UK Regulators Call Google's Search Engine Deal With Apple a 'Significant Barrier' for Competitors

[urnotl33t]

The Mac could write Microsoft compatible documents before Windows even existed. Word was released for Mac in 1985.
Additionally Office file formats were documented before the anti-trust trial. The consent decree required Microsoft to document various APIs, which are quite different from file formats. Apples growth had nothing to do with the ability to read Microsoft office documents, it had to do with the success of the smartphone, an area that Microsoft never had broad success in anyway.

It was the newer file types in 1998/2000-era that had to be opened as well, which wasn’t part of prior deals. This was a new file type they made when trying to “close up” and grab hold of the Windows Desktop+Office bundle (another monopoly point). The DOJ consent decree created a vacuum where Microsoft couldn’t move or do anything for 10 years due to judicial oversight. That’s why when they bought Skype, they did nothing with it. They couldn’t integrate it with (then) office communicator (which begat Live communicator which begat Lync). The couldn’t expand Windows Mobile either. Which was the smartphone vacuum leading to the iPhone.

Even all the OEM deals were DOJ-reviewed. Everything they did was DOJ-reviewed first. They had to ask to fart. There was an inside story about the Skype acquisition. It was quite a fuss internally.

They could work on something almost entirely new, tho, which they did in the far far background (Ray Ozzy’s project). That project became Azure once the decree expired in 2008/2009-ish. By then, the iPhone was here, iPad was imminent, iPod was still a rage, Mac was a real thing, and Internet Explorer was starved. Google happened, Amazon expanded beyond “just books” (yes, kids, Amazon originally only sold books, not guitar strings and pottery and toys), AWS and Netflix happened, and we had a functioning market again.

The consent decree was stronger than most people realized. Microsoft avoided being broken apart, which most people wanted (revenge, like with ATT and SO), but breaking them probably would’ve made Microsoft stronger. IIRC judge gave them a choice, break up or submit to DOJ oversight; they chose the oversight. Keeping them as a starving giant was the right call. Tough to make back in 1999 when “revenge” was on everyone’s mind.

Wow, tho... still hard to imagine it even now and looking back on that time. A lot really did change. Palm died, Nokia died, blackberry died, Sony’s mobile thing died... all these hitched themselves to Microsoft’s wagon. Yeah Palm had their own thing but they tried to compete in a largely Windows Mobile world, then starved, and couldn’t come back. None of these could innovate either because they relied on Microsoft to source the mobile OS code. It was all the same base line crap; very little differentiation. Ripe for disruption. Ergo, the iPhone.

Good times.... 😆

 

[vvswarup]

People have a choice. Its their own fault if they don't exercise their brains to use it... Now if Apple didn't give people a choice then they would have something to complain about... As long as people have options though, it should be fine... Now if we could just get some options to change more of the default Apps, i.e. Maps, Assistant, Camera... that is where people/governments should be focusing, on the area's where people don't have a choice!

One has a choice to not buy Apple products...

 

[omihek]

It is not offering the choice that is the issue:

“Given the impact of preinstallations and defaults on mobile devices and Apple’s significant market share, it is our view that Apple’s existing arrangements with Google create a significant barrier to entry and expansion for rivals affecting competition between search engines on mobiles,” the regulators wrote in the report.

Except for that they are offering the choice. Shoving the choice in people's faces is not the only way to offer it. You can change the default search engine in settings.

 

[deg0ey]

That’s not clear at all. It’s been said many times that even if google didn’t pay, apple would likely either keep google as the default (because it works the best and its customers demand it) or would roll its own search engine.

Either of those things would be fine. As of right now, the default search engine on iOS is a function of who will pay Apple the most money for the privilege rather than who will provide the best service for users. It's entirely possible that Google is also the company that would provide the best service for users, but allowing them to use their existing wealth to buy their way into the default slot (rather than earning it through continued service improvements) is a barrier to competition.

Imagine the converse situation for a moment - if Microsoft decided tomorrow that they wanted to outbid Google to make Bing the default search engine on iPhone, the complaints of having to take the extra few seconds to go into the settings and change it back would be deafening.

Putting it on the activation screen and letting people choose a search engine at the same time as they're setting up ApplePay and FaceID is hardly a huge inconvenience to the user and most of them are going to choose Google anyway, but at least it's a fair competition for users.

 

[DDMaKeeg]

Apple should buy Lycos. Make that the default search. 🤪

I just decided to lookup search engines. Lycos seems to be one of the only 90's search engines still alive that still uses their own engine. It was a bit disappointing to see Webcrawler uses Bing.😢

Curious, which search engine did you use to lookup search engines? 🤣🤣

 

[ruka.snow]

In case you missed it, Apple DOES offer a choice of search engines.
I've used Duck-Duck-Go for years.

Apple had a default search engine that you can change. This topic is not about what already exists nor is my post.

 

[nebo1ss]

Surely this is still user choice. I use Google as my home page and hence any searches will be through Google. Surely if I wanted to use Yahoo i simply make Yahoo my home page.

 

[Larabee119]

UK and those EU protectionism... People switch to Google search because it's better. I tried Bing and yahoo search for a while and they are just not as good.
So what is the next move? Force all companies to spend the same dollars amount in marketing?

 

[rgbrock1]

Hilarious. The user can already change the default search engine at will. What should Apple do to reduce this supposed barrier? Ask the user every day which search engine they prefer?

You'd be surprise by the number of users who have no clue as to how to change the default search engine and readily use what's given to them.

 

[ani4ani]

Because Bing would happily pay Apple to be the default.

Also because maybe if Apple wasn't earning billions of dollars by selling the default search engine, maybe Apple would use their own search engine instead as the default. Siri has a built in search engine — it's not a very good one but it could be improved.

I agree with all those possibilities....but I still think folks would use Google on balance.

 

[I7guy]

Because smaller search engines can’t afford to pay Apple as much as google does, and it’s clear Apple puts google as default just because it’s being paid a lot of money to do so.

You can’t advertise during the “big game” either unless you pony up the required $$$ per minute. Let Apple put it first, I change it. Google is a name brand, who doesn’t know it?

 

[Krizoitz]

It was the newer file types in 1998/2000-era that had to be opened as well, which wasn’t part of prior deals. This was a new file type they made when trying to “close up” and grab hold of the Windows Desktop+Office bundle (another monopoly point). The DOJ consent decree created a vacuum where Microsoft couldn’t move or do anything for 10 years due to judicial oversight. That’s why when they bought Skype, they did nothing with it. They couldn’t integrate it with (then) office communicator (which begat Live communicator which begat Lync). The couldn’t expand Windows Mobile either. Which was the smartphone vacuum leading to the iPhone.

Literally none of this is true. I should know since I ACTUALLY worked on the protocol documentation that WAS required by the consent decree while employed at Microsoft. This is one of those instances where you are trying to explain something to a person who has first hand, direct, knowledge of the topic at hand. The consent decree had nothing to do with Windows Mobile, which actually underwent significant changes during that time including a brand new UI before being succeeded by the entirely different Windows Phone OS with yet another UI change. Meanwhile the nascent smartphone market at the time had plenty of competition, Symbian and Blackberry were leading players, Microsoft wasn't the only game in town, if anything Blackberry was the dominant player. The iPhones success had to do with the complete change of approach it offered compared to the existing players (all screen, no hardware keyboard, etc.). The consent decree wasn't remotely connected.