[HN Gopher] Lawsuit filed alleging Google is paying Apple to sta...
___________________________________________________________________
Lawsuit filed alleging Google is paying Apple to stay out of the
search business
Author : cpeterso
Score : 500 points
Date : 2022-01-05 07:12 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.prnewswire.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.prnewswire.com)
| sjg007 wrote:
| I want Siri to search my installed apps first and the web second.
| The whole siri search UX is just god awful.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| While Apple does have a war chest they don't seem to have the
| culture for it. Back when I was in the industry they imported a
| bunch of eBay rejects. Although if Google keeps getting worse
| then maybe eventually.
| dehrmann wrote:
| I'm not convinced Apple could make a viable search product to
| compete with Google. Their Maps app is OK, but not as good as
| Google's, and I can't imagine anyone other than the privacy
| conscious installing an Apple Maps app on their Android phone.
| It's possible Apple knows it has no interest in the search
| business, but Google doesn't know that, so they might as well
| squeeze a few extra dollars out of them.
| nyokodo wrote:
| > 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.
| asdff wrote:
| 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.
| babypuncher wrote:
| I would argue Apple Maps is already better in several
| important ways. It is only a matter of time before it no
| longer makes sense to use Google Maps.
| ghughes wrote:
| > Google Maps doesn't seem to be substantially improving
| anymore.
|
| Google Search is even going in the other direction. (Recent
| discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29392702)
|
| I wouldn't bet against Apple if they were incentivized to
| compete in this space. Their whole shtick is using feats of
| engineering to dominate lazy competitors.
| MarioMan wrote:
| Also worth looking at is the DOJ antitrust complaint filed
| against Google in 2020:
| https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/7273457/10-20-20-US-v...
|
| It makes a similar set of complaints for the same practices and,
| in my opinion, is very well-written.
| nova22033 wrote:
| Someone filed a lawsuit against a company? In America?!!
|
| Why is only prnewswire covering this breaking news?
| bleah1000 wrote:
| 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.
| koheripbal wrote:
| I agree that these headlines are worthless if no evidence is
| presented in the article.
|
| Having said that - they have not yet presented evidence in
| court, so they may indeed have evidence.
| thathndude wrote:
| 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 company standards). I think there's a decent chance this
| case gets bounced on an MTD.
|
| If it gets past the MTD and into discovery, there's probably an
| early settlement where the lawyers get paid off.
| roody15 wrote:
| I have always found it problematic that on mobile safari you
| cannot change search providers. They have a small list to choose
| from (bing, yahoo, duckduckgo, google). but no way to add
| anything else. You have to jailbreak the device just to add a
| different search provider. This seems anticompetitive IMO.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| That way they can charge you to get on the list!
|
| China has screwed up a lot with the messaging behind their
| regulations on tech companies, but the spirit of promoting
| competition from them was good.
|
| Competitive markets are more important than free markets for
| positive societal outcomes.
| throwoutway wrote:
| > China has screwed up a lot with the messaging behind their
| regulations on tech companies, but the spirit of promoting
| competition from them was good.
|
| You have got to be joking..
| adam_arthur wrote:
| redanddead wrote:
| Explain your POV
| sovnade wrote:
| Are we really talking about China promoting competition
| in the context of search results?
| adam_arthur wrote:
| This is an article about allegations of anti-competitive
| behavior, and China has just spent a year enacting many
| new rules to foster competition among their tech
| companies.
|
| In many areas they went too far, and their approach to
| enacting the rules led to mass, unnecessary fear, but the
| spirit behind a lot of the changes was good. e.g. Alibaba
| can't ban links to competitors within their social apps.
|
| Apple does not allow use of custom search engines, unless
| you pay to get on their list, or consumer has to go
| through hoops with extensions.
|
| Do I need to draw more lines to make the dots connect for
| you?
| Animats wrote:
| The government of China does not want non state-owned
| companies to become so large and powerful that they can
| push back against the government. They don't want any
| institution powerful enough to push back - not a
| religion, not a publisher, not a political movement, not
| a business. All of those have faced breakups and
| shutdowns for years.
|
| The humorous version.[1]
|
| The network effect is so strong in some areas that you
| tend to end up with a monopoly or near-monopoly. This
| isn't good for either a communist or a capitalist
| society.
|
| The US tends toward oligopoly. Three big banks, three big
| cell phone companies, three big drugstore chains, four
| big meat packers. In tech, the magic number seems to be
| two. Two big search engines, two big smartphone
| platforms, two big desktop systems, two big auction
| providers, two big social networks.
|
| [1]
| https://twitter.com/lillianmli/status/1478742997839740928
| redanddead wrote:
| I know nobody asked me, but personally I think your POV
| is right. I was listening to this podcast the other day
| about just this and the impression I got was "Wow, this
| may be good for the average Chinese person", I'm talking
| exclusively about the drive to enhance protections for
| citizens.
|
| https://podtail.com/podcast/caixin-global-podcasts/china-
| sto...
|
| It's narrated by an Asian-American guy, the article is
| written by a Chinese guy called Ren Yi.
|
| I only learned a few things about China, so I'm
| uneducated on the matter, but I think we underestimate
| how massive their rural population is, and how huge the
| rift is between the rich and poor, but like I said, I'm
| uneducated on the matter.
|
| I think it's not a bad thing if China adopts EU style
| protections from big companies for citizens. I don't see
| the problem with that. If I understood correctly, the avg
| CN citizen is racked with debt, schools are borderline
| torturous, can barely afford a home, a lot of the water
| is leaded, the land is contaminated, mothers can't trust
| the domestic baby formula or anything really, huge sexism
| issue for women, rape is common, theft is common, scams
| are everywhere and a million other issues, it reminds you
| of the avg US citizen and their million other issues.
| Imagine if the avg CN citizen ends up living a healthier
| life than the avg US citizen, despite the huge head-
| start, now that would be really sad, because it would
| shine a light on how stagnant life is for the avg US
| person.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| I'll check it out!
|
| Yes, I'm no fan of China's authoritarian nature, but the
| rules they are enacting must be judged on their own
| merits. And frankly, many of them are appropriate and
| coming from the perspective of increasing competition.
|
| Basic economics implies that increased competition is
| good for the consumer.
|
| The place where china really misstepped was doing
| everything suddenly and abruptly, which sparked tons of
| fear and scared investor capital away from their
| companies.
|
| This part is a bad outcome due to increased cost of
| financing/debt for their companies, less competitive on
| engineer comp due to lowered share price and so on.
|
| They could have done the same regulations but with much
| more forward notice and detailed their thinking rather
| than handing down abrupt decrees
| stickfigure wrote:
| Ah yes, competition for the only thing that matters: Who
| can adapt their search results most quickly when The
| Party decides to revise history again.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| It seems the dissenters here aren't able to separate the
| art from the artist. It's not a view I can respect, but
| one I can understand.
|
| Here's a hint, whether a regulation passes through a
| democratic process or through authoritarian decree, it's
| the same rule at the end of the day, and should be judged
| on its own merits.
|
| Everybody dissenting here has provided no rebuke or
| detailed response, just seemingly uninformed quips. I'd
| rather hold discussion to a higher standard of
| objectivity, personally
| goodluckchuck wrote:
| mrunkel wrote:
| bing.com doesn't work?
| smoldesu wrote:
| Functionally speaking, yes.
| [deleted]
| planb wrote:
| _" The complaint charges that Google and Apple agreed that Apple
| would not compete in the internet search business against Google.
| [...] The complaint also calls for [...] the breakup of Apple
| into separate and independent companies"_
|
| This doesn't really make sense in my layman's view: They complain
| that Apple stays out of search (which is not their core business)
| and then want to break up Apple. For what reason? Because they
| are operating outside of their core business?
| bell-cot wrote:
| > [...] alleging violations of the Antitrust Laws of the United
| States.
|
| > The complaint charges that Google and Apple agreed that Apple
| would not compete in the internet search business against Google.
| [...]
|
| IANAL, but how _credible_ a threat must the potential competition
| be, for a sober judge to get interested? If Bob 's Pizza Parlor
| got $10/year from Google for not competing in the internet search
| business - would that be anything but a bizarre joke? Similar for
| Apple - sure, they've got $billions. But also shareholders who
| don't want those $billions squandered. Apple's in-house expertise
| in developing and running internet search engines is ~nill. And
| how many companies, _ever_ , have managed to create and
| profitably run an internet search engine - in a market with at
| least one established and profitable competitor?
|
| With $lots_of_billions on the table, Apple's head negotiator
| might say all sorts of things, to squeeze yet more $$$ out of
| Google. (1)"Bing is offering us more." (2)"Customers are
| complaining that your search results are getting crappy."
| (3)"We'll set up our own search engine." (4)"We'll invent a time
| machine, and set both of Larry Page's grandmothers up with better
| husbands."
|
| How many of those statements are credible? Legal? If (2) and (3)
| hit at Google's deep-seated fears, but (3) is not actually
| credible, is this any different (beyond the emotional cheap shot)
| than (4)?
| fortran77 wrote:
| The "Alioto Law Firm" who wrote this press release can't spell
| the word "its."
|
| This makes me wonder about the whole firm.
|
| > "The complaint claims that the means used to effectuate the
| non-compete agreement included; (1) Google would share it's
| search profits with Apple;"
| efsavage wrote:
| If Apple wrote a search engine, would it only return one result?
|
| (the right one, of course...)
| DevMois wrote:
| Finder would be a good name in that case
| nathanganser wrote:
| Are there any proofs?
| mrkramer wrote:
| This is what I asked 2 months ago:
|
| Ask HN: Why is Google paying Apple to be default search engine on
| iPhones?
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29047978
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Just a reminder here folks that anyone can sue for anything. That
| doesn't mean that evidence will show any of the claims are true,
| but it will be interesting to follow and see what evidence they
| claim to have. Note Google is now incorporated in Delaware so it
| does seem that venue may be an issue.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| > Just a reminder here folks that anyone can sue for anything.
|
| California Crane School Inc seem to be a provider of training
| for crane operators, so I'm curious why they're suing Google
| over this particular allegation. I wonder: is there any
| possibility that they're a proxy for some other party or
| parties?
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| My guess is this is a right-wing effort and will be dismissed
| relatively quickly, and they'll use that to push some
| conspiracy.
| aero-glide2 wrote:
| Even if the lawsuit fails we may get to see internal emails
| https://twitter.com/techemails
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| A lawsuit would need to progress to discovery in order to get
| emails. It is more likely it would be dismissed before then,
| and then my guess is some right-wing group will claim a
| conspiracy because of it.
| coolandsmartrr wrote:
| Why is the plaintiff, California Crane School, suing Apple and
| Google?
|
| As far as I see, the plaintiff is not in the tech business, as
| they're a school that teaches how to operate cranes[1]
|
| [1] https://www.californiacraneschool.com/
| bpodgursky wrote:
| The company just a vehicle for a law firm that wanted to drive
| the lawsuit, and the legal work is being done free of charge
| unless they win.
|
| The lawyers needed to find a plaintiff with standing (you can't
| just sue because you don't like something, you have to be able
| to show damages).
| ma2rten wrote:
| Also, why is this crane school spending the money to hire 9
| lawyers to work on this lawsuit?
| dpe82 wrote:
| Likely the crane school is not footing the bill.
| beambot wrote:
| Would be interesting to know if it's contingency or if
| there's some outside bankroll.
| smitop wrote:
| They use Google Ads: I Googled "crane schools in california"
| and one of the results was an ad for California Crane School.
| Apparently they think that they are paying too much on those
| ads: "The complaint alleges that advertising rates are higher
| than rates would be in a competitive system".
