Google Basically Pays Apple to Stay Out of the Search Engine Business, Class Action Lawsuit Alleges

[lost-again]

But Google doesn’t have the entire market to themselves. As the article points out, there’s bing, DuckDuckGo, yahoo, etc. and all of those can be used on your Apple products with a simple change.

And if your example was correct (which it’s not), that wouldn’t be capitalism, it would be the opposite; anti-capitalism. Capitalism is about free markets and competition (which there is with other search engines). What you described is not free market, and therefore not capitalism.

You need to factor user behaviour in, if most users don't change because of inertia then effectively there are no competitors.

 

[wigby]

If the other carpenter is happy with the deal then where's the issue exactly?

The issue is when the working carpenter is the only game in town and does not build to code creating safety issues, does not hire some assistant carpenters based upon their race, gender, religion, etc., and colludes with suppliers and vendors to keep other carpenters from entering that space. This lawsuit has no legal merit but that does not mean it has no merit at all. We all see the problems that occur from one company dominating the Internet in terms of both search and advertising but the legal system was not designed to preemptively prosecute which is required the dealing with tech companies that scale so fast.

 

[lost-again]

You can easily change the search engine.

If most users don't switch it's not easy (and they don't)

 

[sdf]

No. Google is blocking Apple through money to let them compete against them. Imagine paying another carpenter in your city yearly for not working so you can have the entire market for yourself and charge whatever you want. Its gross capitalism and it needs to be stopped.

I doubt Apple wants to develop a search engine to begin with. Any search engine they came up with would be compared to Google and would be found severely wanting. It would be bad press. Staying out is a good move for Apple. Getting paid for staying out? Even better.

 

[lost-again]

Agrees, but it's not good for consumers

 

[Neodym]

In this case there could multiple carpenters, but only one get known because he pays the local media channels not to allow the others to advertise

Kind of a stretch, trying to prove a point. And flawed as well: Other carpenters (search engines) are still allowed to “advertise” - they are listed in a simple dropdown, allowing the user to choose one at any given time.

While the highest bidder is allowed to advertise on front page (being the default option), competitors are free to over-bid to get access to “front page advertising”, i.e. becoming the default option.

Sorry, but I fail to see the problem - unless you want to completely challenge capitalism as economic society model.

 

[lost-again]

Capitalism needs controls, and it's happened before : see Standard Oil.

 

[hans1972]

No. Google is blocking Apple through money to let them compete against them. Imagine paying another carpenter in your city yearly for not working so you can have the entire market for yourself and charge whatever you want. Its gross capitalism and it needs to be stopped.

I think Apple is more the Messiah than a carpenter.

Paying someone who has never been a carpenter, isn't good at it, doesn't want to be good at it should be legal.

 

[hagar]

Apple doesn’t know how to do search. Look at the App Store, Apple Music and … Apple Maps. Search is one of their biggest weaknesses.

Would I use Apple Search? Yes.
Would it be good? No.

 

[hans1972]

The problem is that while the paid carpenter is happy, consumers get ruined.
In this scenario, laws are there to protect users not the carpenter.

If you remove competition, prices will skyrocket.

The price of using a search engine has stayed the same for about 25 years, which is $0.

Unless you want search engines to pay consumers (which I believe Bing did) there is no way to get it cheaper.

 

[webkit]

In this case there could multiple carpenters, but only one get known because he pays the local media channels not to allow the others to advertise

I think what is being alleged here would be a bit more like Tesla paying Apple each year to not go into the BEV or AV business or McDonald's paying Chick-fil-A or Subway each year to not go into the hamburger business.

 

[hans1972]

Tim Cook publicly railed against Google for having a business plan that monetizes users' privacy, at the same time negotiating a secret deal to be paid $12B/year to deliver Apple's users to Google for monetization. Think about that the next time Mr. Cook proclaims how important your privacy is to Apple.

All deals between two companies should be secret by default.

I have my own corporation and I never reveal or publish any of the contracts I sign.

Are you suggesting that every corporation has to publish every contract they make? Let's say Apple enter into a contract for newspaper subscription for a local paper. The deal is secret since Apple never publish it. Should they? By law?

 

[webkit]

The price of using a search engine has stayed the same for about 25 years, which is $0.

Unless you want search engines to pay consumers (which I believe Bing did) there is no way to get it cheaper.

The cost to use a search engine may be free but cost to advertise on it is not and those costs can be passed down to consumers/users. Some may also argue that the selling of a user's data is a "cost" to the user. All of this is what allows things like search engine, browsers, etc. to be "free".

 

[hans1972]

Google would stop paying Apple to be the default and whenever you first set up your iPhone, iPad or Mac, it would ask you what you want your default search engine to be.

