Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | Hacker News Reader

"I expect this to be bad for everyone except Google if the ruling holds."

If the decision will not be bad for Google, then why would Google spend so much money and time to defend against it.^1

Why not just stop making the anti-competitive payments and terminate the agreements. Money saved. Problem solved.

We can now safely say it is not a defense to claim "Google is the best" and that's why people choose it. Anti-competitive conduct is illegal. Whether it is prudent or not. It makes no difference whether the payments were actually "necessary".^2 Google made them anyway, repeatedly.

1. Even more, this "prediction" implies there will be an appeal ("... if this ruling holds."). Why bother with an appeal if this decision has no negative effect on Google.

2. One only needs to show the conduct had an anti-competitive effect.

Please read the decision:

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/f6ab5c36...

View on HN

> Why not just stop making the anti-competitive payments and terminate the agreements. Money saved. Problem solved.

It’s only solved if nobody does it. If Google stops those payments unilaterally MS would just make a slightly cheaper deal with Apple..

That sounds bad for Google... ?

I think the point is that if Google is not allowed to make such payments, neither is Microsoft (unless they want to risk the same lawsuit against them). Apple will stay with Google since a change would probably be unpopular with users. End result: Default search engines stay the same, but Google doesn't have to pay for it anymore.

I think this ignores Apple could still develop their own search engine, as they did with Maps, and pocket the ad revenue themselves.

They could, and they should, but they definitely won't. Similar to how they use just a ChatGPT anonymized wrapper for their "advanced AI features", they'll just outsource search to some big player as well.

It's no longer a competitive market. MS can lowball like crazy now

It makes no sense to "expect this will be bad for everyone except Google" based on this opinion. "This" has yet to be defined. The court has not even set a date for the trial to determine the remedy yet. All we know at this point is that Google broke the law. We do not know what will be the consequences.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that one of the consequences will be "Google, and nobody else, can do this," therefore applying OP's logic?

not necessarily. Google cannot do this because in their case it is "abuse of market power" ... but if a market participant with a small market share does it it likely isn't "abuse of market power".

antitrust is not about market share, it's about abuse of the power that comes with it.

I think the important argument for^1 is that this prevents other search engine from bidding on the slot. It certainly would be an issue for Google if Apple products defaulted to Bing.

>If the decision will not be bad for Google, then why would Google spend so much money and time to defend against it

To stop Apple from creating its own search engine.

> Anti-competitive conduct is illegal.

Why are so many mergers and acquisitions allowed to go through then? Either the law isn't phrased this way, the DOJ ignores the law, or we need to write new legislation.

HN commenters defending Apple have stated many times that iOS installations do not comprise a majority share of the "smartphone" market.

Can we assume that if Microsoft paid Apple to be the default search engine in iOS instead of Google then Microsoft would have market share, or some other source of monopoly power, sufficient to allow the DoJ and state AGs to bring essentially the same antitrust case against Microsoft.

There is this ridiculous "argument" from HN commenters I see sometimes, too often, when "developers" or so-called "tech" companies they work for are caught doing something wrong. It goes something like, "If we didn't do it, then someone else would have so don't blame us."

Reminds me of the "If I don't steal your home, somebody else will" incident. Classic scumbag mentality.

it's more complicated than that. if MS paid Apple to be the default that would probably be anti-competitive against even smaller search engines. (but paying for search traffic is likely not in itself anti-competitive. doing it to keep others out of the market is when you are Google. where's the boundary? well, yes, it's complicated, depends on which market, what audience, how easy it is to switch providers, etc.)

Can we assume that if Microsoft paid Apple to be the default search engine in iOS instead of Google then Microsoft would have the same market power as Google. (Without sufficient market power, making a case like this one against Google is not possible)

HN commenter #1:

> Why not just stop making the anti-competitive payments and terminate the agreements. Money saved. Problem solved.

"It's only solved if nobody does it. If Google stops those payments unilaterally MS would just make a slightly cheaper deal with Apple.."

HN commenter #2:

"It's no longer a competitive market. MS can lowball like crazy now"

HN commenter #3:

"I think the point is that if Google is not allowed to make such payments, neither is Microsoft (unless they want to risk the same lawsuit against them)."

So really it's just a loss for everyone all around. But at least nobody is being anti-competitive I guess.

Except Apple and Mozilla for whom it’s a huge part of their profits/revenue respect

Deals are mutually beneficial. If Apple and Mozilla were both taking Google's offer it's because neither felt they had more to gain from developing their own search engine to compete outright in the meantime or from offering someone else's as a default. There might be something to the argument Mozilla isn't in a position to reject the money because they're sort of a shambling corpse at this point but Apple is about as far from a desperate company as you can get.

> Apple is about as far from a desperate

Yes but Google’s payments still make up around 25% of their net income which is pretty huge. Losing that would have a very significant effect on Apple’s margins and stock price

Reply on news.ycombinator.com