7 ms·
> Plaintiffs proposed a remedial term unique to Apple that would forbid any “contract between Google and Apple in which there would be anything exchanged of val
by allcentury 2y ago
> Plaintiffs proposed a remedial term unique to Apple that would forbid any “contract between Google and Apple in which there would be anything exchanged of value.”
Wow
- brookst 2y agoYeah that seems a little extreme. Like some person at Apple signs up for Google Workspaces and the company's in violation.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- SAI_Peregrinus 2y agoOr Google wants to buy/license any Apple products, e.g. for developing apps to run on Apple devices.
- duskwuff 2y agoOr, for that matter - Apple is a major customer of GCP for iCloud storage. A court order requiring that business to cease would place an undue burden on Apple.
- CobrastanJorji 2y agoOoof. Google gives Apple like a third of its search revenue on iOS searches. Apple gets tens of billions of bucks from this. Presumably it is so much money in part because Microsoft would happily pay half that to be the default instead. But if Google isn't allowed to offer anything at all, Microsoft is free to offer only a sliver of what it otherwise would have, because what's Apple gonna do otherwise, send all of its users to Duck Duck Go?
- mcintyre1994 2y agoI suspect the biggest concern Apple has is that it’s a big part of their services revenue, which is what’s holding their earnings up currently. They want Services to be seen as a big interesting business, but it’s mostly Google and App Store games. It’d be a big problem for them to report a drop in services revenue, and they’re not going to find anything to replace it quickly enough.
- bilbo0s 2y agoFrom a legal perspective, Apple's biggest concern, by far, is that this case could set a precedent for using courts to sanction Apple without letting Apple in court. Next to that, revenue is meaningless. Because they can take your revenue from whatever source via judgement, without giving you so much as an opportunity to file a brief in front of the court. This is one time where there is much more on the line than money. At least for Apple. Maybe for everyone if the Supremes were to say this is OK. (Unlikely in the extreme, but still.)
- DanHulton 2y agoThis is an underrated comment and should be WAY higher. Like a lot of things Apple does, this isn't about the thing itself, but about the next ten to twenty years of related things.
- brookst 2y agoAlso consider that a good portion of Apple's services revenue is from services running on GCP, which would be prohibited. They could go all-in with AWS and Azure, but that's a significant tech change and reduces their negotiating power with those alternatives.
- scarface_74 2y agoAnd how does that help? You’re going from the 3rd largest cloud provider to the first and second? Apple already runs some of its workloads on AWS. It was an open secret inside AWS before. But they brought an Apple person on stage at the last reinvent
- frereubu 2y agoAs far as I understand it, this is specifically to do with the bundling of Google search in Apple devices. Still big but not a ban on any contracts between them.
- btown 2y agoFrom https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICAetalvGOOGLELLCDocketNo120cv03010DDCOct202020/9?doc_id=X4KCNTP5QF58HDB08MQ981N3DT9 https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/UNITEDS... the proposed restriction seems to be: > “Google must not offer or provide anything of value to Apple—or offer any commercial terms—that in any way creates an economic disincentive to compete in or enter the GSE or Search Text Ad markets,” That's a very broad statement that could easily be interpreted to cover more than just the default-search-provider agreement.
- frereubu 2y agoTrue - hadn't spotted the bit about the Search Text Ad bit either.
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoIt's pretty consistent with what the law actually says. Here's the Sherman Act: > Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. > Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other per- son or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony It's very under-enforced, but that's what it says.
- mimsee 2y agoSo all Google services would disappear from the App Store because it could be argued that it provides tremendous value for Google to have their services there? The $100 USD /year fee, even if withdrawn, would trigger it, since it's a contract, right?
- tivert 2y ago>> Plaintiffs proposed a remedial term unique to Apple that would forbid any “contract between Google and Apple in which there would be anything exchanged of value.” > Wow That seems a little broad. Wouldn't it forbid Google from buying Macbooks for employees, for instance?
- CDRdude 2y agoThere’s a joke in there about the value of Macbooks.
- chrisco255 2y agoNo, because there's no contract necessary to purchase Macbooks.
- tivert 2y ago> No, because there's no contract necessary to purchase Macbooks. You don't have to sign a paper in a big room with lawyers to have a contract. Whenever you buy something, you're entering into a contract. It's got all the elements.