[ramsj]

Statement from Eddy Cue:

"If this Court prohibits Google from sharing revenue for search distribution, Apple would have two unacceptable choices. It could still let users in the United States choose Google as a search engine for Safari, but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple's users at no cost. Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on Safari. But because customers prefer Google, removing it as an option would harm both Apple and its customers."

and "... it is unlikely that Apple will decide to create a search engine in the future, regardless of what remedies are ordered in this case."

Source: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zgvoalybovd/...

[criddell]

I don't see the problem with option #1.

Apple is sounding like a cellular company pre-iPhone where the carriers demanded a cut of every transaction on the phone. They saw users as their asset and did everything they could to but themselves in the middle of every phone transaction. I'm talking about the time of $3 ringtones.

For Apple today, I can understand the argument for fees in the app store because there are real development and ongoing maintenance costs for that. But why should they get paid for a company to be a search engine option? How are they earning that money?

[lazide]

They’re complaining they would lose billions, while it helps no one.

Wouldn’t you complain too?

[ksec]

>but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple's users at no cost

That is entitled. Should every web site share profits with Apple because they are accessed via Safari.

[lazide]

If you were Apple, what do you think your answer would be?

[bangonkeyboard]

Why are people who go out of their way to select Google search "Apple's users" but never "Google's users"?

[rubyfan]

Nothing is stopping those Google users from installing Chrome.

[BadHumans]

What's the problem with option 1? Users have a choice on what to pick, they pick Google because they prefer Google. Is users having choice foreign to Apple?

[sitkack]

Apple should be able to make a large amount of profit of that user's choice. Choice isn't free!

[xbmcuser]

So Apple is the monopoly abusing it's position and I thought it was google anti competitive behaviour that was being punished.

[jncfhnb]

I hope Eddy Cue, SVP of Apple Services, gets to explain that quote in antitrust testimony at some point when he has to explain how Apple’s policy doesn’t assume ownership of users.

[1123581321]

Wouldn’t it work to his advantage? A key defense in such a trial would be distinguishing between restricting (owning) users and setting defaults.

[CamelCaseName]

> "... it is unlikely that Apple will decide to create a search engine in the future, regardless of what remedies are ordered in this case."

Maybe Google should stop paying $15B/year on its own then...

[from-nibly]

My neighbor has access to have a conversation with me. Should he be paying Apple since I use a Mac?

[sitkack]

If we don't collude in this way, we are both leaving money on the table. We must do this.