I still am confused as to whether or not Google would be happier if these types of payments were banned for everyone.
It seems like the only reason Google paid 8B, is because another company would have paid 7B otherwise. If Samsung was told "You can't let anyone pay you - have to show a screen with four competitors and let the user pick which one they want as default" I assume the vast majority of people would just pick Google?
There are far too many people who doesn't even think about the concept of a default app, let alone know how to change the default app. If you showed 4 apps all named "Calendar" with slightly different icons to someone like my dad, he wouldn't know what to pick or the fact that Google made one of it and Samsung made the other one. Google probably has data on what percentage of smartphone users are like this and determined that $8B is worth it.
I'm reminded of a scene in a movie where a guy obsesses over efficiency in a workshop where a guy reaches out full extension, and ends up destroying the place by moving the box of parts closer.
Sounds about right. I wonder if there's a correlation between outrageous efficiency obsession and lack of sexual release...not even, like, just sex, anything really...
This happened in South Park with Randy's obsession with the Food Channel or whatever it is. At the end, Sharon gives him an "ol'-fashioned" and by the end, he's like, "screw all this, imma sleep now"
> I still am confused as to whether or not Google would be happier if these types of payments were banned for everyone.
Then Samsung would just use its own apps more than they already do. Banning payments doesn't get the outcome you're suggesting of a mandatory set of multiple apps from multiple companies.
I suppose I mean the "banning defaults" would include Samsung itself here.
Microsoft was stopped from playing favorite with its own Internet Explorer. Samsung is playing favorites here under both these scenarios (having itself as the default or having Google as the default)
> If Samsung was told "You can't let anyone pay you - have to show a screen with four competitors and let the user pick which one they want as default"
What if I’m the 5th messaging app? How do I get a place over the first 4? How does Samsung decide?
What if I’m the 20th or 50th? Do I deserve a shot? If not where is the cut off? How do I become a winner and not a loser in this situation as the first N shown will have a huge growth advantage
That’s an unfairly over complicated thing to ask an EU bureaucrat to think about. They are much to busy thinking about much more important things like finding ways to snoop on their citizens private messaging.
Seems like then rather than an above board monetary transaction you'll just have some other quid pro quo and Google will end up at the top of the list of four choices. It would also introduce a lot of friction into onboarding if you have to choose provider for the several different categories of default app. People already pick iPhone (at least partially) because of the simple and "it just works" perception.
> Seems like then rather than an above board monetary transaction you'll just have some other quid pro quo and Google will end up at the top of the list of four choices.
In the EU, android phones ask the user to pick a search engine from a list on startup. The list order is randomized [1].
This is a good general point: it sometimes makes sense to be against X, while simultaneously participating in X. For example: in a country where you need to bribe people to carry on a normal life, you can do so while advocating for anti-bribery laws. It doesn't make you a hypocrite.
Sure, call it "reasonable hypocrisy", so long as we don't castigate people doing it.
How about wanting to legally abolish tips, because it's unfair and leads to subminimum wages for workers? Must you refuse to tip a waiter, lest you be called a hypocrite?
Right, Google has already bought the current generation of users, it's the future they have to worry about. If they don't pay for the next crop of users they have very little to offer that users can't get else where.
Would one selection screen do or how many would you need? It seems like no other single competitor offers everything people want on their Android phone (app store, browser, calendar, cloud storage, contacts, payment, maps, mails, translation, ...).
Perhaps more - but the point being it seems like most people would pick Google if there was no default/they were given options of default.
I feel like the manufacturers are the one holding Google hostage, threatening to give users a different/less popular default option if Google doesn't pay up.
Doesn't the EU require a selection screen? And the manufacturers hold auctions to win space on the selection screen instead? Because listing 100+ options wouldn't be good UX either.
> If Samsung was told "You can't let anyone pay you - have to show a screen with four competitors and let the user pick which one they want as default"
People would just start paying Samsung for being one of the four competitors. Otherwise who gets to decide who those four are?
But then Apple, e.g., is testifying it chooses Google not because of payment, or its amount, but because Google is the "best". As such, this analysis falls short.
Assuming Google really does provide a valuable service, then why aren't Apple and Samsung paying for it. Instead, they are getting paid to use it.
It seems like the only reason Google paid 8B, is because another company would have paid 7B otherwise. If Samsung was told "You can't let anyone pay you - have to show a screen with four competitors and let the user pick which one they want as default" I assume the vast majority of people would just pick Google?