Apple seeks to defend Google's billion-dollar payments in search case | Hacker News Reader

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

reuters.com

28 pointsramsj35 comments

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

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

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

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

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

Defaulting the search to Google in Safari in no way impairs the users ability to choose an alternative search engine. Apple have always left the search setting changeable, for a long time have allowed 3rd party browsers and have allowed other browsers to be the default system browser. This is hardly a monopoly and it’s no secret that Google is paying them gobs of money to be the default. It’s a separate issue from their appstore business entirely where security and privacy are legitimate arguments for the control they exert on that business.

"3rd party" browsers on iOS are just safari/webkit. They do not allow browsers that don't use safari/webkit.

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

~Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on Safari

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

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

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

I don't recall the author, but the phrase comes to mind - "like a vampire night watchman protecting the world's last blood bank".

There's not much there to disagree with. It's pretty clear that Apple thinks they'd lose more than they'd gain by having their own search service. As it is, they don't have to do anything except sign some documents and set a default URL and they make $20 Billion.

I wish my life was that uncomplicated.

If someone wrote you a check for a billion dollars every year. You’d defend them too.

Statement from Eddy Cue:

"If this Court prohibits Google from sharing revenue for search distribution, Apple would have two unacceptable choices. It could still let users in the United States choose Google as a search engine for Safari, but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple's users at no cost. Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on Safari. But because customers prefer Google, removing it as an option would harm both Apple and its customers."

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

Source: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zgvoalybovd/...

>but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple's users at no cost

That is entitled. Should every web site share profits with Apple because they are accessed via Safari.

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

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

Nothing is stopping those Google users from installing Chrome.

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

Sure maybe, but that depends the DOJ’s actions. Also depends on the buyer, the search engine alternatives, whether DOJ allow Google to pay to be the default, etc.

I don't see the problem with option #1.

Apple is sounding like a cellular company pre-iPhone where the carriers demanded a cut of every transaction on the phone. They saw users as their asset and did everything they could to but themselves in the middle of every phone transaction. I'm talking about the time of $3 ringtones.

For Apple today, I can understand the argument for fees in the app store because there are real development and ongoing maintenance costs for that. But why should they get paid for a company to be a search engine option? How are they earning that money?

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

Wouldn’t you complain too?

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

When we’re talking billions of dollars, things are never that simple.

A example - the current average lifetime earnings for an American (aka total money earned over their lifetime) is $1.8mln USD for men, and $1.1mln USD for women. That provides for everything for them - raising a family (on average), a retirement, expenses of living 60-80 years, supporting all the joy, pain, love and loss of a lifetime. And paying for the total economic work of that average American for at least 40 years - a lifetime of plumbing, welding, repair work, hairdressing, stocking shelves, managing people - you name it.

Apple is receiving (last I checked) $20 billion USD/yr from Google for this.

That is the money required to support an entire lifetime of living for between 11,000 to 18,000 average Americans. Every year.

Alternatively, at the median American salary of $59,634, that is also enough money to employ 333,000+ average Americans for that year.

How much fighting do you think would be appropriate for that? Probably a least a couple of lawyers and lobbyists working full time on it, eh?

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

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

And the quote suggests the former

Judge Mehta would be slightly more incisive. :)

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

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

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

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

Apple should be able to make a large amount of profit of that user's choice. Choice isn't free!

If we don't collude in this way, we are both leaving money on the table. We must do this.

My neighbor has access to have a conversation with me. Should he be paying Apple since I use a Mac?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com