One example. I very often search for Wikipedia articles in different languages. I would have to set up each relevant language separately. With the shortcuts I just type !wen (English) or !wfr (French). You could do that with smart keywords, though. I'm just used now to using the shortcuts.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google and Apple's Search Engine Deal Violates Antitrust Law
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ding ding ding! That’s exactly it. Do you remember the MacRumor articles about Apple bots going through the internet a couple years ago. Whether it was their intention or not, Google had to see it as a possibility. So they had to give Apple a mafia offer to not look in that direction.
This seems a clear-cut case to me.
Google Search is CLEARLY a monopoly, unlike Apple. And Google paying providers to default their browser is easy to see as anticompetitive.
Google is a problem. I've really become aware of how they are stealing website content from the sites they scrape. Those first page results that Google posts now when you do a search is pure theft of content from web sites and content creators. That's radically anticompetitive, and I'm surprise more people aren't up in arms about this.
Google Search is CLEARLY a monopoly, unlike Apple. And Google paying providers to default their browser is easy to see as anticompetitive.
Google is a problem. I've really become aware of how they are stealing website content from the sites they scrape. Those first page results that Google posts now when you do a search is pure theft of content from web sites and content creators. That's radically anticompetitive, and I'm surprise more people aren't up in arms about this.
Apple will start using the things they know about their customers to improve the search and ads, in a totally "privacy preserving manner" of course 😏.
I see. I have those set up since forever. I had already used search URLs on early IE before Firefox, so when DDG launched it seemed just inferior having to type an additional ! in front (and what’s worse, it requires use of the Shift key).
In Neil Cybart’s world there’s no news that isn’t ever anything but good news for Apple. In this case if Google and Apple’s search deal has to end then Microsoft will swoop in and pay Apple even more than Google was. I’m surprised the company hasn’t hired him yet to work in their PR department. 😂
What it means is that Google and Apple are in a mutually beneficial financial arrangement. As the court has determined that Google has violated antitrust laws, Apple has consequently benefited monetarily from those antitrust violations.
As always, follow the money.
It's clear the goal of governments is to get rid of technology companies. It's best to invest in stone carving companies at the moment. The less technology, the better we are. At least according to MR folks.
Google should have been blocked from buying DoubleClick in 2007. Then again, doubt any real enforcement will occur like is Microsoft. Real enforcement would be breaking up the Ad business from the Search Business. In reality it will be something token and everyone will move on.
I really do not think Apple needs to develop a search engine or think it's a good idea unless it's ad-free. The ads skew and bias results which make quality search results almost impossible. Besides, Apple is already under scrutiny by regulators.
MS has asked Apple about buying or joining them with Bing. but perhaps a better option would be a nonprofit entity that can create a search body with funding from Apple, MS, Amazon, and others in the spirit of Wikipedia with the results not biased by who's paying for ads, who's gaming the search results or the bottom line. I think having the most consumer-facing part of the web controlled by one company like Google is dangerous. We need a strong non-profit entity to counter it.
Last edited:
But that doesn't implicate Apple in any way. You're trying to draw the circle large enough to include Apple in the wrongdoing, but it simply doesn't follow legally.
EVERYBODY who benefits from Google would be implicated in the same way you're trying to draw the circle. But it wasn't illegal for Apple to receive payments from Google.
Follow the law.
Apple has benefitted by $20B a year due to Googles antitrust violations.
That is no implication, merely a simple fact.
If you were following the case the default settings with revenue share in the ISA, and restrictions on Apple’s product development were major arguments.
But Apple accepting the payments isn't illegal. This was a trial against Google.
Where did I say Apple did anything illegal?
I said Apple benefitted from Googles antitrust activity.
No more, nothing less.