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Yes. This is necessary, because US anti-trust law is grounded
| in consumer harm. It's not enough to say "hey, these two
| companies are colluding;" if a suit is to be brought, it has
| to be of the form "These two companies are colluding _and as
| a result I 'm getting screwed._"
| echelon wrote:
| 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 invest a ton of energy into security and privacy
| controls.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| > invest a ton of energy into security and privacy
| controls.
|
| That has never happened. Not in any era.
| bagacrap wrote:
| the part of my web experience that Google is responsible is
| exceedingly inexpensive and I have a hard time
| understanding how competition could reduce the price I pay.
| Economies of scale don't work in favor of competition
| unfortunately.
|
| The phone market isn't 50% Google unless you count Samsung
| as a subsidiary of it. Nor does the existence of Apple help
| me, the consumer, since they obviously don't compete on
| price.
| gretch wrote:
| > 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.
| voltagedivider wrote:
| > no one invested "a ton of energy into security and
| privacy controls".
|
| Anti-virus?
| randomsilence wrote:
| Would more competition actually drive advertising rates down?
|
| Buyers don't have the option to buy from just one supplier.
| They want to reach everybody in their niche. Thus, they have
| to buy from every supplier and cannot negotiate the price
| down. If they leave, a competitor will take those clients and
| pay whatever those users are worth.
| nefitty wrote:
| They're pivoting, so to speak.
| cconcepts wrote:
| Not many HN comments make me laugh out loud, but this did
| texasbigdata wrote:
| You mean....swivelling?
| syspec wrote:
| nefitty wrote:
| Do you have a better answer or do you prefer devolving this
| into meta?
| dpe82 wrote:
| I think the parent was suggesting HN is a place for
| thoughtful, respectful and on-topic discussion. Guidance
| is provided here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| Of course, the last one is: "Please don't post comments
| saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob
| illusion, as old as the hills."
| acallaghan wrote:
| Someone had the do the heavy lifting I guess
| intothemild wrote:
| Beautiful.
| jpalomaki wrote:
| Isn't the main question here how much direct profit/loss Google
| makes from the deal?
|
| If this is not profitable (via the search ads) then it would be
| easier to argue it is just done to keep competition away.
| dpark wrote:
| _"The complaint claims that the means used to effectuate the non-
| compete agreement included; (1) Google would share it 's search
| profits with Apple; (2) Apple would give preferential treatment
| to Google for all Apple devices; (3) regular secret meetings
| between the executives of both companies; (4) annual multi-
| billion-dollar payments by Google to Apple not to compete in the
| search business; (5) suppression of the competition of smaller
| competitors and foreclosing competitors from the search market;
| (6) acquiring actual and potential competitors."_
|
| Except for #6, this is literally "Google pays Apple to be the
| default search provider."
|
| The alternative option seems to be that Apple is for some reason
| _required_ to use their position to enter the search market.
| coliveira wrote:
| The issue is not that Apple should be required to do anything,
| but that the monopoly (Google) is paying other companies to
| stay out of their business.
| snarf21 wrote:
| I've always found this fight for search choice on iOS to be bad
| for Apple. If they had to give a choice for search engine on
| setup or make it easy to switch the default, 99.99% of people
| would _still_ choose Google and Apple would lose $BB. I agree
| that Google results have gotten worse over the last 5 years or
| so but we have to remember that they aren 't optimizing for
| usefulness, they are optimizing for profit.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Yeah I thought the Google paying Apple 10-20B a year for being
| default search is exactly this. I thought this was known?
| phkahler wrote:
| >> Except for #6, this is literally "Google pays Apple to be
| the default search provider."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola
| sigzero wrote:
| Did you even read that link? It does not apply.
| [deleted]
| adam0c wrote:
| all that says is: Google have the money and power to buy people
| out. Thats business 101, nothing new. Yeah it sucks but if you
| don't agree with it stop using google and apple products.
| headmelted wrote:
| This.
|
| I always sort of hoped that Apple would either enter the market
| at some point or acquire DuckDuckGo and try to build out to a
| larger user base. I realise this is pretty unrealistic, as I'm
| sure there are far more people out there who would much prefer
| DDG to remain independent of a megacorp.
|
| I assumed the reason Apple haven't entered the market is that
| there's likely no way to make money at it without becoming
| Google, so it would cause them to have two diametrically
| opposed privacy stances in their business (and because they'd
| have a long road to build a worthy competitor).
| [deleted]
| mgh2 wrote:
| Is there a way to run a profitable search engine without
| relying on advertising?
|
| Ex: Cloud search - https://aws.amazon.com/cloudsearch/
| streamofdigits wrote:
| there is also xapian/recoll https://xapian.org/ which works
| great for "desktop" search
| matkoniecz wrote:
| https://kagi.com/ has plans for subscriptions, I hope that
| they will have product worth paying for.
|
| I spend enough time and effort searching that paying
| 50$/month[0] would make sense if it would get me clearly
| superior tool.
|
| [0] for reference, I pay 250$/month for place where I live
| (in Poland).
| eitland wrote:
| With the usual disclaimer about my Google experience not
| being anyone elses Google experience:
|
| For my work Kagi is already beating Google. In fact there
| is is almost no competition, it is _almost_ as if they
| are in completely different leagues:
|
| In one month I have once gone back to find something in
| Google that Kagi couldn't find.
|
| For every other query the results have been so good that
| I haven't even bothered to check.
|
| For comparison, if I use Google I always find myself
| tweaking my queries or trying with DDG or even marginalia
| in weird cases, and the same with DDG.
| utopcell wrote:
| From Kagi's FAQ: "Our searching includes anonymized
| requests to traditional search indexes like Google and
| Bing as well as vertical sources like Wikipedia and DeepL
| or other APIs. We also have our own non-commercial index
| (Teclis), news index (TinyGem), and an AI for instant
| answers."
|
| So, apparently Kagi is scraping Google and Bing results
| via a browser extension. Is this legal ?
| eitland wrote:
| My interpretation of this is they pay for API access and
| sends anonymised queries to Google and/or Bing.
|
| I'm still puzzled how they get so extremely much better
| results compared to using any of thise directly or using
| DDG which does the same only with Bing.
|
| Also a bit worried because I think there was a time when
| DDG felt the same before they suddenly gave in and
| started serving answers for queries I didn't ask just
| like Google but I'm not really sure.
| freediver wrote:
| Anonymized request means that the client's IP is not
| passed to the server. Since both search engine have a
| paid search results API, it is enough to simply proxy the
| API request to achieve this claim.
|
| Kagi is both paying Google for API access and using
| Google infrastructure (GCP), helping Google make revenue
| that is not ad-supported.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| I use startpage.com that does the same. It's just a proxy
| for Google search.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Do you have example queries to share? I'm curious.
| eitland wrote:
| I have stored some result pages in Joplin and will try to
| post some comparisons soon, but lunchbreak is over so not
| until later today - at earliest ;-)
|
| But basically the results are good and if I don't
| immediately get exactly what I want one pair of
| doublequotes around a key phrase sorts the rest.
| wakeupcall wrote:
| I've been using kagi after requesting an invite, which is
| something I usually don't even bother doing. Mostly
| because I'm extremely disappointed by queries not
| matching my search terms in all major engines - so I have
| essentially nowhere else to go.
|
| It's ok so far. Looking at only search (ignoring the
| "lenses" and listicle-like content) I cannot say it's
| objectively better than using searx with filtering. At
| least not dramatically better that I would notice. It is
| however much better in returning results that actually
| contain my search terms.
|
| For 600$ a year, it would need to offer full-text regex
| search and/or exact logical operators with controllable
| approximation (agrep-style).
|
| I would instantly pay 5/mo$ already though, as long as it
| stays BS free, and doesn't use past search results to
| refine further queries. Search bubble is an issue in
| every single service where this is being used, and I'd
| like my search engine to be totally exempt from it,
| and/or have exact control over it.
| modo_mario wrote:
| Doesn't duckduckgo just mostly use microsoft's search
| results?
| raverbashing wrote:
| It's been a while since I've seen a paragraph that badly
| written (I mean, the quoted part)
|
| It's a Press Release from a law firm but I'm not sure I would
| take a law firm that writes like this seriously.
| netcan wrote:
| They're not required to enter the search market.
|
| But, the revenue Apple get from the deal/trust with Google is
| better than MSFT or Yahoo ever got by competing with them. It's
| also easy, risk free and pure profit. So, the deal essentially
| _ensures_ that Apple will not compete.
|
| Apple now also have an interest in maintaining their (alleged)
| trust. It's now in both parties interest to maintain Google's
| dominance of the space. It's also in both their interest to
| have a large ad market. Competition is not necessarily
| head-2-head. If Apple couldn't make money by funneling user to
| Google, they might prefer to just suppress ads. I'm sure if
| they asked users, users would want that. "Phone with fewer ads,
| ad-related tracking, etc.) is a potential selling point.
|
| IANAL, and more to the point, I dislike both legal framework
| around antitrust and the intellectual framework implied by much
| of it. There's just a lot more to monopoly than either take
| into account.
|
| Such deals are, IMO, _evidence_ that monopoly^ in general is to
| the detriment of competition, innovation, churn and other such
| positive market outcomes. I also think more monopoly is
| concerning on "free culture" grounds, it perculates to
| politics/government, etc. Lets leave those aside though.
|
| Apple & Google themselves were only able to innovate and
| prosper because monopolies did not yet control the
| microcomputer or the web. App stores, OTOH...
|
| *Meant broadly. Read, Trust, cartel oligopoly, monopsony,
| bigness...
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > If Apple couldn't make money by funneling user to Google,
| they might prefer to just suppress ads.
|
| Apple did implement content blockers to block ads. I do not
| see ads when I use Safari in iOS or macOS.
| mholm wrote:
| Google is not concerned much with the ability to block ads,
| but whether it is default. The vast majority of users do
| not install content blockers.
| dontblink wrote:
| I'd imagine at some point depriving sites of revenue will
| lead to adversarial outcomes where many if not all will
| simply refuse to load. So if ad blockers become
| mainstream it will be interesting change to the web.
| 6510 wrote:
| I was quite shocked when I discovered that some people
| with deep pockets think of ads as product information.
| Their behavior is entirely the opposite of ours. They
| click on all of them and buy stuff just to be sure they
| are not missing out. I on the other hand click 1 banner
| per year and I click search ads if I'm searching for that
| specific product. If I block ads on all pages except
| search (where I use them) google would benefit greatly.
| My clicks per impression would go up. Bids would follow.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I'm not sure I believe that. People with deep pockets
| (unless they got that way via inheritance, winning the
| lottery, etc) typically got that way by being smart about
| money, not FOMO.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Note that Apple does have an actual search engine, the 'Siri
| suggested sites' section of iOS results and sometimes within
| safari itself.
| MBCook wrote:
| Isn't that just powered by whatever your default search
| engine is?
| judge2020 wrote:
| Nope, it's Apple's search engine. @lgats here on HN made
| a frontend for it[0]
|
| 0: https://luke.lol/search/ (hn comment
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29796924)
| MBCook wrote:
| Oh, neat. Thanks.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| > "Google pays Apple to be the default search provider"
|
| If that is the case they might not act anti-competetive but,
| rumours are [0] Apple received up to $20Bn _per year_ in this
| deal. It is hard to believe that this payment is just for being
| the default search engine. I strongly suspect that Apple also
| agrees to not build their own search engine as long as this
| deal is on - and if that is the case, there will be a strong
| foundation for an anti-competetive lawsuit.
| zuminator wrote:
| I think it's very possible that the payment is just for being
| the default search engine. Because one alternative is that
| Apple picks another company to be the default search engine.
| And suddenly Google has lost the most affluent group of
| consumers and has gained a major competitor. They would pay
| almost any amount to prevent that from happening.
|
| I don't think Apple would want to make itself the default.
| That would just invite all kinds of regulatory scrutiny, and
| would conflict with their pro privacy image. Why bother when
| they can squeeze Google and get paid billions with no work?
