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

351–360 of 388 posts

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

#351

Post by zepto »

fsflover wrote: post #326
zepto wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not defending Apple. I’m rebutting the ridiculous idea that what is printed in the Guardian is what ‘everybody agrees’.

I did not suggest that an article in Guardian means everybody agrees with that. In this case, Apple themselves agree that the iOS platform is closed for many things.

Yes you did. You posted it as evidence of this statement you made:

>> However everyone agrees that Apple created a walled garden which is hard to escape.

Apple agrees it’s closed in some ways. Far from ‘everyone’ thinks it’s hard to escape.

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

#352

Post by nyokodo »

asdff wrote: post #319
nyokodo wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their Maps app is OK, but not as good as Google's Except Apple Maps has definitely been improving and Google Maps doesn't seem to be substantially improving anymore. At the current apparent trajectory Maps will catch up quickly.

That's assuming apple maps will actually serve you reliable navigation one day. I'm tired of uturns, unprotected lefts, and not finding local restaurants that are on google and every single grubhub type service on the internet except apple maps seemingly.

> I'm tired of uturns, unprotected lefts

I get this with Google Maps and not Apple Maps so your anecdotal experience is at least questionable.

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

#353

Post by heavyset_go »

lwkl wrote: post #125
politelemon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry you're being downvoted but this is HN and it's common to give Apple benefit of the doubt. You are right, and the term is monopolistic power, which is different from monopoly. Monopolistic power involves platform abuse which is what you're describing. Additionally they use their position to enforce their own services, so their forced rollout of Apple Login was an example. Another example is all browsers being fo…

> It's a repeat of the MS-IE escapades of a few decades ago but everyone's OK with it. Is it though? Safari seems to be pretty close to the HTML standard and at least not implement any proprietary features. Sure there may be bugs or they may lag behind but they are making an effort to be compliant. I'd say Google seems to be the one leading a lot of decisions regarding to standards and implement them the way they wan…

Safari on macOS and iOS didn't even support WebP until the latter half of 2020.

> Ideally Apple would allow third party browsers on iOS, but I think it's beneficial for users that they don't.

Lack of competition is always a bad thing for users.

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

#354

Post by bagacrap »

teh64 wrote: post #295
bagacrap wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

really? What cost? Is that public information? My understanding was that play services was no longer part of Android core because Google didn't want phone manufacturers mucking with it (creating an inconsistent and frankly worse experience on some devices), not because they were trying to charge a fee for it.

Google has a certification process to allow play services to be installed: https://www.xda-developers.com/how-to-fix-device-not-certifi... Google forces phone manufacturers to install some google apps to get certification: https://www.kamilfranek.com/how-google-makes-money-from-andr... And in the EU, companies actually need to pay, if they do not install some google apps: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17999366/…

From your own link: "a free license to install Android with Play"

The question was about monetary cost, i.e. "free as in beer", not "free as in speech" or "free of effort".

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

#355

Post by echelon »

gretch wrote: post #321
echelon wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're entirely correct. Google and Apple operate as a cartel. If the web experience wasn't 90% Google (outside of social media), and the phone experience wasn't 50% Apple / 50% Google, everything would be cheaper due to competition. Just look at the percentages app developers pay. In a free market with five alternatives, there probably wouldn't even be an app store. We'd do native app downloads over the web and inv…

> We'd do native app downloads over the web and invest a ton of energy into security and privacy controls. This has been demonstrated to be false. This scenario is exactly what we used to have in the windows PC era and no one invested "a ton of energy into security and privacy controls". That unfulfilled need is exactly what propelled Apple to the #1 spot when it came to the mobile era.

> That unfulfilled need is exactly what propelled Apple to the #1 spot when it came to the mobile era.

iPod is what propelled Apple to the #1 spot. They had a significant lead on touch, cool brand, music, luxury, and slick UI. It has nothing to do with their app store or software distribution model or other such "nerdy" topics that most consumers aren't even aware of.

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

#356

Post by heavyset_go »

threeseed wrote: post #118
onion2k wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a very clear anti-trust violation where they would be abusing position in the OS market to influence their position in the search market.

That only applies when you dealing with markets with an absence of competition. For example, Microsoft had ~95% market share of the entire computing market when they tried to embrace and extinguish Netscape. It's why it was perfectly fine for Google to use its web services to influence competition within the Android OS market.

> That only applies when you dealing with markets with an absence of competition.

This is incorrect. From the FTC[1]:

> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

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

#357

Post by heavyset_go »

izacus wrote: post #109
onion2k wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a very clear anti-trust violation where they would be abusing position in the OS market to influence their position in the search market.

Except, as we keep being told by Apple fans here, that's not enough because Apple's OS isn't the most popular one. So excluding and removing healthy market competition is completely OK in that respect. Or so we're told.

> Except, as we keep being told by Apple fans here, that's not enough because Apple's OS isn't the most popular one.

Even that deflection is incorrect. When it comes to the mobile market in the US, Apple has over 60% of the market, and Google has the rest. When it comes to the mobile app distribution market, they're responsible for 100% more sales than Google is, and both companies make up that entire market.

In the US, Apple is the most used mobile and mobile app provider. And even if they weren't, they have a duopoly with Google in a dozen or more markets.

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

#358

Post by gbmatt »

I just posted this same comment on the ddg story, but I'm going to post it here as well.

Google forced my search engine (gigablast) basically out of business. I had ixquick.com as a big client at one time; I was providing them with search results from my custom web search engine. Then their CEO called me one day and told me he was cancelling, even though he'd been a client for over 10 years. He said it was because of some change Google had made to their agreement. Ixquick needed Google's results and ads for their startpage.com website, and, even though my results were shown on their ixquick.com and later ixquick.eu site, apparently Google wasn't good with that.

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

#359

Post by bleah1000 »

thathndude wrote: post #188
bleah1000 wrote: post #85

I don't think this is even worthy of being reported on. There is a high likelihood of this being thrown out in summary judgement. You can't claim something without at least some facts that indicates that Apple was going to build a search engine and the payments made by Google made Apple stop development. My guess is this is more of a PR stunt than a real lawsuit.

Lawyer clarification incoming: Summary judgment motions come after the discovery process (the expensive process that often leads to tech companies' dirty little secrets reaching the light of day). If the dollar figure is right, the companies would probably try to settle before summary judgment. A motion to dismiss, on the other hand, is a pre-discovery mechanism to dismiss claims. These are relatively cheap (by large…

Oops, mixed up my terms. Thanks for the clarification.

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

#360

Post by jasonhansel »

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.

IIRC only civil cases need a plaintiff with standing. If our antitrust laws were criminal laws, this wouldn't be a problem.
Post reply on HN