Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Google The Internet Apple

Lawsuit Says Google Pays Apple To Keep Away From Internet Search Market (pymnts.com) 76

Posted by BeauHD from the preferential-treatment dept.
A class action lawsuit has been filed in California against Google, Apple and the CEOs of both tech giants for allegedly violating antitrust laws, according to a press release. The complaint calls for the breakup of Google and Apple into separate and independent companies in keeping with the precedent of the of Standard Oil company into Exxon, Mobile, Conoco, Amoco, Sohio, Chevron and others, the release stated. PYMNTS.com reports: Charges in the suit allege that Google and Apple have agreed that Apple would keep out of the internet search business against Google, according to the release. It also claims Google shares its search profits with Apple and gives Apple preferential treatment for all Apple devices; annual multi-billion-dollar payments by Google to Apple not to compete in the search business; suppression of smaller competitors to keep them from the search sector; and acquiring competing companies. Allegations also include higher advertising rates than rates that would be in a competitive system, the release stated.

Attorneys are seeking an end to the alleged billion-dollar payments to Apple from Google and asking the court to prohibit non-compete agreements between the two companies and end the profit-sharing agreement and the preferential treatment for Google on Apple devices, according to the release. "These powerful companies abused their size by unlawfully foreclosing and monopolizing major markets which in an otherwise free enterprise system would have created jobs, lowered prices, increased production, added new competitors, encouraged innovations and increased the quality of services in the digital age," Joseph M. Alioto of Alioto Law, who is representing the plaintiffs, said in the release.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawsuit Says Google Pays Apple To Keep Away From Internet Search Market More

Lawsuit Says Google Pays Apple To Keep Away From Internet Search Market

Comments Filter:

  • Facts, but interpreted...differently.

  • what is California Crane School's specific interest in filing this lawsuit? And why file it as a class? Who's Joseph M. Alioto? any other relations to the California Crane School beside client/attorney? Something doesn't seem right here.

    • Re:Something's fishy here (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thomst ( 1640045 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @09:00PM (#62143651) Homepage

      andydread plaintively inquired:

      what is California Crane School's specific interest in filing this lawsuit?

      As a stalking horse - presumably for Microsoft, whose Bing search engine continues to run a poor third against Google and the phone book.

      And why file it as a class?

      Much bigger potential damages. Their problem being that they're still going to have to prove harm to some end user in order to win those damages.

      Who's Joseph M. Alioto?

      Scion of a powerful San Francisco dynasty and son of a former mayor. His sister is one of the other attorneys filing on behalf of the purported client.

      any other relations to the California Crane School beside client/attorney?

      Probably not. On the other hand, the California Crane School is, as noted above, an obvious stalking horse, so the real question is, "Does he have any relation to the puppetmaster(s) behind the Crane School?"

      Something doesn't seem right here.

      To state the entirely obvious ...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dynamo ( 6127 )

        I agree something's not right in this, but I don't expect MS to be behind a suit that is effectively encouraging Apple to start their own search engine.

        I think they'd rather have Apple make bing the default search, which won't be achieved here. People were not too thrilled last time they tried that.

        • Perhaps the point of the arrangement is that Apple does not want to start their own search engine but they also do not want to get screwed by Google.

        • I used Bing on my iPhone, for purely political reasons. Then it started with this GDPR nonsense asking me all the time whether I want to allow ti to spy on me. That was pretty annoying. And then Safari complained that Bing was using some outdated certificate which means you have to manually ask it to allow to do searches. Seriously, WTF?

      • Re:Something's fishy here (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Otis B. Dilroy III ( 2110816 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2022 @12:00AM (#62144021)
        Me thinks that this is in the vein of Subway Tuna. It's about forcing corporate disclosure via court discovery. Or the threat thereof.

    • Because they want money and to fuck over consumers, that's why.

  • Walled garden (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Comboman ( 895500 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @09:02PM (#62143657)

    Google pays Apple to be allowed into it's walled garden, not because they are afraid of an Apple search engine (which would be about as successful as Bing).

    • not because they are afraid of an Apple search engine (which would be about as successful as Bing).

