Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones • Hacker News Board

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#211

Post by Maxatar » Mon, Aug 05, 2024, 8:55 PM UTC

troupo wrote: post #196

Maxatar wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but it's worth noting that Chrome became the dominant browser on Windows even though Internet Explorer/Edge is the default browser and comes preinstalled.

Because it was helped by already nearly ubiquitous Google search shoving it down everyone's throat on every page And then ubiquitous Youtube dealing the killing blow: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/05/ex-youtube-engineer-...

But your article argues the opposite of your claim.

Your article says that Microsoft themselves were working to move people away from Internet Explorer 6 and encouraging people to upgrade to a modern browser by declaring IE 6 to be at its end of life.

The article says that Youtube displayed a banner recommending users to upgrade to either Firefox, IE 8, or Chrome and that due to concerns by Google's lawyers, the order of the browsers was to be randomized so to avoid the appearance of giving undue prominence to Chrome. Finally the article ends by noting that each of the three options Youtube recommended were chosen equally as opposed to Chrome being the option picked by most people who saw the banner.

This sounds like the exact opposite of shoving it down peoples throats and instead trying to be very careful to move people away from a browser that Microsoft themselves had declared was dead, and onto an alternative option by trying to be as fair as possible.

The significance of your article isn't that Google shoved Chrome down everyone's throat in order to kill off a competitor, it's that due to its popularity and dominant position, Youtube was more effective at getting people to stop using Internet Explorer 6 than Microsoft was, but both companies had the same objective.

Here is an article about Microsoft's own "Friends don't let friends use Internet Explorer 6." which discusses Microsoft's own efforts to get people to stop using IE 6. It's about the same period of time as the article you mentioned.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-friends-dont-let-fri...

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#212

Post by causal » Mon, Aug 05, 2024, 8:55 PM UTC

legitster wrote: post #81

causal wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> People use Google because it's the default, not because they will go out of their way to keep using it. Is this actually true? Microsoft has bent over backwards trying making it inconvenient to get Chrome + Google on any new device. There's even the whole "Edge is the #1 browser to install Chrome" meme. Normies just really like Google.

Fair point, but I wasn't able to verify the claim that most Windows users are not using Edge since its release. I am curious what the actual % is for new Windows PC installs that are not governed by a corporate policy.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#213

Post by asddubs » Mon, Aug 05, 2024, 8:55 PM UTC

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…

>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 an extension can do one thing and one thing only, and recently removed our extension on account of that [1]. We rebuilt it to meet their needs but had a lot of back-and-forth because we included 'search by image' on a context menu item and the first reviewer felt that was a bridge too far. You'll note that Chrome provides such a context menu item for Google Image search out of the box.

I guess this is so that unrelated extension X can't also change the default search while it's at it, like in the good old IE days, so it kind of sort of makes sense. though if the extension is named after a search engine it should probably get a pass, and the context menu thing obviously is also related to search.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#214

Post by maximus_01 » Mon, Aug 05, 2024, 8:55 PM UTC

srcreigh wrote: post #48

hintymad wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Apple could be getting paid off by google to keep this aspect of search difficult to change.

The deal with Google is not a fixed amount. It has a revenue component (ie a share of Google revenue from that user). So the motivation for Apple to make it difficult is clear - a user switching browser costs Apple money as it does not have revenue share deals with others

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#215

Post by gregdoesit » Mon, Aug 05, 2024, 8:55 PM UTC

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…

I’m one of the paying Kagi customer who wants to make Kagi my default iOS search engine, but cannot. It’s maddening that even though I paid for both my iPhone / iPad and for Kagi, Apple for some reason makes it impossible for me to make this choice (that I already made by paying for Kagi).

On Chrome at least this is possible, even if it’s additional steps (I have not used the extension though there.)

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#216

Post by SpacePortKnight » Mon, Aug 05, 2024, 8:55 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #121

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…

> So what's going to happen? Apple might make their own search engine. Apple has a team that's been creating a next-generation search engine codenamed Pegasus under John Giannandrea. They already have search engines for App Store, Maps, Apple TV and News and Spotlight. Apple web search development worked as bargaining chip in pricing negotiations with Google. Google paid them $20 billion per year to not compete as mu…

Apple could make a search engine but by the same logic, they wouldn't be able to make it default on their devices.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#217

Post by mrguyorama » Mon, Aug 05, 2024, 8:56 PM UTC

riku_iki wrote: post #153

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing prevents them from donating to Mozilla.

For-profit corp needs some incentives for such donation.

And just like when we force AT&T to do a bunch of stuff, that incentive should be "encourage and fund a healthy and competitive market or be dismantled with prejudice".

We made AT&T basically give away patents to anyone and open up their network to compatibility. People regularly talk about the innovations that came from the labs funded by that agreement. Then they turn around and dismiss government regulation of industries as "stifling competition", as if a monopoly has any desire to compete if they do not have to.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#218

Post by fshbbdssbbgdd » Mon, Aug 05, 2024, 8:58 PM UTC

jd3 wrote: post #99

A couple passages of note: > 112. The integration of generative AI is perhaps the clearest example of competition advancing search quality. Google accelerated and launched its public piloting of Bard one day before Microsoft announced BingChat, the integration of ChatGPT’s generative AI technology into Bing to deliver answers to queries. Id. at 8272:4-7 (Reid); id. at 2670:10–2671:9 (Parakhin). (describing BingChat).…

The idea that a 0.66% decline in revenue would be insignificant made me snort. Increasing revenue that much would make many careers - it would justify the existence of a substantial origination. That’s billions of dollars annually.

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#219

Post by adeelk93 » Mon, Aug 05, 2024, 8:58 PM UTC

retskrad wrote: post #103

According to the judges ruling, Google’s internal data indicated that they would lose up to 80% of searches on Apple devices, resulting in a $30 billion revenue loss, if they gave up their default search position.

to whom? Bing? Yahoo? Baidu?

Re: Google loses antitrust suit over search deals on phones

#220

Post by ProfessorLayton » Mon, Aug 05, 2024, 8:58 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #148

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need to offer similar numbers? If this ruling prohibits Google, the dominant search engine, from buying their Safari defaults, then Apple has a choice of: - Zero dollars - More than zero dollars from a smaller search competitor (Bing? New AI player?) I suspect Apple will want more than nothing. They also have quarterly financials to report.

Apple's biggest disincentive to continue the practice is that they themselves end up in the monopoly crosshairs from time-to-time, and it doesn't look good in terms of the DOJ targeting them if they continue a practice that was ruled monopolistic with another company. It isn't necessarily monopolistic if they do, but it raises suspicion. (Personally, I wish monopoly law didn't seem so much like "vibes". It's really h…

Apple creating their own search engine will likely raise more eyebrows than letting an existing Google competitor buy their way into the iPhone ecosystem. In fact the DOJ may prefer a smaller player turn into a bigger competitor to Google, even if that's Microsoft's Bing.

As others have pointed out, these types of deals haven't been ruled illegal, they only apply to Google for abusing its monopoly.

Apple will want more than zero dollars.