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| > I don't think Apple would want to make itself the
| default. That would just invite all kinds of regulatory
| scrutiny, and would conflict with their pro privacy image.
|
| They did it for other markets where they do compete - maps
| most notably.
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| Maps was different, I believe. Google wanted substantial
| concessions from Apple for them to continue using Google
| Maps (and to build out new features like turn-by-turn
| navigation), Apple balked, and Apple Maps was born.
| jaywalk wrote:
| > I don't think Apple would want to make itself the
| default. That would just invite all kinds of regulatory
| scrutiny
|
| Doesn't seem to have stopped Google with Android.
|
| > would conflict with their pro privacy image.
|
| How so? I'd argue that it would enhance it, because they
| could advertise that the default AppleSearch protects your
| privacy better than Google.
| judge2020 wrote:
| To add, I can see them arguing in court "Hey, if someone
| offers us say $21 billion, we'll start an auction between
| them and Google to see who offers us more. Obviously being
| the default search on iOS is worth billions."
| Someone wrote:
| https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/how-does-google-make-
| money-a...:
|
| _"Search is Google's most lucrative unit. In 2020, the
| company generated $104 billion in "search and other"
| revenues"_
|
| iOS users reportedly are bringing in above average ad
| revenues. So, I do not rule out they're worth $30 billion of
| that. If so, "up to $20 billion" could be a reasonable deal
| for Google. It still brings in loads of memory and deprives
| the competition (e.g. Microsoft) from those valuable ad
| targets.
|
| If that really is $20 billion, it also seems Google is
| willing to give Apple a cut of over (or at least about) 30%
| of the revenues they make on iOS, though. Would that make an
| argument for Apple in their disputes over their 30% cut on
| app revenues?
| ksec wrote:
| Where is that [0] reference?
|
| Because it is not $20B, but $10 / $12B. The range was partly
| confirmed during a trial where Google mentioned their
| percentage of profits paying to Apple as being default search
| engine.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| It's proportional to Google ad revenue, which has grown a
| lot since 2020
| ksec wrote:
| If I remember correctly the notion of Google Sharing Ad
| revenue with Apple came from Oracle in a trial and was
| never proven. Not to mention the number dont add up from
| 2014 - 2019. We will see how this play out once we have
| Google's number from quarterly report.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| Sorry, my bad I forgot to add the [0] reference:
| https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/27/google-could-pay-
| apple-...
|
| (repeating that this is an analyst estimate/rumour so take
| it with a grain of salt).
| ksec wrote:
| Thanks to analyst and Macrumors continue to pump out and
| report BS the internet has never educated people on any
| issues. Although I dont doubt this could be the usual
| Apple PR play when they intend to negotiate a new deal
| with Google. As they have done so in the past 5-10 years
| with Qualcomm, Broadcom, Google, Intel etc.
|
| To add some useful information to HN readers, Google has
| been paying roughly $10 per user to Apple for the past 8
| years. So the growth of Google Default Search Engine
| placement has been growing steadily with Apple's active
| user. This exclude regions which does not use Google as
| Default Search Engine.
|
| Unless there are dramatic changes in Google traffic
| accusation cost in their Quarterly report or going to
| make a change in 2022 ( Which I am not aware of ), that
| rumour is completely baseless.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| Well the $12-10Bn are _confirmed_ due to court documents,
| so assuming it grew in 2022 is not that wrong. What are a
| couple of billions here and there anyway :)
| londons_explore wrote:
| > $20B. It is hard to believe that this payment is just for
| being the default search engine.
|
| Well ask yourself what the value of this placement is? Google
| earns about $200 per user, mostly in ad revenue. If Google
| search wasn't default, they'd probably lose half the users.
|
| There are 1 billion iPhone users. At $200 each, Google stands
| to loose $200b. So a price tag of $20b to keep that...
| sfe22 wrote:
| Are you sure that 200 usd is worldwide? Seems like US only
| londons_explore wrote:
| The number is higher in the US and lower in the rest of
| the world. But iPhones are more heavily skewed to US
| users. I picked $200 as a good ballpark.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| True, and iPhones are also more common in wealthier
| people. Worked on a Project once where our target
| audience was medical doctors in Germany, and we had >50%
| iOS users on based our user-agent metrics.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Curious how you accurately got that figure knowing how
| draconic Germans are on protecting their privacy, I
| highly doubt they're cool with knowing that as doctors
| they're being tracked for some app targeting.
|
| But yeah, anecdotally, just from visiting their
| practices, I also noticed most doctors in Austria tend to
| be in the Apple ecosystem for private use, but their
| practices and the clinics tend to be Windows.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Collecting the user agent string is one of the most basic
| forms of web analytics. It doesn't necessarily have
| anything to do with "targeting" or violating privacy in
| any way, so it's strange that you brought it up in such a
| way.
| pdpi wrote:
| At 10 cents per ad print, that's only 2000 impressions,
| around 6 per day. Certainly sounds in the higher side of
| feasible. If the deal is for $20B, break even is a tenth
| that though, so there's a lot of margin for error while
| still claiming enormous financial benefits.
| JimDabell wrote:
| > It is hard to believe that this payment is just for being
| the default search engine. I strongly suspect that Apple also
| agrees to not build their own search engine as long as this
| deal is on
|
| In practical terms, if Apple launched a search engine that
| wasn't the default, would it see much uptake? It seems to me
| that Google don't _need_ an agreement for that.
| threeseed wrote:
| Apple has a search engine. It powers Safari Suggestions,
| Siri etc and it is enabled by default.
|
| I imagine close to ~95% of all iOS/OSX searches would
| likely be hitting those services if you look at the way the
| UI is implemented.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| No, but building a search engine doesn't happen overnight.
| They could launch it, and after 2-3 years of user feedback
| and testing, make the default configuration switch and
| cancelling the contract with Google.
| pdpi wrote:
| This is Apple we're talking about. That search engine would
| be a skunkworks project for several years and rapidly
| become the default soon after release.
|
| Presumably, what Google gets out of this is the assurance
| that no such skunkworks project exists.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| I'm assuming the agreement would not cover skunkworks
| projects as this would be clearly deemed anti-competitive
| (collusion) if that deal ever saw the light of day. Even
| a deal of not launching a product might be deemed as
| such. But I assume you can't really launch a search
| engine without a couple of years of user feedback, i.e.
| tracking what links get clicked and which not, to
| influence the ranking. And that would require an official
| launch from Apple, which would probably result in Google
| to terminate the agreement immediately on launch (even if
| it is not made the default search engine). So even
| without written/verbal agreement in that field, Apple
| knows that the minute they publicly launch a search
| engine, the deal is off. I think such a deal would fall
| into the tacit collusion category [0].
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion
| treis wrote:
| The FAANGs did obviously illegal collision on hiring
| before. Don't see why they wouldn't do so on other stuff.
| Probably have learned their lesson to not E-mail about it
| too.
| Lio wrote:
| #5 is the key point to my mind.
|
| For example, you can't just add new search engines to iOS
| Safari with just a URL.
|
| There are a few alternatives to Google but there's no easy way
| for a new entrant to get in there.
|
| EDIT: Interesting. I'm picking up downvotes for this, is there
| some way to achieve this (other than jailbreaking) I've missed?
| vngzs wrote:
| Some non-default browsers (e.g., Snowhaze, Firefox) support
| adding new search engines. However, if you highlight and
| "look up" a word on-page, the search link will always take
| you to the OS-default search engine.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| > EDIT: Interesting. I'm picking up downvotes for this, is
| there some way to achieve this (other than jailbreaking) I've
| missed?
|
| Downvote patterns on HN are the most lunatic of any I've
| seen, including on much lower-quality fora. I wouldn't try to
| fit a model to it.
| sixothree wrote:
| I've often assumed HN is brigaded by some of the larger
| corporations. Whenever there is a negative article about
| google, the comment sections seem to fill with glowing
| reviews and whataboutsisms. During the Roku Google battle,
| the comment sections were chock full of the same critique
| of rokue over and over again. It seemed fairly obvious
| there.
|
| I just assume that's what's going on here.
| mucholove wrote:
| Fantastic and subtle ways to generic-ize API and competition.
| rekoil wrote:
| I can't believe I've never considered this. They really
| should have a "custom" option in there as well.
|
| Is it possible to do using .mobileconfig profiles maybe?
|
| (Off topic: Is there a specification somewhere on what's
| possible using .mobileconfig profiles?)
| rozab wrote:
| https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/OpenSearch
| arihant wrote:
| It's possible to do via extensions now. Hyperweb is an
| extension that allows for adding atmos search engines.
| dont__panic wrote:
| I've been using hyperweb for a couple of months now.
| Absolutely outstanding app -- it has completely
| transformed my mobile web experience. Custom ad blocking
| filters, automatically opening reddit links in Narwhal,
| custom css so I can browse HN with a dark theme... I kind
| of look at it as a single app that turns Safari into a
| slightly shittier Firefox. And since Apple has neutered
| browsers on iOS, this is absolutely as good as it gets.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| "Hyperweb..."
|
| Wow nice! Now if there was a containers extension I could
| switch to Safari and away from Firefox.
| Kye wrote:
| Tab groups _might_ do this since one of them is private
| browsing. If groups aren 't isolated, implying they are
| by putting private browsing in there would be a huge UX
| fail.
| jolux wrote:
| I believe private browsing tabs in Safari have been
| isolated to some extent for a while already -- if you
| sign into something in one tab, you aren't signed in in
| the other tab, suggesting separate cookies.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| I did a search for it, and apparently the only way to add
| other search engines are through extensions. I haven't tested
| it though.
| the-dude wrote:
| I am test driving Kagi and was very suprised to learn that
| on Firefox I appear to need a plugin/extension to add it as
| a default search engine.
|
| Blew my mind. Maybe I am missing something.
| unpixer wrote:
| That's not the case for me. Firefox 95.0.2 for Linux,
| using Kagi as my default, and I have neither a Kagi
| plugin nor an extension installed.
| the-dude wrote:
| Please tell me how ( I don't want the extension ).
|
| I go to preferences -> search. Then to 'Default search
| engine', which gives me a combo which gives me
| Google/Bing/eBay/Wikipedia. But I can not add anything to
| the combo.
|
| Further down, there is 'One-Click Search Engines' which
| contain the same options. No button to add one. Below is
| a 'Find more search engines' link which leads me to the
| plugins page.
| progman32 wrote:
| Not op, but if you go to kagi.com and look in the search
| bar (edit: Firefox's own built in search bar) you'll see
| a little green plus over the magnifying glass. Click it
| and you'll see an option to add it to the search engine
| list.
| the-dude wrote:
| Thank you!
| Daffodils wrote:
| Just to add to this, in firefox, you can use the
| extension "Add custom search engine"[1] and you can add
| any search engine to your firefox search engine list, and
| to the address bar. Another benefit of using this, you
| can access your saved preferences while searching from
| the address bar. DDG, Startpage, Kagi all give you a
| bookmarklet URL which you can add through this extension.
|
| [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-
| custom-se...
| quitit wrote:
| I'm guessing the issue is because there isn't a lot of merit
| in saying Apple and Google are totally stitched up when the
| options change by region and for the plaintiff there are at
| least 4 additional options other than Google.
|
| EG Ecosia is a recent entry, so it does seem that Apple does
| look into this and introduce new options that can serve their
| audience size with sufficient quality results. Getting
| included seems more about making a unique and useful product.
|
| Other than downloading another web browser which features
| more fine tuning options for web browsing, one can also
| download safari extensions that increase the search
| capability in both mobile/desktop safari. One such extension
| is called xSearch, which presents the familiar idea of using
| shortcut terms to direct search queries to any number of
| custom configurable search providers. The share sheet
| extension also extends this into other apps, and similarly
| because it uses the standard URL scheme, it can push queries
| into entirely different apps other than Safari for the search
| to take place. (eg search this text in the Twitter app.)