      You don't think Apple could make a better search engine than Bing? Really?

      • Re:Walled garden (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dfn5 ( 524972 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @09:39PM (#62143729) Journal

        You don't think Apple could make a better search engine than Bing? Really?

        No, not really. They'd probably remove the search field and call it courageous.

        • Apple does not need a search button. Your iPhone is listening to every thing you say so as soon as you open the Apple search, it just takes you to exactly where you wanted to go.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by oGMo ( 379 )

            "exactly where you wanted to go"

            Google: usually takes you where you want to go, unless your search happens to include a single trending term in which case you will never what you're after.

            Bing: takes you to the knockoff of where you want to go, with a bunch of extra "features" thrown in; if you use Microsoft products, tends to sneak in like a creepy landlord

            Apple: would take you to one of 3 curated sites, and that's where you want to go; if you don't think so, no, that's where you want to go; it would be impossible to ensure privacy and s

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sebby ( 238625 )

        You don't think Apple could make a better search engine than Bing? Really?

        I see you've never really tried to use Siri for useful results.

      • I am a consistent Apple user. I don’t believe Apple could build a better search engine than Bing. In fact, it’d probably be a lot worse. Apple hamstrings themselves with their privacy obsession. A modern search engine needs some context to do a good job. It’s the same problem they have with their voice assistant. It has to know something about you if it’s really going to be useful.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I'm reminded of Apple Maps, which is still vastly inferior to Google Maps. Turns out it's not trivial to build a really good mapping service, and the same applies to search engines.

          For example, because Google sent cars around to collect street view data, and then built AI that can pull details out of those images (like building numbers on doors, or identifying where the main entrance is) and combine with data pulled from satellite imagery, their search engine is dramatically better at finding local stuff an

          • They have huge amounts of metadata, like shop opening times, which is not trivial to scrape off the web.

            I really wonder how they get that information.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              A mix of sources. Some of it is scraped, a lot of it is provided by the business owners themselves, and some of it is provided by users.

              Even more is gathered by AI, such as things like where the main entrance is, house numbers, where pedestrian crossings are. Basically anything that can be seen on satellite or street view imagery. They have 3D data for buildings in some areas that is generated by AI using satellite and aircraft photos, a kind of photogrammetry.

      • I think Apple is one of the few companies that could make a better search engine than Bing and Google. "Good" and "Better" are only part of the equation when people make choices. Google has huge advantages that go beyond good search results.

      • Why would they? Remember, at the heart of it all, Apple is a hardware company. Its software services are there to give functionality and draw people to the hardware. Historically, they've been perfectly happy to use other companies' software and services, so long as they met Apple's perceived needs and were not prejudicial against Apple. Let's look at a couple of examples:

        1). Safari: Before Safari, Apple had a deal with Microsoft... yes, that Microsoft... for Internet Explorer... yes, THAT Internet Exp

        • You're basically arguing the point of the lawsuit. Apple has no motive to make a competitor to Google search, because they are getting paid by Google.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tailhook ( 98486 )

      (which would be about as successful as Bing)

      As awful as Google's search results have become I think an outfit like Apple could actually succeed at search.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sebby ( 238625 )

        As awful as Google's search results have become I think an outfit like Apple could actually succeed at search.

        As awful as Siri's search results have always been I know an outfit like Apple would actually crash and burn at search.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Paradise Pete ( 33184 )

      Google pays Apple to be allowed into it's walled garden, not because they are afraid of an Apple search engine (which would be about as successful as Bing).

      There are well over a billion active iOS devices. If Apple made theirs the default, even with the ability to change it, it would still be wildly successful. It would no doubt bring on more anti-trust issues and scrutiny, so they are happy every month to instead take another billion dollars or so from Google. If that well dried up, though, they'd trot out their own. Surely they already have one internally just in case. They learned from the Maps fiasco.

      • There are well over a billion active iOS devices. If Apple made theirs the default, even with the ability to change it, it would still be wildly successful.

        If that was true, then Microsoft Edge would be the number one desktop browser. Not only is it the default, but it gets changed back to the default every time Windows pushes an "upgrade", and yet it's still fighting with Firefox for third place.

