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

Apple seeks to defend Google's billion-dollar payments in search case

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 42 posts

Re: Apple seeks to defend Google's billion-dollar payments in search case

#11

Post by PlunderBunny »

ksec wrote: post #6
joebob42 wrote: post #4

~Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on Safari It could remove Google as a choice for users of safari? That seems like an insane thing to present as an approach apple might take. They could stop making it the default, but I think making it in unselectable actually would upset users enough to cause issues, at least in the short term.

Apple wants to keep those 20B dollar pure, raw profits.

"Your honour, I have no legal argument whatsoever, but it's so much money, and we really want it."

Re: Apple seeks to defend Google's billion-dollar payments in search case

#12

Post by lazide »

criddell wrote: post #9
ramsj wrote: post #2

Statement from Eddy Cue: "If this Court prohibits Google from sharing revenue for search distribution, Apple would have two unacceptable choices. It could still let users in the United States choose Google as a search engine for Safari, but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple's users at no cost. Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on…

I don't see the problem with option #1. Apple is sounding like a cellular company pre-iPhone where the carriers demanded a cut of every transaction on the phone. They saw users as their asset and did everything they could to but themselves in the middle of every phone transaction. I'm talking about the time of $3 ringtones. For Apple today, I can understand the argument for fees in the app store because there are rea…

They’re complaining they would lose billions, while it helps no one.

Wouldn’t you complain too?

Re: Apple seeks to defend Google's billion-dollar payments in search case

#13

Post by lazide »

ksec wrote: post #7
ramsj wrote: post #2

Statement from Eddy Cue: "If this Court prohibits Google from sharing revenue for search distribution, Apple would have two unacceptable choices. It could still let users in the United States choose Google as a search engine for Safari, but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple's users at no cost. Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on…

>but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple's users at no cost That is entitled. Should every web site share profits with Apple because they are accessed via Safari.

If you were Apple, what do you think your answer would be?

Re: Apple seeks to defend Google's billion-dollar payments in search case

#14

Post by ninth_ant »

elashri wrote: post #5

Considering that the DOJ is going to come after Apple in the future probably after scoring win against Google and Amazon. I don't think this is a wise strategy by Apple to take this obvious side with monopoly position. And I hate that apple consider their hardware users as some belongings that they need to get money in order for others to reach them.

I mean you can read into it in all sorts of ways, but the simplest is that Apple likes getting $20b per year by having a default setting on a config that is trivially easy for users to change.

That’s already so compelling, that I’m not sure it’s needed to read anything more sinister into it.

Re: Apple seeks to defend Google's billion-dollar payments in search case

#15

Post by jncfhnb »

ramsj wrote: post #2

Statement from Eddy Cue: "If this Court prohibits Google from sharing revenue for search distribution, Apple would have two unacceptable choices. It could still let users in the United States choose Google as a search engine for Safari, but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple's users at no cost. Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on…

I hope Eddy Cue, SVP of Apple Services, gets to explain that quote in antitrust testimony at some point when he has to explain how Apple’s policy doesn’t assume ownership of users.

Re: Apple seeks to defend Google's billion-dollar payments in search case

#16

Post by jncfhnb »

lazide wrote: post #13
ksec wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple's users at no cost That is entitled. Should every web site share profits with Apple because they are accessed via Safari.

If you were Apple, what do you think your answer would be?

[flagged]

Re: Apple seeks to defend Google's billion-dollar payments in search case

#17

Post by rubyfan »

bangonkeyboard wrote: post #8
ramsj wrote: post #2

Statement from Eddy Cue: "If this Court prohibits Google from sharing revenue for search distribution, Apple would have two unacceptable choices. It could still let users in the United States choose Google as a search engine for Safari, but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple's users at no cost. Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on…

Why are people who go out of their way to select Google search "Apple's users" but never "Google's users"?

Nothing is stopping those Google users from installing Chrome.

Re: Apple seeks to defend Google's billion-dollar payments in search case

#18

Post by CamelCaseName »

ramsj wrote: post #2

Statement from Eddy Cue: "If this Court prohibits Google from sharing revenue for search distribution, Apple would have two unacceptable choices. It could still let users in the United States choose Google as a search engine for Safari, but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple's users at no cost. Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on…

> "... it is unlikely that Apple will decide to create a search engine in the future, regardless of what remedies are ordered in this case."

Maybe Google should stop paying $15B/year on its own then...

Re: Apple seeks to defend Google's billion-dollar payments in search case

#19

Post by ladon86 »

rubyfan wrote: post #17
bangonkeyboard wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are people who go out of their way to select Google search "Apple's users" but never "Google's users"?

Nothing is stopping those Google users from installing Chrome.

The DoJ is forcing Google to sell Chrome, so that won’t necessarily use Google search either.

Re: Apple seeks to defend Google's billion-dollar payments in search case

#20

Post by 1123581321 »

jncfhnb wrote: post #15
ramsj wrote: post #2

Statement from Eddy Cue: "If this Court prohibits Google from sharing revenue for search distribution, Apple would have two unacceptable choices. It could still let users in the United States choose Google as a search engine for Safari, but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple's users at no cost. Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on…

I hope Eddy Cue, SVP of Apple Services, gets to explain that quote in antitrust testimony at some point when he has to explain how Apple’s policy doesn’t assume ownership of users.

Wouldn’t it work to his advantage? A key defense in such a trial would be distinguishing between restricting (owning) users and setting defaults.
Post reply on HN