, and not squash out competition from Apple specifically)
  - rz2k 1y ago
    Based on what I can find, Kagi seems to have received less than $1B in funding. Delivering results to a large user base would cost more, but that seems to be pretty cheap for creating and engine that users often consider better results than Google.
    - rtpg 1y ago
      well from Apple's position they're _receiving_ 20 billion dollars a year from Google. It's "free" money, for doing nothing! If they created their own search engine, maybe those 20 billion dollars disappear. That's the calculus, right?
graeme 1y ago
The idea is that without $20 billion or an incentive to send people to google Apple might have become interested in chipping away at the search business. Sori already handles a lot of search. Google didn't want Apple thinking about that. They wanted Apple to have an incentive to send traffic to google.
rayiner 1y ago
I can’t think of a single legitimate reason why Google should be allowed to pay Apple to use its search engine. Google is using the proceeds of its monopoly to exclude competition to maintain its monopoly. How is that norm per se antitrust violation? (That said, I’m not an antitrust lawyer and find it quite unintuitive, lol.)
- xrd 1y ago
  Your caveat rubs me the wrong way because this case proves the so-called experts don't have a clue either. Anti-trust lawyers means nothing in the current state of lawlessness.
- ameister14 1y ago
  Basically it should be illegal per se but since the 70's the Court has really limited how they apply that and so courts generally prefer to do a competitive analysis/quick look first. In this case, the argument might be that since the cost to consumer doesn't increase, it isn't a naked price fix so it's not per se illegal. As I learned it, since BMI & ASCAP v. CBS, in 1979, it's essentially been that the per se rule is applied when the courts have enough experience with an accused restraint to know that it is so plainly anticompetitive, and so often lacks any redeeming virtue, that further inquiry in any given case is almost certainly wasted effort Bork and his acolytes really screwed us, basically, turning a half-baked understanding of economics into a justification to ignore legislation and 60+ years of jurisprudence, and that's carried the day since.
  - actionfromafar 1y ago
    Is that why call things getting "borked"?
    - mcherm 1y ago
      It is not. Judge Bork was proposed as a candidate for the US Supreme Court. While the Senate was reviewing his nomination they began discussing his actual views on various topics which were so abhorrent that the Senate voted not to confirm him. The conservative community complained he had been treated unfairly and coined the term.
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
"Didn't Apple say that 1) they weren't interested in being in the Search Engine business 2) (in testimony) Google was by far the best search engine that they were going to use anyway ?" That testimony worked in favor of the government It raises the question, "Then why pay them?" Google had no answer The company always has an alternative explanation for its actions that lacks any relation to advertising services, or profit motive
fsflover 1y ago
> Didn't Apple say that 1) they weren't interested in being in the Search Engine business 2) (in testimony) Google was by far the best search engine that they were going to use anyway ? Aren't Apple getting 20 bln annually to say that? Google search quality has deteriorated drastically in the last decade, as evidenced by the court and numerous HN threads. > but knowing Apple's negotiation tactics they could also have used their weigh These two megacorps are parts of the duopoly and have no incentive to change that.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

isleyaardvark 1y ago

His quote is stunningly disingenuous, I'm surprised to hear that coming from Doctorow. That Google has paid Apple to be the default search engine was a business deal that has been open knowledge for a decade or more. Other search engines could've paid to be the default. Apple didn't have a search engine when they created the iPhone, and why would they start? Ever? MS didn't do so well. And why would Apple want to make their own search engine? Even if Apple did, the reaction would certainly be that Apple was abusing their position to promote their own search engine and would be committing an anti-trust violation then. Also I think it's safe to say there is no actual testimony about a quid pro quo arrangement to get Apple to agree to not make a search engine.