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Do you know any plugins or apps that let you search
| multiple engines at once and then lets you flip between
| results easily?
| Bombthecat wrote:
| Most other search engines use Google under the hut anyway..
| I'm wondering sind quite a whole, when Google will block
| them..
| exikyut wrote:
| (s/hut/hood/; s/sind/since/; s/whole/while/; - no offense
| intended, just looking to save 10 seconds of
| headscratching)
| judge2020 wrote:
| Only Startpage uses Google, to my knowledge, as there
| isn't an API you can enable to start getting Google's
| search results (without entering into talks with their
| sales / exec team). Bing does, though, and that's why
| Brave and DuckDuckGo use Bing under the hood a lot.
| jpadkins wrote:
| https://programmablesearchengine.google.com/about/ That
| product includes an option to search the web. For
| example, kiddle.co uses it to provide some of their web
| search results.
|
| Also, many other search engines uses Google's search API.
| But as you said, that requires direct relationship with
| Google sales.
| [deleted]
| tut-urut-utut wrote:
| I don't know why you get downvotes, this is true, at least
| for iOS. There's no way a user can add a new search engine,
| they can only choose one of the five choices.
| Hasu wrote:
| I just checked on Chrome on my Android device, and my
| options are:
|
| - Google (default, duh)
|
| - Yahoo
|
| - Bing
|
| - DuckDuckGo
|
| - Ecosia
|
| There is no obvious option to add another search engine.
| Just as an additional data point here.
| hetspookjee wrote:
| I'm so happy that Apple keeps me safe of dangerous search
| engines. /s
|
| I don't get this logic, honestly. What is the point of not
| being able to add any and all search engines to Apple?
| tiredofU2 wrote:
| cornel_io wrote:
| Apple hates any sort of technical customization in their
| mass-market products. They always have, and keep
| stripping them down to the most dumbed-down settings
| screens they can figure out while still allowing the bare
| necessities (which they apparently don't consider adding
| an alternative search engine to be).
|
| I don't like this approach, but it _is_ very consistent
| in their products, features tend to disappear over time
| and new ones only pop up if they 're very sexy and can be
| announced on-stage.
| konschubert wrote:
| Not to take away from your overall correct point, but...
| Let me introduce you to focus modes....
| artifact_44 wrote:
| One incentive for them doing this is that they have to
| provide support and if they let everyone use random
| search engines that deliver malware etc. They end up
| having to pay their "geniuses" more to un-crud peoples
| infested machines.
| hetspookjee wrote:
| I don't agree entirely. I'm able to control my privacy
| settings to an, for an Android user's standpoint, absurd
| level of detail. In addition I can fiddle with so many
| settings hidden and tucked away quite nicely on my
| iPhone. In addition, I'm only able to shut down
| JavaScript in Safari - and more, while not being able to
| do so in Firefox Focus. Options like that are counter-
| intuitive if you ask me. This argument is very convenient
| for any options that are against them. But if they're so
| consistent, than I wouldn't be able to control my privacy
| settings to such a degree, because it'll confuse users
| and can be just as annoying if set incorrectly.
| nikanj wrote:
| Every customization option means more complaints from
| some customer who managed to mess up that setting.
|
| "My search no longer works!" "Sir you have the search
| registry key set to 'turkey bake time'"
|
| "Well that's what I was searching for, and then the
| search stopped working completely. iPhones are the worst,
| I'm gonna tell all my friends"
| malwrar wrote:
| I'm sure Apple's world-renowned UX team can innovate a
| way to allow new search engines to be added w/o bricking
| your phone. I'd rather have that than lack if real,
| capital-laden competition in search.
| newsbinator wrote:
| I'm not sure they can: adding "one more feature" here and
| there quickly overrides anything a UX team can do to
| prevent 10s of thousands of confused complaints and
| returned phones.
|
| For example, my family member is a smart woman and I used
| to teach professionally. I haven't yet found a way to
| teach her what a web browser is and isn't.
|
| This is relevant to the things she wants to get done
| (e.g. shortcuts don't run in webview, gmail's native app
| doesn't support recipient groups but the web app does,
| etc)
|
| After warmup, examples, Socratic questioning, task
| assignments, checking understanding and testing (with
| detailed feedback), it seems she approximately learns
| what a web browser is and when she is and isn't in one,
| but then she doesn't really understand it a couple days
| later.
|
| She's otherwise as clever and capable as everybody else
| or rather more clever.
|
| At Apple's scale, every added feature to a web browser
| adds thousands of clever people quitting in confusion.
|
| That's why they hide things like search engine selection
| under menus an average user will never see, even if
| accidentally pressing 37 not-quite-randomly wrong things
| during a session.
|
| We here have the curse of expertise.
|
| The best Apple UX can do for the majority of the
| population is say no to features more often than yes, and
| to hide deep under the hood any setting that persists
| after the device is restarted and could lead to confused
| angry consumers that can't figure out what to do and
| don't have nearby family members to solve it before they
| quit.
| beefield wrote:
| Well, well. I just realized. I think that apple sets by
| default that IOS Safari can't use location services
| without going into settings. Which for a really
| significant chunk (majority?) of iphone users mean that
| any web app using location services is "broken"[1]. Which
| of course means that for those folks web apps are not a
| thing, but they go and buy an app in the app store. Well
| played. (#ssholes.)
|
| [1] Due to circumstances, I have needed to demo a certain
| location web app to quite a few people. I am not
| exaggerating.
| voltagedivider wrote:
| You're joking but I've often wondered if, deep down,
| Apple users find comfort in being treated like children
| by a paternalistic company. Has anyone studied if they're
| more likely to have issues with their parents than the
| rest of us?
| rekoil wrote:
| UI clutter, but I completely agree with you, in this
| instance it is 100% warranted.
| kube-system wrote:
| > I'm so happy that Apple keeps me safe of dangerous
| search engines. /s
|
| You joke, but I still have PTSD from the IE7 days.
| https://www.linux-
| noob.com/forums/uploads/post-12-1098049148...
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| In fairness you don't have to use Safari.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| You do on iOS, even if you use "Firefox".
| pwinnski wrote:
| No, you don't have to use Safari, which is limited to
| eight search engines. You can use Firefox, which allows
| more search engines. Yes, its renderer is the same, but
| it is different software, and this isn't a thread about
| the renderer.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| I (and I imagine a lot of sysadmin/MSP types) don't care
| about grouping tabs as much as to be able to log into the
| same site with multiple login IDs at the same time.
| intrasight wrote:
| I guess I work differently as I always nav to the home page
| of the site where I wish to do a search. So I "add a search
| engine" by adding a bookmark.
| pwinnski wrote:
| I have eight options available to me in mobile safari other
| than using bookmarks to use any search engine that exists.
|
| It is easy to conceive of reasons why a company would not
| want to enable native UI elements to rely on external
| services without having vetted those services or established
| a relationship with them for recourse in the event of issues.
| It is harder--though not impossible--to conceive of ways to
| avoid these issues.
|
| If I add an arbitrary default search engine via URL, and that
| search engine is later compromised or serves up garbage or
| malware, that's a problem for Apple, even though we'd all
| like to believe we're above-average users who wouldn't blame
| Apple for our own choices.
| ipaddr wrote:
| That doesn't make sense. Why would someone who knows how to
| find a different search engine, change the setting be part
| of the group of people who are new or otherwise clueless?
|
| Apple should provide the option.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| They'd be doing it because Shmaleksandr O'Kogan built a
| Google wrapper with a cool This Is Your Digital Life
| feature. After Cambridge Analytica, it's pretty hard to
| believe that user opt-in is an effective defense against
| data privacy scandals.
| [deleted]
| onion2k wrote:
| _The alternative option seems to be that Apple is for some
| reason required to use their position to enter the search
| market._
|
| Why is that the alternative? No one is saying Apple have to
| provide their own search engine; people are suggesting Mac
| products should give the user a clear choice.
|
| A much more obvious alternative is that Apple (or any OS
| provider for that matter) shouldn't be able to sell the default
| search engine option on their products to the highest bidder
| without making it easy to change. When Microsoft lost their IE
| law suit they added a simple set of options to Windows as part
| of setup to pick a browser. Apple could do the same for search
| engines.
|
| You could read the current situation as Apple using their
| position as the only provider of Mac OS software to make
| $20bn/year by refusing to give users a choice of search
| provider. It doesn't really matter that the search is a
| separate company - the issue is lack of choice that distorts
| the market in favor of two companies (Apple and Google) rather
| than consumers. That's bait for anti-trust lawyers.
| bni wrote:
| It is easy to change, it a dropdown in Safari settings, very
| easy to find.
|
| I agree though that Google pays Apple billions to be the
| default stinks. Even though in this case Apple greed aligns
| perfectly with user expectation.
| amelius wrote:
| It still makes me wonder: if Apple had their own search
| engine, would they be allowed to not have the option to
| change it?
| threeseed wrote:
| a) Apple has had their own search engine for years now.
| It powers Safari Suggestions.
|
| b) They don't have an option to change it.
|
| c) If they were to extend its use for all searches then I
| can't imagine there would be an issue. And if there was
| it would likely be across the entire mobile search
| industry.
| WanderPanda wrote:
| addition to a): The quality of its results is laughably
| bad
| onion2k wrote:
| 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.
| amelius wrote:
| Ok, wouldn't there be the same problem with app stores
| then?
| ahtihn wrote:
| How is that different to what they're doing with
| browsers? Last time I checked, you can't ship your own
| browser/js engine on iOS
| onion2k wrote:
| It's exactly the same. I have no idea how they're able to
| get away with it.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Perhaps your understanding of antitrust law is flawed.
| onion2k wrote:
| I hope it is, because the alternative is that they're
| being allowed to get away with something that's against
| the law, bad for the free market, and anti-consumer.
| labcomputer wrote:
| Really? One of the few things keeping the creeping Google
| Chrome monopoly in check is bad for the consumer and bad
| for the market?
|
| I, for one, am happy that Google isn't able to
| unilaterally dictate the next generation of web
| standards.
| ahtihn wrote:
| So you're saying the only reason that Chrome isn't more
| dominant is that some consumers cannot use it because of
| Apple and somehow that's a good thing? If iOS users would
| switch to Chrome if given the chance, isn't that a sign
| that they are currently worse off?
| minhazm wrote:
| > If iOS users would switch to Chrome if given the chance
|
| They already have the option to switch to Chrome on iOS.
| It's not like most iOS users know that Chrome on iOS is
| just a re-skinned Safari. They would use Chrome if Safari
| was insufficient for their needs or Chrome had some
| compelling feature they wanted. I have Chrome installed
| on my phone but it's so I can use the password manager,
| but I still prefer to use Safari as my browser.
| bagacrap wrote:
| Perhaps the fact that Chrome's limited to being a
| reskinned safari is the reason it doesn't have a
| compelling feature they want.
| jolux wrote:
| No, iOS users can already use Chrome, they just can't use
| Blink. The difference is whether Google can leverage
| their developer base to drive people to Chrome without
| having to provide a superior product to the consumer.
