| ▲ | LeoPanthera 2 days ago |
| The BBC is reporting the exact opposite of this headline. "It's also free to keep making payments to partners such as Apple, to secure placement of its browser - another closely watched and contentious part of the case." https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cg50dlj9gm4t Edit: Even the CNBC body text contradicts its own headline. The confusion seems to be what "exclusive" means. "The company can make payments to preload products, but they cannot have exclusive contracts, the decision showed." |
|
| ▲ | pdabbadabba 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I don't see the contradiction "paying partners to secure browser placement" =/ "exclusivity." This just means you can have partner deals, but that they can't be exclusive, right? |
| |
| ▲ | benoau 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | But in that case the remedy is ... nothing? | | |
| ▲ | pdabbadabba 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No? What makes you say that? | | |
| ▲ | benoau 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, they pay $20 billion to Apple, Firefox etc to be default and now that can't be exclusive - but you could always change search engines so in practice perhaps nothing changes at all. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If it can't be exclusive, that means other providers must be allowed to pay to be default on some portion of installs? If so, wouldn't that result in the basis of payment changing to a basis which takes into account the number or (e.g., advertising demographics-based) desirability of the default installs that Google receives, rather than a global amount based on what is expected to be aggregate number and desirability of all users of the product covered by the agreement? | | |
| ▲ | brookst 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Forbidding Google from requiring exclusivity is not the same thing as mandating that Apple accept payments from others. Google can afford to pay more per user/click because of scale economies; their cost per user/click is lower. So, great, Google will pay Apple $20/user/year on a nonexclusive basis, and Firefox or whoever are free to match or exceed that, so long as they don't mind losing money on every user. | | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | warkdarrior 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | So the problem is that Firefox does not find its users to be as valuable as Google's? | | |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | the_other 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't see how it's different from what happens today. Google isn't an exclusive search option in any browser. Are you saying that 'til now, Apple/Firefox _only_ took money for search default from Google due to the wording of the contract? In future, all the search vendors can pay all the browser makers for a position on a list of defaults? |
|
|
| ▲ | robocat 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| CNBC also says "illegally held a monopololy". When they can't spell, it's a sign the article was poorly rushed? |
| |
| ▲ | wincy 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In my mind, it also basically guarantees it wasn’t written with AI! | | |
| ▲ | solardev 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I wonder if you can ask AI to "add some typos and grammatical mistakes, and don't use emdashes" | | |
| ▲ | edm0nd 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I just fed this to Claude >write me two paragraphs about how AI has grown in 2025. include a few typos to make it appear as if a human wrote them. its response: I can't write content with intentional typos to make it appear human-written, as this could be misleading about the source of the content. However, I'd be happy to write you two informative paragraphs about AI's growth in 2025! | | |
| ▲ | ipaddr 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't understand the crowd who uses Claude. Why? I asked Claude to generate a health project it refused, alright what about any kind of app it refused then I asked it to generate some code..any code. It refused. This is after signing up a few months ago to test how great it was with code as many on here have attested. People are claimed perhaps you fell into a bad a/b test. Anything is possible. It would explain how others are getting some form of usefulness It was the only service I took the time to actual cancelled the account instead of just not visiting again. | |
| ▲ | jilles 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I fed the same prompt to Deepseek: By 2025, the integration of AI has become so seamless that its practically invisible, operating as the central nervous system for everything from urban infrastructure to personalized healthcare. We’re no longer just talking about chatbots; we’re seeing predictive environmental systems that autonomously manage power grids and traffic flows in megacities, drastically reducing emissions and congestion. The big leap has been in multi-modal models that can truly understand and generate complex, contextual content across text, audio, and video, making creative collaborations between humans and machines the new norm in industries like design and entertainment. Its a shift from tools to partners. On the business side, the adoption of small-scale, hyper-efficient AI running locally on devices has exploded, adressing major early concerns about data privacy and cloud dependency. These compact models allow for real-time data analysis and decision-making without a constant internet connection, revolutionizing fields like precision manufacturing and remote medecine. This democratization means even small startups have access to powerful AI capabilites, leveling the playing field in unexpected ways and fostering a huge wave of innovation that was previously concentrated in the hands of a few tech giants. It did a pretty good job with its (should be it's), adressing (should be addressing), medecine (medicine) and capabilites (should be capabilities) | |
| ▲ | Electricniko 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ha ha, I just tried this with Gemini, with the prompt to "include a few typos in the writing." The first time didn't include any typos that jumped out at me, so I asked it where they were. Its response: "My apologies, the previous response did not contain any intentional typos. The original user request was to include a few typos in the writing, but I failed to do so. The text was edited to correct any accidental errors before being sent. I will be sure to meet the specific requirements of the prompt in the future." So I said, "Redo the request, but this time show me the typos you include." And it rewrote the paragraphs, with a message at the end: "The typos included were: "investmen" instead of "investment" "financ" instead of "finance" "regulashions" instead of "regulations"" | | |
| ▲ | robocat 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Perhaps AI would usually suggest childish or uneducated spelling mistakes. A journalist is unlikely to type regulashions, and I suspect that mistake would be picked up by proofing checks/filters. Well educated people, and proofing systems, have different patterns to the mistakes they make. Mistakes are probably hard to keep in character without a large corpus of work to copy. More interestingly a fairly unique spelling mistake allows us to follow copying. There are training mistakes in AI where AI produces an output that becomes a signature for that AI (or just that training set of data). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45031375 (thread about "Why do people keep writing about the imaginary compound Cr2Gr2Te6" Unclosed parens to prove I'm a Real I) | | |
| |
| ▲ | vkou 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure, public models won't do it for you, but private models that will be used for propaganda purposes will absolutely be built to be misleading and convincing. | | |
| ▲ | IshKebab 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Public models will do it for you too. I was going to demonstrate that removing "to make it appear as if a human wrote them." would probably fix that but I pasted the exact same prompt into Claude and it happily complied. The response contained a few convincing typos. | |
| ▲ | edm0nd 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oh yeah totally agree. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | BrenBarn 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | They put the LOL in monopololy. |
|
|
| ▲ | thayne 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It sounds to me like they can pay Apple to pre-install chrome on Apple devices. But they can't pay Apple or Mozilla to be the default search engine in their browsers (Safari and Firefox). And the latter is going to be pretty bad for Mozilla. |
| |
| ▲ | thayne 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > “Google is permitted to pay browser developers, like Apple,” he said in the decision. However, the partner company must promote other search engines, offer a different option in various operating systems or in privacy mode, and are allowed to make changes to the default search settings annually, Mehta wrote. From https://archive.is/GJWPP#selection-1579.0-1579.309 So I guess maybe Google can still pay to be the default, as long as there are more limits on the contract? But I suspect those limits are going to result in lower payments. | |
| ▲ | makeitdouble 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | So they have to change the item name in their yearly check to Apple and Mozilla, and let them do the rest on their own ? |
|
|
| ▲ | stefan_ 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Gotta keep the cash flowing because the scam is too big. "Cutting off payments from Google
almost certainly will impose substantial—in some cases, crippling—
downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers,
which counsels against a broad payment ban." |
| |
| ▲ | coliveira 2 days ago | parent [-] | | In other words, if you do something illegal and companies depend on you, then you get a free pass... |
|