        • There are well over a billion active iOS devices. If Apple made theirs the default, even with the ability to change it, it would still be wildly successful.

          If that was true, then Microsoft Edge would be the number one desktop browser. Not only is it the default, but it gets changed back to the default every time Windows pushes an "upgrade", and yet it's still fighting with Firefox for third place.

          Clearly enough people know how to switch the default browser and bother to do so. Most iOS users don't know and don't care, and many who do would prefer to use Apple's over Google anyway. Google knows this and is not repeating their blunder with maps in which they tried to squeeze Apple. They saw what happened with Apple Maps. It was crap but people used it anyway. That cost Google a huge pile o' dough.

    • Re:Walled garden (Score:4, Informative)

      by teg ( 97890 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2022 @02:40AM (#62144235)

      Google pays Apple to be allowed into it's walled garden, not because they are afraid of an Apple search engine (which would be about as successful as Bing).

      Google pays for being the default. Apple ships 5 search engines (including one I've never heard of before today - Ecosia), and switching is as simple as going to Safari preferences, tap "search engine" and select the one you want.

      Given how much better Google is than Bing, DuckDuckGo, and Yahoo on search, I'm guessing this works out for everyone: Apple gets paid for Google being the default (like Mozilla), and Apple users get the best search engine by default, but have an easy time switching to DuckDuckGo to double down on privacy, or to Bing/Yahoo if you are a masochist or work there.

      • Given how much better Google is than Bing, DuckDuckGo, and Yahoo on search, I'm guessing this works out for everyone

        It would be legal for Apple to choose the best search engine based on quality to be the default. But instead they choose it based on money, which arguably isn't legal.

  • Google pays out here, there and everywhere. They pay Firefox to keep Google as the default search. It wouldn't surprise me if they had a side deal going with Meta to allow their tracking cookies to persist across Meta's various platforms. They probably pay TikTok, Amazon, eBay and Netflix to get newer content to the top of search results faster so people tend to search for shit via Google instead of natively.

  • Every time I try to switch from Google, I always wind up going back. I'm not searching, after all, I'm googling.

    You can't google on another search engine.

    If Apple made a search engine would you Apple things? Let me Apple that for you. I'm Appling how to make a search engine!

    Good times were had by all.

  • Why would able want to blow billions on trying to enter the search market? Tim Cook is a lot of things but he's not a risk taker. He's fun sitting back and letting the cash roll in from Apple's current cadre of computers, iphones, and accessories.

    • Why would able want to blow billions on trying to enter the search market? Tim Cook is a lot of things but he's not a risk taker. He's fun sitting back and letting the cash roll in from Apple's current cadre of computers, iphones, and accessories.

      Tim Cook isn't a Risk-Taker?

      See: Apple Silicon Macs.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Sebby ( 238625 )

        Tim Cook isn't a Risk-Taker?

        See: Apple Silicon Macs.

        There was little risk in dumping Intel (of all people) and going with your own existing & proven architecture.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I don't think Mac users buy Macs for performance anyway. They are usually mediocre when launched, and then steadily get worse (compared to the competition) for a few years before the next refresh.

          The last Intel Macbooks were in a right state. They would thermal throttle within 1 second if pushed hard. Moving to their own SoCs had very little risk when they were already in that position.

          • I don't think Mac users buy Macs for performance anyway. They are usually mediocre when launched, and then steadily get worse (compared to the competition) for a few years before the next refresh.

            The last Intel Macbooks were in a right state. They would thermal throttle within 1 second if pushed hard. Moving to their own SoCs had very little risk when they were already in that position.

            Don't be ridiculous; everyone buys their computers for "performance".

            But even with that, scores of people on this site and many others Predicted (yet again) the imminent demise of the Mac as the choice of professionals for "real" work; because, without Intel CPUs, they would be nothing more than "big iPhones".

            Fortunately, the doomsayers were incorrect.

        • Tim Cook isn't a Risk-Taker?

          See: Apple Silicon Macs.

          There was little risk in dumping Intel (of all people) and going with your own existing & proven architecture.

          That’s hysterical!