| Today developers have to support WebKit to get iOS users,
| instead of just throwing Safari users a popup that says
| "fuck you, download Chrome" like they do on desktop. I
| think it's at least arguable that many would prefer to do
| that than continue to support WebKit.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Almost any time anyone brings up accusations of
| anticompetitive behavior against Apple for the iOS
| ecosystem, notice that what they're saying is "in order
| to make the smartphone market more competitive and give
| customers more choice, Apple should be forced to make
| their smartphone offerings _less distinguishable_ from
| Android, the only other smartphone ecosystem."
| stale2002 wrote:
| No, they should not force everyone's smartphones to be
| like a different smartphone.
|
| Instead they should allow users to do what they want with
| their own device.
|
| That way everyone gets what they want, with the device
| that they own.
| ipaddr wrote:
| If more like chrome means more openness and choices for
| the public than who cares if it is like chrome or not
| like chrome.
|
| If Apple decided there next phone would have no screen or
| phone it would automatically make it a better choice
| because it is so much more different from android? I
| don't buy that line of thinking.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > If more like chrome means more openness and choices for
| the public than who cares if it is like chrome or not
| like chrome.
|
| Because it will make iPhones worse for a huge number of
| iPhone users. You might say "I don't care if you're less
| satisfied with your iPhone because you now have 'more
| choice' according to my limited definition." But Apple
| presumably actually cares about how satisfied people are
| with their iPhones.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Probably because it's not bad for consumers, for one
| thing. They're also "getting away with" using their
| position in the OS market to influence their position
| in...every feature of their hardware and software.
| izacus wrote:
| 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.
| threeseed wrote:
| 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.
| onion2k wrote:
| Anti-trust law is not simple. In the case of MSFT and IE
| they were accused under the protects of the Sherman Anti-
| Trust Act[1] of using their monopoly position (Windows)
| to reduce consumer choice (bundling IE without letting
| users pick a different option). In the case of Apple and
| Google, it's more likely to fall under the Clayton
| Antitrust Act[2] as it's a matter of corporations
| collaborating to reduce consumer choice (but I am not a
| lawyer, and not even American, so I could be waaaay off
| the mark here.)
|
| [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sherman-
| antiturst-act.a...
|
| [2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/clayton-
| antitrust-act.a...
| [deleted]
| Nextgrid wrote:
| The list is hardcoded to a handful of options (all of which
| I suspect of paying Apple, except maybe DuckDuckGo) with no
| way to add your own.
| 14 wrote:
| It only allows, on my phone anyways, google bing yahoo and
| DuckDuckGo. I'm not sure if this changes with region but I
| don't see Yandex or Baidu or a few other less popular ones.
| So why doesn't apple just allow any engine? So yes it is
| easy to change for a few select engines. If you jailbreak
| you can add others.
| sigzero wrote:
| > people are suggesting Mac products should give the user a
| clear choice.
|
| People can suggest all they want. Apple doesn't have to take
| that suggestion. Apple doesn't have to give you the ability
| to add search engines period. They give 5 choices currently
| from what I have read. They can also take money for making
| one of those the default. None of that is illegal.
| ipaddr wrote:
| The lawsuit seeks to clarify that point.
| hugh-avherald wrote:
| Apple is not obliged to enter the search market. But Google
| can't engage in illegal anti-competitive conduct.
| sigzero wrote:
| Which they are not on iOS.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| > The alternative option seems to be that Apple is for some
| reason required to use their position to enter the search
| market.
|
| Well, another alternative option is that Apple is forbidden
| from charging for being included in the list of search
| providers (as default or otherwise), they can't be pay-to-play,
| they can pick whatever providers they want they just can't
| charge for it, so they have to make decisions based on
| something other than who pays them the most.
|
| Which, now that I think about it, doesn't seem like the worst
| thing in the world actually... but I really don't think US law
| requires it.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| that "effectuate the non-compete agreement" is doing some work,
| it would be one thing if Google said to Apple, we want your
| guarantee that you will not be entering the search engine
| market and in return we will give you this - then it is a non-
| compete agreement - but as it is it is a default search engine
| agreement.
|
| No idea what (3) regular secret meetings between the executives
| of both companies; means - but it sure sounds realllly bad and
| nefarious!
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "would be one thing if Google said to Apple, we want your
| guarantee that you will not be entering the search engine
| market"
|
| Which executive is going to be dumb enough to put a crime in
| writing?
|
| It's clear to anyone with half a brain that if Apple enters
| the search market, the deal is off.
| [deleted]
| postingawayonhn wrote:
| In a competitive market where they are not allowed to accept
| these sorts of payments from Google it would seem natural for
| them to enter the search market. They may choose not to and
| that's fine, users would be no worse off then they are now.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Most of the comments talk about the ease, or lack of it, of
| adding a different search engine to Safari. I'm sure Apple would
| _love_ for everyone to focus on that, and then they can make a
| big noise about settling the suit by allowing more choice.
|
| I think the complainants are really asking "why don't they do
| Apple Search, just as they now do Apple Maps, i.e. _their own_
| search? "
|
| How would this make Google unhappy and willing to pay billions to
| prevent it? They could buy DDG or Bing or some other product to
| get a head start, and then pour their limitless $$$ into
| improving it. It might not succeed any more than Apple Maps has,
| but then, a $3T competitor is not to be taken lightly.
| asjdflakjsdf wrote:
| Slighlty off topic but has anyone else noticed the following
| trend on HN recently?
|
| Post == Article Critical of Google
|
| Top Comment === Plays down the severity of said criticism
|
| The upvotes don't seem to have much correlation between the post
| title and the comments. I wonder is such behavior caused by
| certain UI features on this site/app, or are comments graded
| differently?
| Kstarek wrote:
| Its all the rage to be critical of Google right now, easy
| upvotes for the idiots who dont read articles or understand the
| real world.
|
| People who take the time to comment tend to exhibit (a little)
| more critical thinking skills
| acoard wrote:
| The top comment on HN for any given topic is usually
| contrarian. It's in our cultural DNA. Perhaps the effect is
| intensified for some topics like tech giants -- I haven't
| noticed -- but keep an eye out and you'll see it happening
| everywhere.
|
| I have a hazy memory of even seeing this effect on HN given a
| proper name at some point in the past.
|
| As to _why_ , I think it's largely cultural or found in
| personality traits that techies and hackers often have. Most us
| techies have a desire to "well, actually", even if we know it's
| rude and have learned to suppress or positively channel that
| urge. But at the end of the day, by proving something wrong,
| however pedantic, we get to prove we're smart. That's why the
| percentage of pedantry is probably higher on here and Wikipedia
| than on TikTok and Snapchat.
| bagacrap wrote:
| does this mean hners prefer expressing their opinion by
| picking apart strawman arguments? It's certainly one way to
| start a conversation. "I'm going to upvote this article
| because it gives me a chance to debunk the argument."
| latexr wrote:
| > I have a hazy memory of even seeing this effect on HN given
| a proper name at some point in the past.
|
| The contrarian dynamic: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all
| &page=0&prefix=false&qu...
| paulpauper wrote:
| interesting articles can still be wrong. people will upvote
| stuff that may be interesting even if parts are wrong
| mjevans wrote:
| Would Apple be a monopoly if they did enter the 'search'
| business? Google at least can leave Android free, and people that
| ship it able to customize as well as customers able to switch
| search providers. Apple would have a very vertically integrated
| stack, and would they allow anyone else making a phone equal
| access?
| teekert wrote:
| As long as I can choose DDG and that will be the end of Apple
| Search on my iDevice, I don't see the problem.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| DDG+Apple user here, in the past days there were several
| threads on poor/SEO-spammed search results on Google and DDG.
| Unfortunately DDG is not really better in avoiding SEO spam
| than Google, so another competitor (even if its Apple) might
| be beneficial to everyone. Especially since google does not
| really have broad competition. Another poster correctly
| commented on why Google's results have become so bad: "Google
| is not making money by presenting you with the best result,
| it is making money by keeping you searching".
| tmalsburg2 wrote:
| How can they be a monopoly with a 15% market share in smart
| phones (Q2 '21 sales) and similarly low market shares in other
| areas?
| wumpus wrote:
| Apple users are richer, so Apple users' share of search ad
| revenues is a lot bigger than Apple's apparent 15% market
| share.
| laumars wrote:
| I used to think this way too but recent cases against the
| iPhones App Store have shown that some courts are willing
| to look at the iPhone as one market.
|
| What that means is that Apple entering search doesn't by
| default make them a monopoly nor anti-competitive. But if
| they then change iPhones to only support "Apple Search"
| with no option to change that default, then Apple could be
| liable for claims including abuse of monopoly.
| mnd999 wrote:
| Android isn't free. There is a free kernel but so much of what
| is useful and expected by users is now wrapped up in play
| services.
| awestroke wrote:
| I've never paid to use play services. If you did, you were
| scammed
| danielheath wrote:
| Phone manufacturers incur costs to get it installed. Do you
| imagine they decide not to pass those on?
| bagacrap wrote:
| 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.
| teh64 wrote:
| 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/google-eu-
| andro...
| [deleted]
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| You do not understand how it is not free: It's sold to OEMs
| in exchange for control of their devices and mandatory
| placements. In countries who have working antitrust law,
| Google now charges OEMs for Play Services access per
| device, where they cannot legally force the OEM to default
| to Chrome and Google Search. And you, as the consumer, pay
| for it with literally all of your privacy.
| colordrops wrote:
| While not perfect, MicroG [1] + Aurora [2] on LineageOS [3]
| is good enough to get by without Google Play. I've got every
| app I need running on it, and haven't run into any major
| issues.
|
| [1] https://microg.org/
|
| [2] https://www.aurorastore.pro/
|
| [3] https://lineage.microg.org/
| cryptica wrote:
| They're all an oligopoly. Together, they monopolized government
| and reserve bank money printers.
|
| It's a scheme, people take loans to buy Apple shares, then
| future generations will take even bigger loans to buy Apple
| shares from the previous people for 10x the price, then repeat
| ad infinitum. They don't even need to do any productive work
| anymore. Just busy-work, like Bitcoin is doing using ASIC
| miners to burn electricity.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Apple is a monopoly in tech just like Louis Vuitton is a
| monopoly in luggage, so no. Okay, maybe for US it's Samsonite
| but for the rest of the world Apple is more like Louis Vuitton
| - a premium brand that is one of the leaders in design that
| everyone else follows. Just being popular in some circles
| doesn't change the fact that they hold a minority share in the
| market. Maybe people in Orange County might believe that Louis
| Vuitton is a monopoly but it's not.
|
| Apple do control the reach of search engines to their customers
| in a similar manner of LV might choose to allow Cartier sell
| bracelets in their shops instead designing and selling their
| own bracelets. The point is, people can always go to Chanel if
| that arrangement doesn't fit them.
|
| At worst, it could be a situation where the clients of a
| company are not happy with the recent products and they need to
| start buying from another shop.
|
| I don't see how regulators should intervene in this. If not
| happy, go buy Samsung or Google pixel.
| laumars wrote:
| Except there is already precedence regarding their App Store.
| So if Apple defaulted to their own search engine and didn't
| allow a way of changing that default then the courts might
| well find that anti-competitive too.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| You don't need to disallow changing the default search
| engine because the average user doesn't even know or bother
| how to change it. That is the reason Google pays everyone
| (Apple, Mozilla, Android OEMs through GService allowance) a
| buttload of money to be the default.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| While that is true, offering the option to change the
| default _might_ still be enough to avoid any
| anticompetitive claims (which I think was the point the
| GP was making).
|
| That said, Microsoft were still forced to present a
| randomized list of browser options to the user upon first
| install so there is also precedence of changeable
| defaults not being enough to satisfy complaints of
| anticompetitive business.
