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

21–30 of 42 posts

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

#21

Post by rubyfan »

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.

They might argue they provide Safari for free and as part of their business model earn a fee for referring users to the preferred search engine vs something substandard. This is a very common business model on just about every web publisher today.

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

#22

Post by xbmcuser »

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…

So Apple is the monopoly abusing it's position and I thought it was google anti competitive behaviour that was being punished.

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

#23

Post by arghwhat »

lazide wrote: post #12
criddell wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sure, but it would be for deaf ears. Losing revenue is not an issue or argument - it's not like Apple would be unable to operate.

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

#24

Post by jocaal »

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.

The thing is, this payment from Google is billions in pure profit. If it were to stop, it would have a serious impact on Apple's valuation. Shareholders would want management to do anything they can to keep that cash flow coming.

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

#25

Post by BadHumans »

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…

What's the problem with option 1? Users have a choice on what to pick, they pick Google because they prefer Google. Is users having choice foreign to Apple?

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

#26

Post by boredpeter »

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…

[dead]

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

#28

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#30

Post by elashri »

rubyfan wrote: post #21
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.

They might argue they provide Safari for free and as part of their business model earn a fee for referring users to the preferred search engine vs something substandard. This is a very common business model on just about every web publisher today.

I am pretty sure that if Apple lawyers to present this argument. Then DOJ will find it a gift when they file a monopoly case around apple monopolistic position and restrictions of non-Safari/Webkit based browsers (probably app store too). Because this will make it harder for Apple to present the case about security or privacy of the users if they just said before in a court that they do this as part of their business model to earn money.
Post reply on HN