That's not what the case is about. It's about Google paying Apple to not develop a search engine.

 

[hans1972]

The cost to use a search engine may be free but cost to advertise on it is not and those costs can be passed down to consumers/users. Some may also argue that the selling of a user's data is a "cost" to the user. All of this is what allows things like search engine, browsers, etc. to be "free".

Yes, but my comments was to another comment writing about users: "In this scenario, laws are there to protect users not the carpenter."

Most users and consumer would loose out since for most people the alternatives are worse.

 

[webkit]

All deals between two companies should be secret by default.

I have my own corporation and I never reveal or publish any of the contracts I sign.

Are you suggesting that every corporation has to publish every contract they make? Let's say Apple enter into a contract for newspaper subscription for a local paper. The deal is secret since Apple never publish it. Should they? By law?

It all depends on how relevant the deal/contract may be. The standards are different for public companies like Google and Apple as far as what they are required to disclose.

 

[crazyMalawian]

No. Google is blocking Apple through money to let them compete against them. Imagine paying another carpenter in your city yearly for not working so you can have the entire market for yourself and charge whatever you want. Its gross capitalism and it needs to be stopped.

No. Google is blocking Apple through money to let them compete against them. Imagine paying another carpenter in your city yearly for not working so you can have the entire market for yourself and charge whatever you want. Its gross capitalism and it needs to be stopped.

Correction for your analogy should be, “imagine paying a mason so you’re the default carpenter, and they don’t go into carpentry.” No the entire market, but default. Google is paying Apple to toggle a switch. How long would it take you to toggle it to Bing, or another ‘carpenter?’

 

[hans1972]

It all depends on how relevant the deal/contract may be. The standards are different for public companies like Google and Apple as far as what they are required to disclose.

So where do companies which are publicly traded publish the details of their business contracts?
Can you point to some examples?

I believe they only had to file some of it to SEC and this requirement was reduced a lot in 2019.

 

[fredrik9]

If the other carpenter is happy with the deal then where's the issue exactly?

The issue would be less innovation and naturally higher prices for the consumer.

 

[cosmichobo]

Yes, physically opening up your computer and replacing RAM or storage drives is the same as navigating to your search settings and picking a name from a list. You can't compare those two for this; they are completely different situations.

My father is a computer and iPhone owner.

He will never in his life either change the RAM, or any default settings of his computer.

Sure, there's a difference between the two examples, but the point is - MOST tech users don't have a clue about the devices they are using outside of playing games, reading emails/texts, and browsing the net.

 

[Macintosh TV]

The claim being made here is hilarious. The suit claims that if Apple was to get into the search engine game and then also to have ads on their search engine, then Google would have to lower their ad costs. But because Apple hasn't done that, it's caused Googles ad prices to be able to be inflated.

I'm going to start a class action against Tesla and Taco Bell. If Taco Bell got into the electric car market, it'd cause Tesla to lower their prices. I'm sure Tesla is paying Taco Bell not to do so, thereby allowing them to maintain a premium on their vehicles.

Who wants to sign on to my class action suit and win millions?

 

[frenchcamp49er]

Apple would only enter if they can make it better, I'm not sure than can other than a privacy aspect.

 

[Macintosh TV]

My father is a computer and iPhone owner.

He will never in his life either change the RAM, or any default settings of his computer.

Sure, there's a difference between the two examples, but the point is - MOST tech users don't have a clue about the devices they are using outside of playing games, reading emails/texts, and browsing the net.

The vast majority of users never upgrade their computer. Over 90% of the machines Apple sells are the base model configurations. Upgradability is not a user for most.

 

[BootsWalking]

All deals between two companies should be secret by default.

I have my own corporation and I never reveal or publish any of the contracts I sign.

Are you suggesting that every corporation has to publish every contract they make? Let's say Apple enter into a contract for newspaper subscription for a local paper. The deal is secret since Apple never publish it. Should they? By law?

I'm suggesting a corporation shouldn't publicly rail against another company for monetizing users' privacy while privately doing a deal with that same company to make billions helping that company monetize users' privacy.

 

[UnusedLoginID]

I agree with most of this, except that I don’t actually think Google is good. It’s just that the alternatives aren’t better. Google is broken, I can’t find anything anymore, unless I wan’t to buy stuff, or am content with informational articles from the top five. The first two pages are paid links, the rest is less relevant, to make the paid links look more relevant. Actually relevant pages that are not paid, are close to invisible when you google.

You’re using it wrong!
The way you ask will influence what you get.
The Google engine is way above anything out there and once you go past the Ads at the top you should be getting what you need.