|
| This is all hypothetical though because it's still far
| from clear that Apple have ever wanted to enter the
| search market, let alone got paid not to, let alone what
| might happen to the iPhone _if_ they did.
| pronlover723 wrote:
| They don't hold a minority share. Monopolies are not decided
| by the world, they're decided by countries for that country's
| market
|
| Plenty of sites claim they have a majority in the USA
|
| https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-
| sta...
|
| UK
|
| https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-
| kin...
|
| Japan
|
| https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/japan
|
| Each of those countries could easily bring suit. They
| wouldn't care at all that in some other country Apple is not
| the largest player.
|
| Louis Vuitton is a bad example as their market share is tiny.
| AFAIK there is no clothing brand with a market percent as
| large as Apple's mobile market percent. Maybe Luxotica in
| eyewear but some articles claim their market is only around
| 20%
| mrtksn wrote:
| That's hardly a monopoly, there's hardly any absence of
| competition. Even if it was a monopoly it would't be
| illegal by default but it's not a monopoly anyway. It's
| more like %50 to %70 of the people in US/JP/UK have chosen
| to purchase the products of that company but they could
| have chosen any other brand that is available to them. In
| fact, people in countries of similar affluence have chosen
| the other way around with France %63, Netherlands %54,
| Germany %58, Spain %78 Android and there's nothing stopping
| the UK/US/JP do the exactly the same as the alternatives
| are available and competative.
|
| It looks like Apple managed to design devices that
| Americans like more than the ones the other brands designed
| and there's nothing wrong about it.
|
| Can Apple abuse it's position position in the market, even
| the smallest company can do that but the key is that if
| that happens people do have the option to do purchases from
| somewhere else.
| paulluuk wrote:
| So do you feel that anything other than 100% market share
| counts as a monopoly? Where would you draw the line?
| mrtksn wrote:
| > So do you feel that anything other than 100% market
| share counts as a monopoly?
|
| No I did not say that. I say, there's a healthy
| competition and there's no monopoly as people have viable
| alternatives and in many other countries people choose
| these alternatives and people where Apple is dominant do
| have the same alternatives to choose from.
|
| There's no such thing as "right of minimum market share"
| that Apple violates by selling too many devices.
|
| People do have the options and if they still buy Apple
| that's not monopoly, that's success.
| fsflover wrote:
| But do you honestly believe that a _duopoly_ in which the
| two companies tightly collaborate provides a reasonable
| choice to the consumers?
| mrtksn wrote:
| No, I'm very annoyed by Google as their product quality
| keeps declining year after year and I do not have a real
| choice.
|
| In fact, I have no practical ability to change my e-mail
| address as I'm using it since 1st of April 2004 and
| Google does not offer me to keep the address if I want to
| switch to another provider.
|
| My arguments are in defence of Apple, not Google. I can
| move away from Apple at any time but I can't do the same
| with Google.
| fsflover wrote:
| > I can move away from Apple at any time
|
| For you it might be true but not for many Apple users who
| are deep into the Apple ecosystem.
| mrtksn wrote:
| How so? What Apple services are impossible or impractical
| to switch away from?
|
| Inconvenient? Could be. Note a drop-in replacement? Sure,
| that's why there are different companies.
| fsflover wrote:
| iMessage, Apple Watch... iCloud?
| mrtksn wrote:
| iMessage: WhatsApp, Signal, SMS etc. No One uses iMessage
| outside of the US, alternatives are very good and
| available on all platforms. You don't lose access to your
| social circle by switching away from iMessage.
|
| Apple Watch: Just another device that has numerous
| alternatives. Many excel in some way, not crappy
| alternatives.
|
| iCould: There are numerous alternatives, free and paid
| and work very well.
|
| So, if you like to get rid of Apple, you simply tell the
| people you care that they can reach you from WhatsApp or
| your favourite alternative. Buy the new device, follow
| the transfer data and setting instructions, erase your
| iPhone&watch, give them away or sell them and you are
| done.
| fsflover wrote:
| Same things can be said about your email address at
| Google. I moved to an alternative within a year,
| manually, by changing all services one after another. It
| was hard but worth it.
| zepto wrote:
| True - I did the same thing.
|
| But the you claim that people can's move away from Apple
| is false. Why do you keep advancing it?
| fsflover wrote:
| Nothing is impossible. However everyone agrees that Apple
| created a walled garden which is hard to escape. Try to
| use their watches without an iPhone.
| zepto wrote:
| > However everyone agrees that Apple created a walled
| garden which is hard to escape.
|
| An obviously false statement.
|
| > Try to use their watches without an iPhone.
|
| Their watches are an iPhone accessory advertised as
| requiring an iPhone in order to work.
|
| Anyone who buys one thinking otherwise has been
| misinformed by someone other than Apple, and can return
| it to the store for a full refund. Then they can buy one
| of many Android wear or other smartwatches instead.
| fsflover wrote:
| >> However everyone agrees that Apple created a walled
| garden which is hard to escape.
|
| >An obviously false statement.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.#Acc
| usa...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform#Aspects
|
| > Their watches are an iPhone accessory advertised as
| requiring an iPhone in order to work.
|
| Not in their video ads. Also, at
| https://www.apple.com/watch/ it's buried at the end of
| the tiny font.
| zepto wrote:
| Just because something is on Wikipedia doesn't mean
| 'everyone agrees with it. You can't seriously believe
| this.
|
| Are you really trying to claim people are buying Apple
| watches they can't use because they don't have an iPhone?
|
| That doesn't seem grounded in reality.
| fsflover wrote:
| Wikipedia is not a source. It's a list of reliable
| sources. Feel free to read the carefully provided links.
| zepto wrote:
| Not one of those sources represents something 'everyone
| agrees' with. You know this.
| fsflover wrote:
| From my second link: "Apple iOS and other mobile devices,
| which are restricted to running pre-approved applications
| from a digital distribution service." If you find _The
| Guardian_ and _Time_ references unsatisfactory, consider
| this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21587191.
|
| I really don't understand why you are so much defending
| Apple.
| zepto wrote:
| I'm not defending Apple. I'm rebutting the ridiculous
| idea that what is printed in the Guardian is what
| 'everybody agrees'.
| fsflover wrote:
| 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.
| bjohnson225 wrote:
| In the UK a market share of 40% is enough for the
| competition authorities to investigate a company for
| monopolistic practices. It's less about market share and
| more about if the company is using its position in one
| market to create an unfair advantage in another. iOS and
| Android are both in a position with market power in many
| countries.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I agree. Being monopoly isn't even illegal anyway.
| dathinab wrote:
| Apple is a OS monopoly on the Apple hardware platform which
| affects millions of people with marked effects which can make
| switching away from it costy and hard.
|
| It abuses this Monopoly position to force through other
| products, like it's app store, and give major advantage to
| it's services over the competition. Sometimes outright
| debiting l denying it's competition marked entry.
|
| Even if we only look at a while phone OS marked it's a dis
| dual pool with Google (all attendings a minor enough to not
| matter). And both abuse this close to Monopol position,
| though one more then the other.
| politelemon wrote:
| 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 forced to
| use Safari under the hood. It's a repeat of the MS-IE
| escapades of a few decades ago but everyone's OK with it.
| lwkl wrote:
| > 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 want before they are actually standardizes and
| because they have the biggest market share Apple and
| Firefox just have to follow their decision.
|
| Ideally Apple would allow third party browsers on iOS,
| but I think it's beneficial for users that they don't. I
| do believe that without it Chrome would have a much
| bigger market share and developers wouldn't be forced to
| support browsers other than Chrome and Google would have
| even more power over web standards than today. I guess
| Chromium being open source would make it a bit better.
| dathinab wrote:
| For developers Safari is like IE in the past.
|
| - Missing features, supper buggy to a absurd point where
| you need to wonder if Apple isn't intentionally crippling
| it. But hey, because some many people in management use
| it companies tend to work around all this bugs spending
| millions on it.
|
| For users Chrome is like IE in the past.
|
| - Having all kind of new features no one else has and
| people developing sites which only work for it correctly.
|
| Still that has little to with the original comment.
|
| I mean how is Apple outright banning competition (for
| example like Steam) from a marked coverying hundreds of
| million of people not a massive abuse of power which
| needs to be stopped for all the same reasons a monopoly
| is bad.
|
| To just name one point (((there are other like absurd
| cuts for something which is just a payment service (in-
| app payments after paying for an app), often
| abusive/absurd behaviour on publishing apps, stiffing
| innovation (if not made/controlled by them),
| intentionally hindering repeatability and repair-ability
| regulation, including creation of an repair program where
| they pretend to help but actually just make sure you
| can't provide a proper repair service under it (let's see
| what will happen with the more recently announced
| program), intentionally vendor lock-in for developer all
| through their eco-system, surprisingly bad software
| quality for many parts facing developers at least parts
| which are not iOs, a whole bunch of subtle things which
| forces people to write apps instead of e.g. just
| providing a website or similar service, etc. etc. etc.)))
| Oh did I forgot to mention how they use the marked power
| to push down the prices of suppliers that they basically
| only can make profit by employing bs. like inhuman
| working conditions or resources mined with child labor
| and similar and then pretending it's not their problem
| because they also forced the supplier to sign a contract
| that they don't do that.
|
| Just because it's "per definition" not a monopoly doesn't
| mean it hasn't the same bad effects and other equally
| bad, not monopoly specific effect.
|
| Also tbh. the problem with Safari isn't that it's slow in
| adapting standards Google forces through. The problem is
| that it's complete unreasonable buggy including on many
| old features with absurd bugs sometimes, and that they
| also lack behind on features which widely agreed to not
| "have been forcefully pushed through by google", like
| WASM. Often they support this things on paper but so
| buggy that it's unusable/very expensive to support them.
| And guess what most of this problems are focused on more
| "web appish" features instead of classical "web siteish"
| features, but that is surely a coincidence that this
| greatly benefits them by forcing people into the app
| store.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Apple has 60% of the mobile market in the US[1], and more
| than double the revenue from their dominant stake in the
| mobile app distribution market than Google[2], both off which
| make up over 99% of that market.
|
| Also, our layman definitions of monopoly do not matter when
| it comes to antitrust laws[3]:
|
| > _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.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-
| us-...
|
| [2] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/
|
| [3] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-
| guidance/guide-a...
| mrtksn wrote:
| As we are not in a court in here, only the laymen opinion
| is relevant as it is impossible to make a strict legal
| discussion without having a strict legal process.
|
| I would say, Apple is very popular in the US but I don't
| see how it can be a monopoly when you can just order
| another device from Amazon and that device being just good
| or maybe better. In many other rich countries, people are
| choosing Samsung, Americans can do that too if they want.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| ok the discussion is about if Apple is a monopoly by the
| legal definition, if we followed your prescription it
| would mean we would be unable to have this discussion.
|
| One of the most important discussions in tech has to do
| with what companies are monopolies, in essence you are
| saying Hacker News cannot have this important discussion!
|
| I can't really comment more on this idea as I feel I
| would be compelled to violate HN guidelines.
| mrtksn wrote:
| We can have that discussion, fiction is a popular genre
| and I don't see why we can't have a lawsuit fiction. Just
| don't confuse it with reality.
|
| Anyway, I don't like to pretend that we are in a court.
| Law is simply a system that countries find useful to deal
| with issues and it is its own thing that not always just
| and can change over time and need specialisation for
| doing correctly.
|
| Just remember, Alan Turing was lawfully castrated back in
| the 50s. Let's not pretend that the lawful process is
| analogous to justice, it's simply a rules system where
| actors are executing the rules based on the available
| information and cannot be performed when rules, actors or
| information is missing.
