Hacker News Reader

Comment by ramsj | Hacker News Reader

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/...

View on HN

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?

>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.

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!

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

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...

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com