| |
| ▲ | 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? | | |
|
|
|
|
