No, absolutely not -- that says nothing whatsoever about making the default difficult to change.

It's just about what the default is.

The “make search difficult to change” is more obviously anti trust worthy, and if they did make this deal I would not be surprised if they were careful to not write anything down.

(Not to mention google deleting chats against court orders)

sure, but every change away from that default means having the default is that much less valuable. So it sort of seems like it might make financial sense not devoting dev time to making it easy to switch.

That last part requires a nudge and a wink, just like those OEMs who didn't "need" to make it annoying as fuck to turn off secure boot under the terms of their contract with Microsoft but did it anyway because they knew what was good for them.

It "says nothing whatsoever" only if you fell off the turnip truck yesterday, or have a vested interest in defending a massive corporation.

When you are committing a crime, do you put it in writing, sign it and send it to a judge?

If these hypothetically had no impact on the rest of the business, and were just an arbitrary payment, they would be the difference between Google having more profit than Apple, and vice versa.

If the rate Google pays is in some way set per usage/rev-share, then Google is indeed paying to make the setting difficult to change.

> If the rate Google pays is in some way set per usage/rev-share

Rule number 1 of commiting a crime, is don’t create evidence and then sign it yourself and send it to lawyers