onlypassingthru 1y ago
Can you explain why Google Android can use Google search but Apple iOS can't use Apple search because that would be an anti-trust violation?
- b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
  Probably the same reason why iOS can have Safari installed as default but MS got in trouble for IE years ago. These laws are applied very inconsistently.
rufo 1y ago
> One of the facts established in the verdict was that Google had been slipping Apple more than $20b/year... While the payments were public knowledge and there was speculation about the amount being somewhere between $8B and $12B, the number had never been confirmed until unsealed in the case, was more than the previous speculation, and was something both Google and Apple wanted to keep under wraps: https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/2/24147007/google-paid-apple-20-billion-in-2022-to-be-safaris-default-search-engine https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/2/24147007/google-paid-apple... Thus, it's a fact that was established in the verdict. "Slipping" is possibly a stretch, given the deal itself was at least publicly known? - though the fact both parties wanted to avoid discussion of the deal since its inception makes it feel at least somewhat evasive, so I can see what the word choice gestures towards. > ...in exchange for which, Apple forbore from making a competing search engine. From https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1402141/dl?inline= https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1402141/dl?inline=: > Cutting off all search-related payments from Google to Apple would strongly alter Apple’s incentives. Rem. Tr. 3825:7–3829:2 (Cue (Apple)) (Apple’s SVP of Services “can’t say [he] would disagree” that “it was a disincentive for us to do a search engine based on the payments that we were receiving from Google”) > forbear: politely or patiently restrain an impulse to do something; refrain That seems like a reasonable description of what Eddy Cue stated to me. It certainly wasn't part of the wording of the deal, but if I were Eddy, I'd probably refrain from building a search engine in his shoes.
rtpg 1y ago
> Apple didn't have a search engine when they created the iPhone, and why would they start? Ever? I mean Apple Maps happened. Is it the same scale of problem? No, because Street View is harder than search in some sense! In all seriousness it's not the same problem, but it's something. $20B/year is real money, and I have a very easy time imagining that squashing the idea at all (even if the intent on Google's side is "simply" to maintain dominance, and not squash out competition from Apple specifically)
- rz2k 1y ago
  Based on what I can find, Kagi seems to have received less than $1B in funding. Delivering results to a large user base would cost more, but that seems to be pretty cheap for creating and engine that users often consider better results than Google.
  - rtpg 1y ago
    well from Apple's position they're _receiving_ 20 billion dollars a year from Google. It's "free" money, for doing nothing! If they created their own search engine, maybe those 20 billion dollars disappear. That's the calculus, right?

graeme 1y ago

The idea is that without $20 billion or an incentive to send people to google Apple might have become interested in chipping away at the search business. Sori already handles a lot of search. Google didn't want Apple thinking about that. They wanted Apple to have an incentive to send traffic to google.

rayiner 1y ago

I can’t think of a single legitimate reason why Google should be allowed to pay Apple to use its search engine. Google is using the proceeds of its monopoly to exclude competition to maintain its monopoly. How is that norm per se antitrust violation? (That said, I’m not an antitrust lawyer and find it quite unintuitive, lol.)

xrd 1y ago
Your caveat rubs me the wrong way because this case proves the so-called experts don't have a clue either. Anti-trust lawyers means nothing in the current state of lawlessness.
ameister14 1y ago
Basically it should be illegal per se but since the 70's the Court has really limited how they apply that and so courts generally prefer to do a competitive analysis/quick look first. In this case, the argument might be that since the cost to consumer doesn't increase, it isn't a naked price fix so it's not per se illegal. As I learned it, since BMI & ASCAP v. CBS, in 1979, it's essentially been that the per se rule is applied when the courts have enough experience with an accused restraint to know that it is so plainly anticompetitive, and so often lacks any redeeming virtue, that further inquiry in any given case is almost certainly wasted effort Bork and his acolytes really screwed us, basically, turning a half-baked understanding of economics into a justification to ignore legislation and 60+ years of jurisprudence, and that's carried the day since.
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  Is that why call things getting "borked"?
  - mcherm 1y ago
    It is not. Judge Bork was proposed as a candidate for the US Supreme Court. While the Senate was reviewing his nomination they began discussing his actual views on various topics which were so abhorrent that the Senate voted not to confirm him. The conservative community complained he had been treated unfairly and coined the term.

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

"Didn't Apple say that 1) they weren't interested in being in the Search Engine business 2) (in testimony) Google was by far the best search engine that they were going to use anyway ?" That testimony worked in favor of the government It raises the question, "Then why pay them?" Google had no answer The company always has an alternative explanation for its actions that lacks any relation to advertising services, or profit motive

fsflover 1y ago

> Didn't Apple say that 1) they weren't interested in being in the Search Engine business 2) (in testimony) Google was by far the best search engine that they were going to use anyway ? Aren't Apple getting 20 bln annually to say that? Google search quality has deteriorated drastically in the last decade, as evidenced by the court and numerous HN threads. > but knowing Apple's negotiation tactics they could also have used their weigh These two megacorps are parts of the duopoly and have no incentive to change that.