←back to thread

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

(www.cnbc.com)
858 points colesantiago | 1 comments | 02 Sep 25 20:26 UTC | HN request time: 0.2s | source
Show context
paxys ◴[02 Sep 25 21:31 UTC] No.45109329[source]▶
> The company can make payments to preload products, but it cannot have exclusive contracts, the decision stated.

How is this relevant? Apple is the one selling exclusive access to search on iPhone, not Google.

replies(2): >>45109402 #>>45109513 #
whatevertrevor ◴[02 Sep 25 21:46 UTC] No.45109513[source]▶
Yeah, that's an interesting side of this. How is Apple not under any fire for basically weaponizing something as basic as internet search on their platform? If we think this practice is anti-competitive shouldn't we also make it illegal for the platforms to do this?

It's a little bit like sentencing the sex-worker to jail but letting the pimp go scot free.

replies(2): >>45110247 #>>45110825 #
ezfe ◴[02 Sep 25 23:02 UTC] No.45110247[source]▶
Because anti-competitive behavior in this context cannot be performed by someone without a monopoly.

Apple cannot be anti-competitive in the search space unless you show they have a monopoly on browser apps (which you could, but would probably fail based on how the Apple lawsuit is going).

replies(1): >>45110729 #
1. whatevertrevor ◴[03 Sep 25 00:06 UTC] No.45110729[source]▶
I'm not referring to the specific context of this lawsuit, but the broader context in general.

Google is in multiple anti-competitive lawsuits, while Apple has the most walled garden of all gardens, protects it with a giant club and manages to get away without a scratch. For example Google got sued for anti-competitive practices in Android regarding third party stores, Apple gets no such lawsuit because they simply made it impossible.

Of course it's the laws to blame since they incentivize aggressively closed ecosystems from the get go, but it's odd that there isn't even a conversation about it regarding Apple.