Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawsuit filed alleging Google is paying Apple to stay out of the search business

prnewswire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 388 posts

Re: Lawsuit filed alleging Google is paying Apple to stay out of the search business

#201

Post by stickfigure »

adam_arthur wrote: post #195
sovnade wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we really talking about China promoting competition in the context of search results?

This is an article about allegations of anti-competitive behavior, and China has just spent a year enacting many new rules to foster competition among their tech companies. In many areas they went too far, and their approach to enacting the rules led to mass, unnecessary fear, but the spirit behind a lot of the changes was good. e.g. Alibaba can't ban links to competitors within their social apps. Apple does not allo…

Ah yes, competition for the only thing that matters: Who can adapt their search results most quickly when The Party decides to revise history again.

Re: Lawsuit filed alleging Google is paying Apple to stay out of the search business

#202

Post by artificialLimbs »

arihant wrote: post #147
rekoil wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't believe I've never considered this. They really should have a "custom" option in there as well. Is it possible to do using .mobileconfig profiles maybe? (Off topic: Is there a specification somewhere on what's possible using .mobileconfig profiles?)

It’s possible to do via extensions now. Hyperweb is an extension that allows for adding atmos search engines.

"Hyperweb..."

Wow nice! Now if there was a containers extension I could switch to Safari and away from Firefox.

Re: Lawsuit filed alleging Google is paying Apple to stay out of the search business

#203

Post by artificialLimbs »

MomoXenosaga wrote: post #162
hetspookjee wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so happy that Apple keeps me safe of dangerous search engines. /s I don't get this logic, honestly. What is the point of not being able to add any and all search engines to Apple?

In fairness you don't have to use Safari.

You do on iOS, even if you use "Firefox".

Re: Lawsuit filed alleging Google is paying Apple to stay out of the search business

#204

Post by gigatexal »

dpark wrote: post #17

”The complaint claims that the means used to effectuate the non-compete agreement included; (1) Google would share it's search profits with Apple; (2) Apple would give preferential treatment to Google for all Apple devices; (3) regular secret meetings between the executives of both companies; (4) annual multi-billion-dollar payments by Google to Apple not to compete in the search business; (5) suppression of the comp…

Yeah I thought the Google paying Apple 10-20B a year for being default search is exactly this. I thought this was known?

Re: Lawsuit filed alleging Google is paying Apple to stay out of the search business

#205

Post by zuminator »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #22
dpark wrote: post #17

”The complaint claims that the means used to effectuate the non-compete agreement included; (1) Google would share it's search profits with Apple; (2) Apple would give preferential treatment to Google for all Apple devices; (3) regular secret meetings between the executives of both companies; (4) annual multi-billion-dollar payments by Google to Apple not to compete in the search business; (5) suppression of the comp…

> "Google pays Apple to be the default search provider" If that is the case they might not act anti-competetive but, rumours are [0] Apple received up to $20Bn per year in this deal. It is hard to believe that this payment is just for being the default search engine. I strongly suspect that Apple also agrees to not build their own search engine as long as this deal is on - and if that is the case, there will be a str…

I think it's very possible that the payment is just for being the default search engine. Because one alternative is that Apple picks another company to be the default search engine. And suddenly Google has lost the most affluent group of consumers and has gained a major competitor. They would pay almost any amount to prevent that from happening.

I don't think Apple would want to make itself the default. That would just invite all kinds of regulatory scrutiny, and would conflict with their pro privacy image. Why bother when they can squeeze Google and get paid billions with no work?

Re: Lawsuit filed alleging Google is paying Apple to stay out of the search business

#206

Post by phkahler »

dpark wrote: post #17

”The complaint claims that the means used to effectuate the non-compete agreement included; (1) Google would share it's search profits with Apple; (2) Apple would give preferential treatment to Google for all Apple devices; (3) regular secret meetings between the executives of both companies; (4) annual multi-billion-dollar payments by Google to Apple not to compete in the search business; (5) suppression of the comp…

>> Except for #6, this is literally “Google pays Apple to be the default search provider.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola

Re: Lawsuit filed alleging Google is paying Apple to stay out of the search business

#210

Post by adam_arthur »

stickfigure wrote: post #201
adam_arthur wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an article about allegations of anti-competitive behavior, and China has just spent a year enacting many new rules to foster competition among their tech companies. In many areas they went too far, and their approach to enacting the rules led to mass, unnecessary fear, but the spirit behind a lot of the changes was good. e.g. Alibaba can't ban links to competitors within their social apps. Apple does not allo…

Ah yes, competition for the only thing that matters: Who can adapt their search results most quickly when The Party decides to revise history again.

It seems the dissenters here aren't able to separate the art from the artist. It's not a view I can respect, but one I can understand.

Here's a hint, whether a regulation passes through a democratic process or through authoritarian decree, it's the same rule at the end of the day, and should be judged on its own merits.

Everybody dissenting here has provided no rebuke or detailed response, just seemingly uninformed quips. I'd rather hold discussion to a higher standard of objectivity, personally

Post reply on HN