←back to thread

Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

(www.cnbc.com)
858 points colesantiago | 10 comments | 02 Sep 25 20:26 UTC | HN request time: 1.872s | source | bottom
Show context
LeoPanthera ◴[02 Sep 25 20:52 UTC] No.45108877[source]▶
The BBC is reporting the exact opposite of this headline.

"It's also free to keep making payments to partners such as Apple, to secure placement of its browser - another closely watched and contentious part of the case."

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cg50dlj9gm4t

Edit: Even the CNBC body text contradicts its own headline. The confusion seems to be what "exclusive" means.

"The company can make payments to preload products, but they cannot have exclusive contracts, the decision showed."

replies(4): >>45108948 #>>45108965 #>>45109057 #>>45109426 #
1. pdabbadabba ◴[02 Sep 25 21:06 UTC] No.45109057[source]▶
I don't see the contradiction "paying partners to secure browser placement" =/ "exclusivity." This just means you can have partner deals, but that they can't be exclusive, right?
replies(2): >>45109646 #>>45113617 #
2. benoau ◴[02 Sep 25 21:57 UTC] No.45109646[source]▶
But in that case the remedy is ... nothing?
replies(1): >>45110875 #
3. pdabbadabba ◴[03 Sep 25 00:28 UTC] No.45110875[source]▶
No? What makes you say that?
replies(1): >>45110927 #
4. benoau ◴[03 Sep 25 00:34 UTC] No.45110927{3}[source]▶
Well, they pay $20 billion to Apple, Firefox etc to be default and now that can't be exclusive - but you could always change search engines so in practice perhaps nothing changes at all.
replies(1): >>45110956 #
5. dragonwriter ◴[03 Sep 25 00:39 UTC] No.45110956{4}[source]▶
If it can't be exclusive, that means other providers must be allowed to pay to be default on some portion of installs? If so, wouldn't that result in the basis of payment changing to a basis which takes into account the number or (e.g., advertising demographics-based) desirability of the default installs that Google receives, rather than a global amount based on what is expected to be aggregate number and desirability of all users of the product covered by the agreement?
replies(1): >>45112637 #
6. brookst ◴[03 Sep 25 05:58 UTC] No.45112637{5}[source]▶
Forbidding Google from requiring exclusivity is not the same thing as mandating that Apple accept payments from others.

Google can afford to pay more per user/click because of scale economies; their cost per user/click is lower. So, great, Google will pay Apple $20/user/year on a nonexclusive basis, and Firefox or whoever are free to match or exceed that, so long as they don't mind losing money on every user.

replies(2): >>45113127 #>>45117126 #
7. warkdarrior ◴[03 Sep 25 07:20 UTC] No.45113127{6}[source]▶
So the problem is that Firefox does not find its users to be as valuable as Google's?
replies(1): >>45133802 #
8. the_other ◴[03 Sep 25 08:55 UTC] No.45113617[source]▶
I don't see how it's different from what happens today. Google isn't an exclusive search option in any browser.

Are you saying that 'til now, Apple/Firefox _only_ took money for search default from Google due to the wording of the contract? In future, all the search vendors can pay all the browser makers for a position on a list of defaults?

9. ◴[03 Sep 25 15:45 UTC] No.45117126{6}[source]▶
10. brookst ◴[05 Sep 25 00:33 UTC] No.45133802{7}[source]▶
It's just reality. I'm not sure it's "the problem".