Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Taggart's posts Post Back to profile
Taggart :donor:
4 comments
Taggart :donor:

There's more to this remedy than just the sell-off. Let's read some PDFs, gang.

documentcloud.org/documents/25

Google is prohibited from disincentivizing Apple from getting into the search game. That might seem weird, but many times during the case, Apple reps made clear that the Google deal was a set of handcuffs in this regard. With the arrival of Apple Intelligence, this opens the door to a new Apple search product.

Google can't acquire search competitors without prior consent from DoJ and Plaintiff States. So now's the time to innovate in the ad space, I guess?

Now, Android stuff.

Google must not use its control of Android or any other product or service to switch the default [search engine] or to install or switch a Search Access Point.

Holy crap. So basically they need to allow you to remove Google search from Android. Indeed, later on in Section V, it is enumerated that no Google Search product or AI product can be "mandatory" in Android.

The strictures are worth reading in full. And if Google doesn't like it, Justice allows them to choose to divest of Android instead of complying!

There's more to this remedy than just the sell-off. Let's read some PDFs, gang.

documentcloud.org/documents/25

Google is prohibited from disincentivizing Apple from getting into the search game. That might seem weird, but many times during the case, Apple reps made clear that the Google deal was a set of handcuffs in this regard. With the arrival of Apple Intelligence, this opens the door to a new Apple search product.

21 November at 6:12 | Open on infosec.exchange
Taggart :donor:

They also need to provide an at-cost syndication of the search index to any who want it for ten years to correct for anticompetitive behavior in the market.

Basically, Google has to give competitors a card to the Library of Babylon.

Ten. Years. Search will never be the same.

21 November at 6:15 | Open on infosec.exchange
Taggart :donor:

Lmaooo

Google must not preinstall any Search Access Point on any new Google Device.

That search bar at the bottom of Android? Gone. I don't even know how Chrome OS works now.

Google must display a Choice Screen on every new and existing instance of a Google Browser where the user has not previously affirmatively selected a default [search engine] for that Google Browser, including by changing the search default through the settings.

This is arguably more aggressive than what the EU did to Microsoft and Internet Explorer.

Lmaooo

Google must not preinstall any Search Access Point on any new Google Device.

That search bar at the bottom of Android? Gone. I don't even know how Chrome OS works now.

Google must display a Choice Screen on every new and existing instance of a Google Browser where the user has not previously affirmatively selected a default [search engine] for that Google Browser, including by changing the search default through the settings.

21 November at 6:20 | Open on infosec.exchange
Taggart :donor:

This is a shellacking by Justice and the Plaintiffs against Google. I honestly don't know how Chrome survives on its own without search attached—ironically, perhaps as a non-profit foundation? That'd be pretty funny.

Ostensibly advertisers would still want preferential access to the dominant browser, in whatever shape it ends up, but then...wouldn't it baldly just be an ad viewing apparatus?

This is an unbelievable opportunity for Mozilla, which I have every confidence they can fumble.

21 November at 6:25 | Open on infosec.exchange
Go Up