          Right Before the launch of the first M1 Macs, these very pages were filled with naysayers saying that Apple Silicon Macs were going to be nothing more than toy computers with a toy processor in them.

          Then the surprising benchmarks and our hands on reviews started pouring in. . .

    • Seems like it's free protection money being paid to Apple. Apple didn't send any goons around threatening to break legs, but Google is still paying them.

    • To avoid anti-trust action if this lawsuit gains traction. It wouldn't have to be good, it would just have to exist. Though they might be able to get away with just including search engine selection part of the new device setup process.

  • and yet they have the facts right in this case. Of course other lawyers will try to sink this lawsuit while other lawyers think about it and decide the case as if it's not a slam dunk

  • Those companies together might have a chance to compete against MS. Non compete clauses should be allowed between these two and I would rather see them working together even more closely to counter the dominance of MS. Sure to the consumer market it might not be obvious to see the power of MS, but they are devouring competition and companies at the moment at a massive speed.

  • Serious question: when does working together become collusion?

    Both Google and Apple want to maintain their effective monopolies over their respective markets. With Apple, it is their famous "walled garden" - once you start using Apple tech, it is hard to get away from it, because their tech does not play well with others. With Google, they have a near monopoly on search and advertising. Sure, others could enter the fray (like DDG), but Google has established such an effective amongst their services that n

    • The idea of breaking up companies is really fraught.

      Like, Google shouldn't just have to be a search company. There are legitimate benefits to them making Android and tying the two things together. Their ability to capture and process data means that Android has better text to speech than anything I've ever seen. There are little integrations that really do make sense. On the other hand, it seems kind of bad that they ALSO own YouTube. That seems like too much power concentrated in one place.

      Similarly with A

  • I'd welcome to be paid NOT to do anything, like farmers are paid not to put beans in the soil if there too much of it.

  • I would welcome a search engine from Apple, specially an add free search. 50% of my search results are add that have nothing to do with what I searched. That said, having worked on two search engines in the 90s, it’s not so easy. There is a reason why all those 90s search engines are gone, and it’s not because google bullied them out of existence. Apple also made duck duck go the default search engine for a bit and guess what was the first thing people did they switched it to google.

  • I'm not big on the legal concept of standing, because it is often used by courts to deny claims by the powerless against the powerful, but who exactly other than the Federal Government would have standing to file such a case?

  • If I were being skeptical on the claims (Score:3)

    by zuckie13 ( 1334005 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2022 @09:59AM (#62144905)

    (1) Google would share it's search profits with Apple - So google is paying money to Apple for something
    (2) Apple would give preferential treatment to Google for all Apple devices - Eureka! - Google is paying to be the default search on Apple - might (1) be the agreement on how much Google pays - and might it be a percentage of search profits from Apple devices?
    (3) regular secret meetings between the executives of both companies - Right, because every meeting an executive takes with other companies they are doing business with is publicly declared in a press conference...
    (4) annual multi-billion-dollar payments by Google to Apple not to compete in the search business - So, google made sure they're paying Apple enough that it's more profitable to keep using them rather than develop their own. Does not alone mean it's some conspiracy, just a business choice.
    (5) suppression of the competition of smaller competitors and foreclosing competitors from the search market - which is a problem for Congress and regulators, not a lawsuit against the companies, not unless it's a direct lawsuit by one of these competitors, which is not being claimed.
    (6) acquiring actual and potential competitors - again, this is the job of Congress and regulators to prevent.

  • Only the lawyers win (Score:3)

    by RogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) on Wednesday January 05, 2022 @10:54AM (#62145101)

    Aside from this being totally stupid given that you can use any search engine you want, the fact of the matter is that the lawyers are the only people who are going to benefit from a class action suit. You, dear reader, will receive coupons for discounts for phone cases. Meanwhile, the lawyers get cash. A LOT of cash. Cash with which to continue to shake down other companies. THAT there sounds like a basis for a class action suit.

  • I sat down with my Mac and searched for the story with Google and I couldn't find a thing about it.

Slashdot Top Deals

NOWPRINT. NOWPRINT. Clemclone, back to the shadows again. - The Firesign Theater

Close