In Europe Androids have had user decided default browser/search engine selection in the out of box set up for years. Google still wins massively because users know it is simply a superior product.

Right, which is also arguably why we’ve seen competition from other search engines.

Part of the antitrust issue is that Apple never developed their own search engine because of these payments. Google paid Apple to not compete.

I doubt that the same number of people willingly choose Google, otherwise they wouldn't be paying so much money to be the default. That's a lot of money to throw away.

How is this different from any typical outsourcing arrangement other than the size?

Outsourcing arrangements many different motivations, it’s not just money. Otherwise, basically any outsourcing arrangement can be said to be “throwing away money” for one party.

There would be no choice without that deal either, Apple would simply sell its users to the next highest bidder.

Or Apple would develop a search engine instead, which is exactly what they did with Maps.

> I doubt that the same number of people willingly choose Google

Nobody "chooses" anything, that's the point. If you want to stop using Google on stock iOS, you have to opt-out. Same goes for Android, it's not a market share thing so much as it is an abuse of ubiquity. Defaults are powerful, and a competitor that lets you buy out their defaults is apparently powerful enough to prevent competition.

Google deserves the scrutiny here, but this whole situation really illustrates how hopelessly America is headed towards an antitrust reckoning. FAANG has gone rogue, and foreign regulators have been sounding the alarm for years. The only remaining question is if the FTC has the stomach to butcher their finest pigs.

It's a widespread assumption that defaults matter. But to what degree? I came across it first when I saw Dan Ariely's talk and his work on defaults (may not be the proponent)[1] but my takeaway is that it matters when you don't care about the as much.

For everyone with Windows, you start off with Edge/IE and then Bing as a default search engine. Yet, most switch to Chrome + Google almost instantly. People care about their browsing experience more than we give them credit for. Remember in 2009-10 when Chrome was new, it managed to win market share cos of superior product when it was not the default on Windows/Linux/MacOSX. On mobile too, the behavior is likely going to be there to a certain degree. While Google pays Apple a massive fee, there was an admission earlier in the trial that both Mozilla and Apple would still go ahead w Google (even without the deals) because of superior UX. Not sure if both said it, but one of them certainly did.

[1] https://danariely.com/the-power-of-defaults-in-how-we-eat/

Maybe look at some of the trial exhibits that have been posted on the DOJ website. Google sure as hell thinks defaults matter a lot. And intent matters at trial.

From the trial itself, Google has argued and questioned the expert witness from DOJ if defaults really matter. Whole Microsoft question was raised by them too. Exhibits are good with context, but without supplementing the context they are misleading. Hard to argue for something DOJ did not think would make their case stronger and did not refer to in the trial.