|
| Even if we were judges, how are we supposed to execute
| the legal process without collecting the necessary data,
| have the claims and defences? Therefore, the legal
| definition is irrelevant and it's actually wrecking the
| discussion by pushing it to a position where we don't
| have the tools to work on.
| josefx wrote:
| > As we are not in a court in here, only the laymen
| opinion is relevant as it is impossible to make a strict
| legal discussion without having a strict legal process.
|
| I would love to make this argument the next time vaccines
| are mentioned. Remember vaccines cause autism and turn
| the frogs gay. Any attempt to correct this using medical
| jargon or methods is literally out of scope for the
| average hacker news commenter and should be avoided.
| mrtksn wrote:
| For legal process we need to have Apple, Google and
| others provide us with their documents and arguments -
| which is not happening. We can't even have well educated
| guess as these things need cooperating parties or
| enforcement power to obtain.
|
| On the other hand, when discussing vaccines and viruses
| there are numerous research in the open that we can use
| to build on. Any use of correct medical jargon or methods
| is fine as it is not a protected information. Of course
| you can misunderstand it but you can also understand it
| properly since the research and data is in the open.
|
| Discussing what's just based on information and
| observations we have is like discussing vaccines and
| viruses based on the research and observations we have
| access to.
|
| Discussing the legal process is like discussing the FDA
| application of a drug. It can happen only if you are part
| of the process or after it comes to a conclusion and
| information used in the ruling is made public.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| That's just it; I don't think you can speak of a monopoly
| as long as you have a reasonable choice. Which, in the
| US, you DON'T have for a lot of things like internet.
| nikitaga wrote:
| Apple might have a minority of units sold, but they have a
| very convincing majority of revenues and profits in several
| markets, e.g. https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-
| handset-market-o...
|
| _" Apple has been the biggest profit and revenue generator
| in the handset business. In Q2 2021, it captured 75% of the
| overall handset market operating profit and 40% of the
| revenue despite contributing a relatively moderate 13% to
| global handset shipments."_
|
| And those are _global_ numbers. Now what do you think their
| US numbers look like, or their app store numbers? They hold
| _plenty_ of monopolistic power to enable abuse, and that 's
| enough to be regulated if the government was so inclined.
|
| And, this lawsuit isn't just about Apple, it's about Google
| too. Certainly you don't have any doubts about _their_
| monopoly status.
|
| > I don't see how regulators should intervene in this.
|
| TFA proposes some remedies in very broad strokes. Looks good
| to me. Unregulated monopolies and oligopolies extract
| excessive profits from consumers and limit choice through
| anti-competitive practices. You might be fine with that. I'm
| not.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Making more money by selling less implies large margins and
| I don't think that having better margins than the
| competitors says anything about being a monopoly.
|
| Actually, it means that their customers are so happy with
| the Apple product that they are willing to pay a premium to
| have it. Apple's large margins are merely an opportunity
| that no one was able to fetch.
|
| You can verify that people are not paying Apple more
| because they don't have an option not to do so by by
| checking the shops for availability of other brands(they
| are available) and their viability(They are viable, in
| fact, many reviewers and techies say that
| Samsung/Google/LG/Whatever are much better than Apple).
| nikitaga wrote:
| > I don't think that having better margins than the
| competitors says anything about being a monopoly.
|
| > Apple's large margins are merely an opportunity that no
| one was able to fetch.
|
| In a functioning free market, competitors would have
| picked up the slack long ago (iPhone is 14 years old
| now), and cashed in on those high profit margins too.
|
| Now, you can choose to believe that literally every multi
| billion dollar tech company in the world is so stupid and
| incompetent as to be unable to replicate Apple's "premium
| user experience" to capture similar profit margins, or
| you can look for simpler explanations, that inevitably
| generalize as anti-competitive practices.
|
| That doesn't deny the popularity of Apple's products, by
| the way. Believe it or not they can be both genuinely
| popular and monopolistic / anti-competitive, with both of
| those factors contributing to insanely above-market
| profit margins.
|
| "You can buy LG" just shows that you don't understand the
| distinction between concentrated market power power, anti
| competitive business practices, and actual monopoly, nor
| the fact that antitrust regulations do not require their
| target to be an actual monopoly with zero competitors
| available for sale (and for good reason).
|
| > They are viable, in fact, many reviewers and techies
| say that Samsung/Google/LG/Whatever are much better than
| Apple
|
| Bing and DDG are also available and viable, and "[some]
| techies say" that they're better than Google. So what.
| This metric is utterly irrelevant.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Now, you can choose to believe that literally every
| multi billion dollar tech company in the world is so
| stupid and incompetent as to be unable to replicate
| Apple's "premium user experience" to capture similar
| profit margins, or you can look for simpler explanations,
| that inevitably generalize as anti-competitive practices.
|
| The simpler explanation is they are not willing to invest
| the cash needed to create the Apple premium user
| experience.
|
| See Microsoft pulling the plug on Windows phone and
| Microsoft stores. They decided to rest on their laurels
| (licensing fees for Excel almost pure profit and Azure
| rather than plow tens of billions into creating quality
| hardware and software and a retail experience for
| customers.
| ximeng wrote:
| If you're not happy with Apple and Google behaving
| monopolistically "buy Google Pixel" doesn't seem like a great
| solution. Nor does buy a phone running Google's operating
| system feel like a great answer.
| cokeandpepsi wrote:
| Just buy iPhone, it's comfy
| mrtksn wrote:
| If you are not happy with the competition too, I guess you
| can watch Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga
| to cheer you up or go make your own device.
| ximeng wrote:
| The allegation is these companies are not competing with
| each other, they are working together. This includes
| working together to prevent competitors making their own
| devices. There are very limited alternatives if you want
| to avoid Google and Apple completely.
|
| I'm not familiar with the Eurovision show you mention, so
| not sure of the relevance.
| [deleted]
| ch33zer wrote:
| So is Mozilla being sued next because they never created a search
| business? Google pays mozilla to be the default search engine
| too, just on Firefox.
| sdze wrote:
| In my opinion Apple is already in the search business. At least
| Siri prevents a regular web search if Siri found the webpage I
| was looking for. It offers me directly the link to the page in
| the suggestions.
| Closi wrote:
| This is using Google's API to provide the search result.
| Doctor_Fegg wrote:
| No it isn't: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT204683
| Closi wrote:
| Instant answers are provided by Apple, but when search
| answers are provided these are Google. Apple needs to still
| crawl to provide instant answers.
|
| Statement from Apple in 2017 when they switched to Google
| from Bing:
|
| > Switching to Google as the web search provider for Siri,
| Search within iOS and Spotlight on Mac will allow these
| services to have a consistent web search experience with
| the default in Safari.
|
| (https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/25/apple-switches-from-
| bing-t...)
| Doctor_Fegg wrote:
| Right, so when I type something into the Safari search
| bar on iOS, it gives me Apple-sourced suggestions from
| the web, even though I have "Search Engine Suggestions"
| turned off (because I don't want my URL typing history
| leaking to a search engine).
|
| That qualifies as "already in the search business" IMO.
| Closi wrote:
| > That qualifies as "already in the search business" IMO.
|
| Well they are definitely in the search business anyway,
| as >20% of Apple's annual revenue is from search.
|
| It's just that all the revenue apple makes from search
| comes directly from Google in the form of a $20bn
| payment, and Google powers almost all their actual web
| searches (i.e. not instant suggestions), so I think it's
| hardly an independent 'search business' and more of a
| 'search partnership with Google'.
| Doctor_Fegg wrote:
| I'm honestly not seeing the difference you're drawing
| between "web searches" and "instant suggestions".
|
| If I type some characters into a search box, and the
| phone displays the title and domain of a website that it
| thinks I might be looking for, that counts as a "web
| search" to me. iOS Safari does that using an Apple-
| powered web index.
|
| But whatever.
| Closi wrote:
| The difference is the index size and generality for me -
| for instance I can search "lkasdjfai" in Google and it
| will show me the one time that someone once said that on
| Flickr.
|
| Siri only needs to return a result when it thinks its got
| a worthwhile result to show, it won't search all
| documents to find the phrase I want (and returns nothing
| if I search lkasdjfai, and falls back to Google results).
| It never even says "siri found no matches for lkasdjfai".
|
| I can't use Siri to search for my cousin for instance (I
| just tried) but with Google he comes up straight away.
|
| So for me, a web search is when you are searching any
| arbitrary phrase and bringing back results for any query,
| where instant suggestions is an optional response when
| you think you have a good result.
| sosborn wrote:
| You should search "lkasdjfai" now :)
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Perhaps Apple has a slight bit of self reflection and just
| realises that after the catastrophe that was Apple Maps that
| they'd be no good at making a search engine?
|
| They have no in-house expertise and the small scale search
| products they do make are very, very bad.
| zepto wrote:
| Apple Maps is world class and better than Google maps in many
| ways _now_.
|
| If Apple learned from their launch of Maps it should be to wait
| until it's ready. Of course Google didn't give them a choice in
| the case of Maps.
| nescioquid wrote:
| I'm curious about this:
|
| > (4) annual multi-billion-dollar payments by Google to Apple not
| to compete in the search business;
|
| Assuming the allegation is correct, what recourse would Google
| have if Apple took the multi-billion-dollar payment and then
| entered the search business?
|
| Surely a lawsuit would only set Google up for anti-trust
| complaints, so would their only recourse be to not fork over
| subsequent multi-billion-dollar payments to Apple? It seems
| analogous to a broken agreement between criminals -- one or more
| parties is outside the protection of the law.
|
| Could this reasoning also be used to defend against the
| allegation, i.e. surely Google wouldn't put themselves in such a
| situation where they could have no guarantee or surety that Apple
| _wouldn 't_ just take the money and run?
| xbar wrote:
| iPhone feature request turned into anti-trust money grab by legal
| goons?
| GeekyBear wrote:
| If keeping Apple from developing search functionality is the
| goal, this appears to not be working, since Apple already uses
| it's own web search functionality for Siri results and Spotlight
| Suggestions.
|
| >Applebot is the web crawler for Apple. Products like Siri and
| Spotlight Suggestions use Applebot.
