Linked List: August 14, 2024

Wednesday, 14 August 2024

U.S. Considers Breaking Up Google as Antitrust Remedy ★

David McCabe and Nico Grant, reporting for The New York Times:

Justice Department officials are considering what remedies to ask a federal judge to order against the search giant, said three people with knowledge of the deliberations involving the agency and state attorneys general who helped to bring the case. They are discussing various proposals, including breaking off parts of Google, such as its Chrome browser or Android smartphone operating system, two of the people said.

Other scenarios under consideration include forcing Google to make its data available to rivals, or mandating that it abandon deals that made its search engine the default option on devices like the iPhone, said the people, who declined to be identified because the process is confidential. The government is meeting with other companies and experts to discuss their proposals for limiting Google’s power, the people said.

The deliberations are in their early stages. Judge Amit P. Mehta of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who is overseeing the case, has asked the Justice Department and Google to come up with a process for determining a fix by Sept. 4. He has scheduled a hearing on Sept. 6 to discuss next steps.

After winning the U.S.-v.-Microsoft case in 2001, the U.S. pursued breaking up Microsoft. It didn’t happen. But at least that made some sort of business sense — the idea at the time was to break the OS business (Windows) off from the app business (Office). Windows was profitable on its own. Office was profitable on its own. In theory they could have been separated and operated as independent businesses.

At a product level, you can see why it might be tempting to say Chrome and/or Android ought to be broken off from Google. But at a business level it doesn’t make any sense at all. Chrome makes no money at all on its own. It’s just a funnel for Google Search. Android maybe sort of kind of makes a little money for Google on its own, through the sale of Pixel devices, but it’s negligible. Like Chrome, Android really only exists as a funnel to keep users using Google search and within the broader Google digital ecosystem.

I mean, let’s say Google was forced to spin Chrome off. How would Chrome Inc. make money? Clearly, they’d make money through TAC fee payments from Google search. Also, if they split off Chrome they’d almost have to split off Android. If Google is disallowed from making its own web browser how in the world can they make an OS? I mean in theory they could make an OS that only offered third-party browsers but that would mean no system-level webview for apps to embed. Some people laughed at Microsoft’s late-1990s argument that Windows needed a built-in browser but that’s obviously true today. It’s no different than including a TCP/IP networking stack or printer drivers.

I don’t know what the remedy ought to be for this case, but I don’t think a breakup is it.

Apple: iOS 18.1 Will Offer API for Third-Party Apps to Offer In-App NFC Transactions Using the Secure Element ★

Apple Newsroom:

Starting with iOS 18.1, developers will be able to offer NFC contactless transactions using the Secure Element from within their own apps on iPhone, separate from Apple Pay and Apple Wallet. Using the new NFC and SE (Secure Element) APIs, developers will be able to offer in-app contactless transactions for in-store payments, car keys, closed-loop transit, corporate badges, student IDs, home keys, hotel keys, merchant loyalty and rewards cards, and event tickets, with government IDs to be supported in the future.

Reading between the lines, I do not think this will grant third-party apps access to the double-tap-side-button action to initiate a payment. And, I say, that’s a good thing. That’s something Apple should reserve for Apple Pay. I’m not sure the European Commission will agree with me.

Whoops: I should have read more than the first paragraph:

To make a contactless transaction within an app that utilizes these APIs, users can either open the app directly, or set the app as their default contactless app in iOS Settings, and double-click the side button on iPhone to initiate a transaction.

We regret the error, and the appropriate people have been sacked.

After Years of Legal Wrangling, Apple Now Allows Spotify to Show EU Users Pricing in App, and Inform Them They Can Sign Up on the Web ★

Spotify, in an update to an older post on the company blog:

While we are still many steps from a level playing field, we are beginning to see progress because of the European Commission’s historic decision on March 4, 2024 which found that Apple violated the EU’s antitrust laws and fined them over €1.8 billion. Starting today, Spotify is opting into Apple’s “entitlement” for music streaming services, created after the European Commission’s ruling. This means we will finally be able to offer something as obvious as it is overdue: iPhone consumers in the EU will now see pricing information for Spotify in the app and the fact that they can go to our website to purchase items directly.

Jess Weatherbed, at The Verge:

One thing that’s missing is the ability to click a link to make those purchases from outside the Apple App Store. Spotify says it’s opting into the “music streaming services entitlement” that Apple introduced after being served a €1.84 billion (about $2 billion) EU antitrust fine in March for “abusing its dominant position” in music streaming, rather than accepting the complicated new developer terms Apple outlined last week. Unlike the entitlement, the latter would allow EU developers to link to external payment options with Apple taking a cut of off-platform sales. Spotify clearly doesn’t want to do that, saying that Apple is demanding “illegal and predatory taxes.”

So after all this, all that Spotify’s app is now doing differently in the EU is (a) showing the prices of its available plans, and (b) telling users, without offering a tappable link, that to sign up, they need to go to Spotify’s website. It doesn’t even tell you the URL of the website, it just says “To buy Premium, go to the Spotify website.”

For anyone who isn’t paying close attention to these arguments over Apple’s draconian anti-steering terms for apps, it is surely very surprising that it took years of legal wrangling and a $2 billion fine (which, it should be noted, Apple hasn’t yet paid, and which quite possibly will be reduced or thrown out upon appeal) just to allow Spotify to present this information to users. Just to tell them the price and tell them they need to go to Spotify’s website to sign up.

These anti-steering provisions are indefensible. They make Apple look bad in the court of public opinion, and they look even worse in actual courts of law.

AT&T Says It Won’t Carry Google’s Pixel 9 Pro Fold ★

Eli Blumenthal, reporting for CNet:

Looking for Google’s new Pixel 9 Pro Fold? You won’t find it at AT&T. The carrier has confirmed to CNET that it will not be offering Google’s newest Pixel Fold to its customers. The decision would be a blow to Google’s device ambitions as it would make it harder for it to reach millions of AT&T customers. In its second-quarter earnings last month the carrier revealed that it had nearly 72 million postpaid phone users. [...]

AT&T sold last year’s original Pixel Fold and still plans to sell much of the rest of Google’s new lineup including the Pixel 9, 9 Pro, 9 Pro XL and Pixel Watch 3. It will have deals for those looking to upgrade to one of those phones.

Backs up my hunch that none of these foldables — including Google’s, regarded by some as the best — are selling well.