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

241–250 of 388 posts

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

#241

Post by exikyut »

Bombthecat wrote: post #145
quitit wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m guessing the issue is because there isn’t a lot of merit in saying Apple and Google are totally stitched up when the options change by region and for the plaintiff there are at least 4 additional options other than Google. EG Ecosia is a recent entry, so it does seem that Apple does look into this and introduce new options that can serve their audience size with sufficient quality results. Getting included seems…

Most other search engines use Google under the hut anyway.. I'm wondering sind quite a whole, when Google will block them..

(s/hut/hood/; s/sind/since/; s/whole/while/; - no offense intended, just looking to save 10 seconds of headscratching)

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

#242

Post by exikyut »

nonameiguess wrote: post #233
bufferoverflow wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80%? I think it's over 99%. Very few people would install a custom browser on mobile, most go with the default.

I highly doubt that, since it would imply 99% of users are using Samsung Internet on Samsung devices rather than Chrome, which doesn't seem to be true. If iOS users are largely using Safari, it's because Safari is actually a good enough browser that it isn't worth switching.

As someone who has never purchased a new-in-box phone, do Samsung devices ship with Chrome preinstalled by virtue of *handwave* "because Android"?

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

#244

Post by nescioquid »

I'm curious about this:

> (4) annual multi-billion-dollar payments by Google to Apple not to compete in the search business;

Assuming the allegation is correct, what recourse would Google have if Apple took the multi-billion-dollar payment and then entered the search business?

Surely a lawsuit would only set Google up for anti-trust complaints, so would their only recourse be to not fork over subsequent multi-billion-dollar payments to Apple? It seems analogous to a broken agreement between criminals -- one or more parties is outside the protection of the law.

Could this reasoning also be used to defend against the allegation, i.e. surely Google wouldn't put themselves in such a situation where they could have no guarantee or surety that Apple wouldn't just take the money and run?

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

#245

Post by [deleted] »

phkahler wrote: post #206
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

[deleted]

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

#246

Post by exikyut »

evancoop wrote: post #189

Though collusion between two tech giants is obviously distasteful and anticompetitive, how is this ultimately addressed? Sure, governments could force Google and Apple to break into smaller entities...but as long as humans still largely choose the best software, there will still be network effects that lead to dominant players emerging. In turn, there will be new giants. So...either there are general paradigms/regula…

Returning to this state repeatedly, aka a cyclic system, isn't all that bad, if it means we ultimately don't exceed the current threshold.

IMHO the collective furor necessary to drive development in the space (eg, Google and Apple both maintain whole web browsers) is necessarily weakly-coordinated at scale and will probably always inevitably cue this sort of thing to rise up.

*shrug*

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

#247

Post by ClumsyPilot »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #62
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…

that "effectuate the non-compete agreement" is doing some work, it would be one thing if Google said to Apple, we want your guarantee that you will not be entering the search engine market and in return we will give you this - then it is a non-compete agreement - but as it is it is a default search engine agreement. No idea what (3) regular secret meetings between the executives of both companies; means - but it sure…

"would be one thing if Google said to Apple, we want your guarantee that you will not be entering the search engine market"

Which executive is going to be dumb enough to put a crime in writing?

It's clear to anyone with half a brain that if Apple enters the search market, the deal is off.

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

#248

Post by zepto »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #36

Here's the complaint: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Northern_Distri... The putative class they're suing to represent is apparently "All consumers and businesses who paid Google to place advertising on Google search in the United States since January 1, 2005." I think the basic argument is "Apple might have created a competing search engine business, but Google paid them not to, which hurt people buying…

So the assumption is that Apple would run Ads against search?

There is a good chance that if Apple did have a search engine it would be Ad free, which might still depress prices of Google ads, but it would also decrease effectiveness of those ads.

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

#249

Post by andiareso »

null_object wrote: post #199

I cannot get over how much moaning and whinging people on HN do about supposedly not being able to choose their search-engine on iOS "without jail-breaking" their device when simply switching to another browser like iCab Mobile means they can choose absolutely any search engine they want in addition to the 25 that are included by default . For goodness sake do the minimum amount of research before squealing helplessl…

Ha! You're complaining about HNers while also being one?

You missing a crucial point here. Using an alternative browser on iOS is not actually that helpful. Nine-times out of ten, I use spotlight (swiping down from the home screen) to type search queries because it's much faster than entering an app. This will always use the built-in search provider. Secondly, I use siri to do quick lookups, "search for ravioli recipe" which also uses default search provider. Any context menu like "Lookup" or "Search on X" uses the built-in provider.

A blanket statement such as yours suppresses ideas. Let people talk... isn't that why HN exists.

I for one think allowing the ability to add a custom search is a no-brainer and I think this deal may be a real reason why it doesn't exist. It's so easy to add this that it seems real shady it doesn't exist...

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

#250

Post by derbOac »

koheripbal wrote: post #183
netcan wrote: post #83

The whole structure of antitrust regulation is, by negligence or design, weird and weak. #1 Why does there need to be a plaintiff? A trust affects consumers and society broadly detrimentally, not some specific competitor. The competitor google is likely trying to suppress is some theoretical startup anyway, they probably don't exist to sue. #2 Why the focus on specific damages? The specific harm of such a trust are i…

The questions you are asking are fundamental to the legal system - they are not specific to antitrust laws. All cases must have standing (a damaged party) and must demonstrate damage. This is first year law stuff. Without these requirements, anyone could sue anyone for all sorts of made up baloney - and the suits themselves would be the punitive.

I don't want to speak for anyone, but I think the idea is more akin to conspiracy to commit murder or something. Maybe driving while intoxicated?

The target of the murder shouldn't have to be murdered for there to be some grounds for a lawsuit. Similarly, you might arrest someone for driving while intoxicated even though they haven't done any actual damage to person or property.

Along these lines, I think the idea is that someone shouldn't have to show specific demonstrable harms that have already occurred in cases of antitrust.

It's a gray area but it seems like with some things, harm should be implied or something to be avoided?

Post reply on HN