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204683
| thathndude wrote:
| The "article" is a PR release written by the plaintiff's firm for
| release. By all means, read the complaint and discuss the case.
| But keep that in mind as to the link.
| calltrak wrote:
| DimmieMan wrote:
| I've become fond of Ecosia; results still aren't great (Bing
| under the hood) but at least it's planting trees.
| Bellamy wrote:
| Startpage uses Google for it's results so I'm not sure if that
| qualifies as an alternative.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startpage.com
| wakeupcall wrote:
| Bing/Google are used as a backend by many of these. Kind of
| worrying.
| [deleted]
| nabla9 wrote:
| Google could be better, but they serve people who react to ads.
|
| People who click ads like different search results than the
| rest.
| seaman1921 wrote:
| Spam. Just looked at your comment history - how many times are
| you going to spam the same link, which is also your own
| website.
| evancoop wrote:
| Though collusion between two tech giants is obviously distasteful
| and anticompetitive, how is this ultimately addressed? Sure,
| governments could force Google and Apple to break into smaller
| entities...but as long as humans still largely choose the best
| software, there will still be network effects that lead to
| dominant players emerging. In turn, there will be new giants.
|
| So...either there are general paradigms/regulations/principles to
| apply, or we'll simply return to this state repeatedly, no?
| exikyut wrote:
| Returning to this state repeatedly, aka a cyclic system, isn't
| all that bad, if it means we ultimately don't exceed the
| current threshold.
|
| IMHO the collective furor necessary to drive development in the
| space (eg, Google and Apple both maintain whole web browsers)
| is necessarily weakly-coordinated at scale and will probably
| always inevitably cue this sort of thing to rise up.
|
| * _shrug_ *
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Person claims thing, may or may not have evidence, claim made in
| such a way it is not subject to defamation etc and can be
| repeated without any chance for a reply.
| errcorrectcode wrote:
| This doesn't seem like a real problem considering users can
| choose DDG on iOS and macOS, or pick another browser. If Apple
| only allowed Google Search, then it would be a problem. Or if an
| Android OS only allowed GS or Edge only allowed Bing, then it
| would similarly be a problem too.
| sidcool wrote:
| It does not surprise me. Search is bread, butter and oxygen for
| Google. Spending a few billion dollars a year to sustain a
| revenue of hundreds of billions of dollars seems logical. Not
| sure right or wrong. But understandable.
| null_object wrote:
| I cannot get over how much moaning and whinging people on HN do
| about supposedly not being able to choose their search-engine on
| iOS "without jail-breaking" their device when simply switching to
| another browser like iCab Mobile means they can choose
| _absolutely any search engine they want_ in addition to the _25
| that are included by default_.
|
| For goodness sake do the _minimum_ amount of research before
| squealing helplessly about needing to jailbreak your device.
| Bud wrote:
| You don't even have to switch browsers! The option to change
| Safari's search engine is in Settings > Safari > Search Engine.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I've used DDG as my default browser on iOS/Safari for years
| without issue. I never even knew this was an issue.
| 0xB31B1B wrote:
| Defaults matter, and defaults encode the behavioral choices of
| like 80% of users. The downstream effects of this are that the
| default options have the most support. Its totally rational to
| complain about a bad default option.
| Bud wrote:
| Defaults do matter, I agree, and it's also ok to complain
| about any given default option if one thinks it's a bad
| option.
|
| That doesn't make it ok to lie and mislead people in the
| process of making that complaint, though. It's very very easy
| to change the default search engine setting in iOS. It's
| about as easy as Apple could possibly make it. To allege
| otherwise, or to state that "jail-breaking" is somehow
| required, is simply a lie.
|
| Just make the argument without lying.
| AJ007 wrote:
| I'm not an expert here, but apparently for Google the
| default is worth at least $1b a month.
| Retric wrote:
| On the other hand, I did change the default iOS browser
| easily. However, it would have been annoying to have a list
| of hundreds of options to choose from rather than the major
| ones.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| 80%? I think it's over 99%. Very few people would install a
| custom browser on mobile, most go with the default.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| I highly doubt that, since it would imply 99% of users are
| using Samsung Internet on Samsung devices rather than
| Chrome, which doesn't seem to be true. If iOS users are
| largely using Safari, it's because Safari is actually a
| good enough browser that it isn't worth switching.
| andiareso wrote:
| Eh... I would argue only power-users would switch to
| chrome on Samsung too.
|
| No way in hell the free Samsung phone deals that carriers
| have all the time are given to more tech savy people than
| non-tech savy people.
| exikyut wrote:
| As someone who has never purchased a new-in-box phone, do
| Samsung devices ship with Chrome preinstalled by virtue
| of *handwave* "because Android"?
| [deleted]
| andiareso wrote:
| Ha! You're complaining about HNers while also being one?
|
| You missing a crucial point here. Using an alternative browser
| on iOS is not actually that helpful. Nine-times out of ten, I
| use spotlight (swiping down from the home screen) to type
| search queries because it's much faster than entering an app.
| This will always use the built-in search provider. Secondly, I
| use siri to do quick lookups, "search for ravioli recipe" which
| also uses default search provider. Any context menu like
| "Lookup" or "Search on X" uses the built-in provider.
|
| A blanket statement such as yours suppresses ideas. Let people
| talk... isn't that why HN exists.
|
| I for one think allowing the ability to add a custom search is
| a no-brainer and I think this deal may be a real reason why it
| doesn't exist. It's so easy to add this that it seems real
| shady it doesn't exist...
| nathanyz wrote:
| Defaults clearly matter as evidenced by the multi-billion
| dollar payments that Google makes to Apple in order to keep it
| the default.
| andiareso wrote:
| Right? Haha they wouldn't be paying for it if they weren't
| making a profit on that decision! IDIOCY
| henvic wrote:
| If this hearsay were the case, it wouldn't be the business of
| anyone beyond Google and Apple stockholders. Antitrust
| legislation is awful, and only works jeopardizes competition
| despite supposedly helping it.
| 893368203 wrote:
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| Here's the complaint:
| https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Northern_Distri...
|
| The putative class they're suing to represent is apparently "All
| consumers and businesses who paid Google to place advertising on
| Google search in the United States since January 1, 2005."
|
| I think the basic argument is "Apple might have created a
| competing search engine business, but Google paid them not to,
| which hurt people buying Google ads because competition would
| imply those Google ads may have been cheaper, therefore Apple and
| Google need to pay the better part of a trillion dollars to these
| customers and then be broken up into smaller companies."
| hkt wrote:
| AIUI in US competition law price is the only consideration, so
| this is smart. It will hinge on whether or not Apple had any
| concrete plans to build a search engine, and if their
| abandonment of it can be linked to the deal with Google.
|
| Which is to say it is a tall order and might not succeed. But
| if it does.. goodness, what a hit they'll take.
| sigzero wrote:
| That is a totally BS argument. It needs to be thrown out.
| zepto wrote:
| So the assumption is that Apple would run Ads against search?
|
| There is a good chance that if Apple did have a search engine
| it would be Ad free, which might still depress prices of Google
| ads, but it would also decrease effectiveness of those ads.
| danvayn wrote:
| I doubt it. Alphabet generates $175B+ in Ad revenue yearly
| and Apples always looking for ways to increase stock value.
| Apple recently introduced ways to scan while depersonalizing
| your data which implies it would be easier to read and serve
| ads to users over it. Not to mention that they can afford the
| development time and have the userbase and consumer loyalty
| necessary to build and launch a competitor to Google.
| viro wrote:
| Going into the search AD business would significantly hurt
| one of the iPhone's most significant selling factors,
| privacy. Because at the end of the day "Apple makes money
| by selling overpriced hardware, not by selling your data."
| The moment that changes trust will be much harder to keep.
| bagacrap wrote:
| how is what they're doing any different? iPhone users are
| still using ad supported search
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| > I think the basic argument is "Apple might have created a
| competing search engine business, but Google paid them not to
|
| That's the feeling I got. I mean if this was the case, then
| Apple could be sued by Google for extortion - "pay us or we'll
| build a competitor". This lawsuit makes no sense.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Thats not extortion, because threat to compete is not a
| threat. Its a proposal for collusion
| why_only_15 wrote:
| Are these sort of entirely business-related threats extortion
| in a business context? This seems like regular business
| practices to me.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| US antitrust law right now basically operates on the principle
| that the only time anything is illegal is if it hurts consumer
| prices.
|
| So that probably explains the convoluted cause of action, in
| that the only legal way to challenge it is probably with a
| weird convoluted cause of action like that, because it has to
| come back to consumer prices somehow to have a chance in court.
|
| Google (or anyone) can have a monopoly and engage in
| anticompetitive practices, it's only illegal if you can show it
| hurt consumer prices.
|
| The law didn't always work that way and doesn't need to, but
| that's more or less how it is now.
|
| https://www.pbwt.com/antitrust-update-blog/congress-hears-ch...
| mynameisash wrote:
| Since I have a hard time staying emotionally invested in this
| (I'm as frustrated with the state of tech as everyone else), I
| just want to share the first thing that came to mind when I read
| this headline, a quote from _Catch-22_ :
|
| "His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not
| growing any. The government paid him well for not growing any.
| The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did
| not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the
| government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on
| new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce.
| Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa.
| On long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend
| harness, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day
| just to make certain that the chores would not be done. He
| invested in land wisely and soon was not growing more alfalfa
| than any other man in the country."
| adam0c wrote:
| is that bot part of basic business 101...? oh look someone wants
| to compete but we can pay them not to.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| This would be under criminal law in the US, right? Basically jail
| time for the executives if it is true.
| [deleted]
| netcan wrote:
| 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 inherently unknowable.
|
| The Google-Apple deal isn't new, and has been widely reported on.
| Google pays more to apple than 2nd place (MST/YAHOO) has ever
| delivered in _topline_ revenue. Apple can (a)take pure profit
| with no effort or risk, (b)build a competing business with much
| worse best-case prospects, or (c) leave room in the market for
| someone else to try. It 's not really a choice.
|
| Meanwhile, Google's largest investments (eg chrome, android) are
| just an insourced version of the Apple-Google trust. Monopolistic
| deals and strategies aren't a side-show, they're the primary
| activity of these companies.
|
| To me, it's increasingly obvious that monopoly issues are
| structural. It's not what Google/Apple do, it's what they _are_.
| Dealing with antitrust in an infraction- >lawsuit manner, post
| facto, is a designed to fail structure.
|
| IMO there are two choices, besides just accepting the prevalence
| of monopolies, cartels & trusts. (1) They can be broken up. (2)
| They can become "regulated monopolies," with a regulatory
| structure designed to prevent monopolistic harms before they
| happen. Yes, it will harm their profitability.
| grandinj wrote:
| Because so far, no-one (within the US legal system) has come up
| with a formulation for "monopoly" and "market" that does not
| have (a) unpleasant side effects for businesses that would
| normally not be considered monopolists (b) a system that is
| easily gamed by businesses that are trying to monopolise a
| market.
|
| Not saying it can't be done, just that it seems to be fairly
| hard.
| koheripbal wrote:
| 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.
| netcan wrote:
| Who says antitrust was primarily a legal matter?
| derbOac wrote:
| I don't want to speak for anyone, but I think the idea is
| more akin to conspiracy to commit murder or something. Maybe
| driving while intoxicated?
|
| The target of the murder shouldn't have to be murdered for
| there to be some grounds for a lawsuit. Similarly, you might
| arrest someone for driving while intoxicated even though they
| haven't done any actual damage to person or property.
|
| Along these lines, I think the idea is that someone shouldn't
| have to show specific demonstrable harms that have already
| occurred in cases of antitrust.
|
| It's a gray area but it seems like with some things, harm
| should be implied or something to be avoided?
| netcan wrote:
| Go ahead. I could use a lawyer.
| Kstarek wrote:
| there are no choices besides accepting the prevalence of
| monopolies, governments should not be restricting two of the
| greatest businesses in history.
| streamofdigits wrote:
| the "market" seems to be betting that these monopolies will
| persist more or less exactly as they are (see eg the 3 trillion
| apple valuation that is really an unfathomable number unless
| you condition that basically the entire US economy will be co-
| controlled by those entities)
|
| so it seems to me that disastrously bad regulation has created
| self-sustaining monsters. which market worshiping politician
| would dare burst that multi trn-bubble?
| netcan wrote:
| Good question.
|
| Reminds me of the "housing affordability" question. If
| politicians had a magic wand that turns a city with $1m
| median house prices into a $250k one...
| adam_arthur wrote:
| An easy way around that is upzoning. Then a house that's
| worth $1m could be turned into 4 houses worth 500k each.
|
| That way homeowners make more money and housing becomes
| cheaper at the same time.
|
| Depending on the context of course..
| jefftk wrote:
| _> Why does there need to be a plaintiff?_
|
| There doesn't need to be an independent plaintiff. The DoJ can
| bring an antitrust suit directly, and often does. For example,
| see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Co
| r....
| superfreek wrote:
| As someone who has no idea about the legal system in the US, does
| the source have any grounding, and is there any chance this goes
| anywhere?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-05 23:02 UTC)