A top Apple executive defended the tech giant’s decision to make Google the default search engine on Apple iPhones and Macs, saying there was no “valid alternative.’’
Google as the default search is just the tip of the shitberg of monopolistic bullshit imo.
I agree. That's why I don't understand why they are going after the default search when it's the weakest argument of all of them. I just pointed out one instance where Google is blatantly monopolistic, but there are many more, and there are also many instances where they are breaking other laws. It just seems like the government is sticking to the default search issue because it's soft and they truly don't care. If they win, they can force Google to make it easier to set your search engine. Then they claim a victory, while Google just keeps on invading our privacy and amassing our data for their own profit.
The real case meat isn't default search though, it's the fact that they have 95%+ of the US online search market. That is stifling innovation and is part of the reason for their ad dominance as well. And they're abusing it as well by making changes which mean they funnel you into ad results, display the content you're after without entering the page in question thus "stealing" traffic and eyeballs and the whole amp bullshit.
Just like AT&T previously completely dominating telecom was a dampener on innovation which became super obvious once the monopoly was ended I think it will be the opening of Internet and search innovation flood gates if this monopoly is broken.
That's the important part. My point is that the government is like a lion going after toes rather than the jugular. They could easily go for something more significant, but they've chosen not to. I think it's because they care more about the show than the result. Not even Google could take on the federal government if it really wanted to break up the monopoly. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. I've seen these shinanigans too many times
t just seems like the government is sticking to the default search issue because it’s soft and they truly don’t care.
Or maybe they're actively investigating the other issues too but aren't ready to bring those to court yet… so they're not saying anything which could affect proceedings.
I agree. That's why I don't understand why they are going after the default search when it's the weakest argument of all of them. I just pointed out one instance where Google is blatantly monopolistic, but there are many more, and there are also many instances where they are breaking other laws. It just seems like the government is sticking to the default search issue because it's soft and they truly don't care. If they win, they can force Google to make it easier to set your search engine. Then they claim a victory, while Google just keeps on invading our privacy and amassing our data for their own profit.
The real case meat isn't default search though, it's the fact that they have 95%+ of the US online search market. That is stifling innovation and is part of the reason for their ad dominance as well. And they're abusing it as well by making changes which mean they funnel you into ad results, display the content you're after without entering the page in question thus "stealing" traffic and eyeballs and the whole amp bullshit.
Just like AT&T previously completely dominating telecom was a dampener on innovation which became super obvious once the monopoly was ended I think it will be the opening of Internet and search innovation flood gates if this monopoly is broken.
That's the important part. My point is that the government is like a lion going after toes rather than the jugular. They could easily go for something more significant, but they've chosen not to. I think it's because they care more about the show than the result. Not even Google could take on the federal government if it really wanted to break up the monopoly. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. I've seen these shinanigans too many times
Or maybe they're actively investigating the other issues too but aren't ready to bring those to court yet… so they're not saying anything which could affect proceedings.
I hope that's true, but I wouldn't put money on it.