Hacker News Reader

Also consider that a good portion of Apple's services revenue is from services running on GCP, which would be prohibited. They could go all-in with AWS and Azure, but that's a significant tech change and reduces their negotiating power with those alternatives.

View on HN

And how does that help? You’re going from the 3rd largest cloud provider to the first and second?

Apple already runs some of its workloads on AWS. It was an open secret inside AWS before. But they brought an Apple person on stage at the last reinvent

I think GP point, is that the proposed remedy: “contract between Google and Apple in which there would be anything exchanged of value.” would force Apple ditch all Google services, including GCP. Given paying Google for GCP services would require a contract exchanging something of value.

I know, I’m saying that it is a dumb remedy to “we don’t like BigTech colluding so we are going to force Apple to leave the third largest cloud provider (an also ran) for the first and second largest provider”

It’s a dumb remedy in general, seemingly created without any understanding of the industry.

It makes a lot more sense if you view it as "we're really gonna stick it to Google" and not "we're going to make a more competitive marketplace".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com