If I'm reading this correctly, this is about the deals Google had, between December 2019 and March 2021, with Telstra, Optus and TPG (apparently Australia's three largest telecommunications companies), to be the default (and only) pre-installed search engine on Android phones sold by those companies, and those companies would in return be paid by Google some fraction of its search-ads revenues.
Some things I'm curious about, and would be helpful context:
- Why did they stop in 2021, and is it normal for these things to take 4+ years to resolution?
- Does Google have similar deals in other countries, e.g. in the US does it have similar deals with T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T? If yes are they are similarly anticompetitive, and if not why not?
- Similar question about the agreements Google has with Mozilla and Apple, to be the default search engine on their browsers.
- Roughly how much would this deal have been worth to Google? I imagine it's not very likely the providers would have chosen a different default search engine, though without this deal they'd likely have more options pre-configured so users would have had more choice (and this I imagine is the primary anti-competitiveness complaint in the first place).
Pretty wild that it took this long for something so obviously anti-competitive to come to light formally. I mean, locking in default search exclusivity on millions of devices in exchange for ad revenue kickbacks? Classic textbook behavior.
Just to be clear, Google makes $55m in profits every 2.5 business hours.
It’s my opinion that Telstra, TPG and Optus should also be fined, since they were taking part and a beneficiary of the anti-competitive behaviour - they were willing parties.
This isn’t naive behaviour, this sits neatly under the definition of anti-competitive behaviour and bears similarity Microsoft’s anti-competitive behaviour involving PC vendors.
> In the undertaking, Google commits to removing certain pre-installation and default search engine restrictions from its contracts with Android phone manufacturers and telcos.
> The three telcos can configure search services on a device-by-device basis, and in ways that may not align with the settings set by Google. They can also enter into pre-installation agreements with other search providers.
Before we go patting Australia on the back for helping consumers, all they are really doing for the end user is allowing another corporation to set your defaults.
The anticompetitive behavior they are admitting to isn't that they are taking away choice from the end user, it's that they have agreements in place to prevent telocos from forcing their own software on you or signing contracts with Google competitors to force their software on you.
Remember this when you're next phone comes with the non-removable Telstra browser.
Damn, it still surprises me that Google search pre installed, is not just a normal thing. As in it is pre install because Google pays for it, not because vendors thinks it’s the better search. Seeems more obvious when written out like this
Is anyone actually going to switch their default search engine on their phone now? We're so locked into the Google ecosystem. Feels like a slap on the wrist that won't change user habits one bit.
Once there is some meaningful effect on the bottom line, revenue, market cap, criminal liability for shareholders, this is just a waste of time. Googles revenues and profits grew significantly from 2019/2021, even if they get the massive fine, it will be insignificant for the company, as well as for the executives who made the decision to go with something like this.
Similar as with Meta and their MITM approach when they bought Onavo to spy on users.
> Telstra and Optus to only pre-install Google Search on Android phones they sold to consumers, and not other search engines.
> In return, Telstra and Optus received a share of the revenue Google generated from ads displayed to consumers when they used Google Search on their Android phones.
So Telstra and Optus entered into this agreement and profited from it, too. Singling out Google is a strange choice given that all parties profited.
Back in the iPhone 4 era, I had a simple app on the App Store called "3D Coin Toss" that I wrote in a day. With zero promotion, it brought in a predictable ~$700/quarter from ads and an IAP to disable them.
Interestingly, all my discoverability came from Google. My app was on the first page of search results, which drove users directly to the App Store.
Then, Google decided to compete. Searching for "coin toss" started returning Google's own top-of-page inline coin-tossing app as the very first result. Users could now toss a coin without leaving search results. Unsurprisingly, my user acquisition tanked.
It was my first experience with this, and I remember thinking, "Is this fair? Why is Google competing with me?"
To the surprise of no one. Either way, Telstra should never have been privatised and Optus should've been slapped with bigger fines.
Definitely not anti-competitive in the rest of the world though.
Google is a plague, and the sooner its gone the better.
and the proceeds will be returned to the consumers who were affected by this?....
$55 million is pocket change for Google.
Oh, that's all?
Google is one of the most anticompetitive companies to have ever existed. MaBell has nothing on the new AI overlords.
The browser / web / search / ads thing is insane, and the fact that they've made it so companies have to pay to protect their own brand is beyond fucked. It ought to be illegal.
And they own the largest media company in the world and have a commanding lead in AI and autonomous vehicles. They're bigger than most countries and are poised for world domination.
Break these MFs up already.
To think the government got mad at Microsoft for IE. Jeez. We used to have a spine when it comes to antitrust.
G'Day Aussie friends, and thank you. One small step for a country, and in the right direction.
How long till we see someone write G$$GLE like script kiddies do with M$FT?
So we now have META, MSFT, GOOG, AAPL all with major government actions against them.
Maybe its just not possible to get that big without doing something anti competitive?
Why aren’t these discouraged with such massive fines that the board and shareholders oust executives? Just another example of how weak the laws are from stopping unfair competition by mega corps. Small businesses and even rich startups have the decks stacked against them.