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

Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 761 posts

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#31

Post by cletus »

I expect this to be bad for everyone except Google if the ruling holds. Why? Mozilla and Apple will lose significant revenue from having Google as the default search engine and Google will no longer have to pay those billions. What's more, no one else can pay to be the default either (eg the short-lived Mozilla Bing deal).

So what's going to happen? Most users will probably still use Google, nobody is getting paid and Google is saving a bundle.

I get the thinking that you have to prevent lock-in (eg Ticketmaster and venues) but Google didn't buy its way into dominance annd maintain their dominance through exclusivity deals. They simply have a better product and I don't expect anyone to match them anytime soon (cue the DDG "I switched from Google to DDG 78 years ago" crowd).

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#32

Post by JumpCrisscross »

cletus wrote: post #31

I expect this to be bad for everyone except Google if the ruling holds. Why? Mozilla and Apple will lose significant revenue from having Google as the default search engine and Google will no longer have to pay those billions. What's more, no one else can pay to be the default either (eg the short-lived Mozilla Bing deal). So what's going to happen? Most users will probably still use Google, nobody is getting paid an…

> Most users will probably still use Google, nobody is getting paid and Google is saving a bundle

The ruling doesn’t say exclusive distribution agreements are illegal. It says Google can’t enter into them.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#33

Post by skissane »

cletus wrote: post #31

I expect this to be bad for everyone except Google if the ruling holds. Why? Mozilla and Apple will lose significant revenue from having Google as the default search engine and Google will no longer have to pay those billions. What's more, no one else can pay to be the default either (eg the short-lived Mozilla Bing deal). So what's going to happen? Most users will probably still use Google, nobody is getting paid an…

> What's more, no one else can pay to be the default either (eg the short-lived Mozilla Bing deal).

Not sure if that is true-competition laws often prohibit the dominant market player from doing certain things, yet still allow smaller players to do the same thing.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#34

Post by causal »

cletus wrote: post #31

I expect this to be bad for everyone except Google if the ruling holds. Why? Mozilla and Apple will lose significant revenue from having Google as the default search engine and Google will no longer have to pay those billions. What's more, no one else can pay to be the default either (eg the short-lived Mozilla Bing deal). So what's going to happen? Most users will probably still use Google, nobody is getting paid an…

Disagree. People use Google because it's the default, not because they will go out of their way to keep using it. The minute Apple changes the iPhone default, all but a few iPhone users stop using Google.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#35

Post by JKCalhoun »

cletus wrote: post #31

I expect this to be bad for everyone except Google if the ruling holds. Why? Mozilla and Apple will lose significant revenue from having Google as the default search engine and Google will no longer have to pay those billions. What's more, no one else can pay to be the default either (eg the short-lived Mozilla Bing deal). So what's going to happen? Most users will probably still use Google, nobody is getting paid an…

> Most users will probably still use Google

Most users will probably use the default. And there's zero reason (zero dollars) saying it will be Google.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#37

Post by knuckleheads »

> Mehta’s decision is expected to trigger a separate proceeding to determine what penalties Google will face – and the company is also likely to file an appeal

As a Google antitrust watcher, I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop with what remedies the court will actually recommend to correct this monopoly. If you ask 20 experts, who all otherwise agree that Google is a monopoly, you might get 40 different answers about what to actually do to fix that monopoly. It'll take a while to get the answer and to work through all the appeals to this ruling and whatever remedy the court will put forth, and it's not clear or really possible to know ahead of time whether the courts will put forth small, medium or huge changes to the search engine market. Exciting times!

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#38

Post by hintymad »

hugh_kagi wrote: post #21

We face a number of challenges simply letting our paying customers change their search engine: 1. On iOS the list of allowed search engines is simply baked into OS, we have a fiddly extension that hooks outbound calls to /search and redirects them but I wish we didn't need to. 2. On Chrome, we use an extension to change the default search engine and enable search auto-complete etc, but Google has a policy that such a…

> On iOS the list of allowed search engines is simply baked into OS, we have a fiddly extension that hooks outbound calls to /search and redirects them but I wish we didn't need to.

Wouldn't this be the fault of Apple as it is Apple that controls the list?

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#39

Post by aednichols »

notatallshaw wrote: post #29
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And seat belt laws are bad for hospitals and undertakers.

Can you please expand or explain on this analogy. I'm struggling to connect how Google's last major browser engine competitor potentially losing it's funding due to a separate monopoly issue is similar to laws being passed to reduce death and hospitalizations.

The DOJ is concerned with moving the needle on one specific issue (search monopoly a.k.a. seatbelts) and is not concerned about the side effects on related entities (Firefox a.k.a. undertakers).

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#40

Post by JKCalhoun »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #13
leotravis10 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This could surely open the door for Apple Search as the silver lining.

Yes the silver lining is the other monopolist getting their share of the pie.

> other monopolist

Ha ha. I know what you're saying though.

Post reply on HN