All the more reason for you to stick the topic that is already there. No need to double down on whatever out-to-lunch behaviour that came beforehand.

If you really want to talk about something else, why not start a new thread?

> One of the biggest complaints is the fees Google pay Apple.

Right, because that solidifies their position in the market. That spend provides a more compelling product (more eyeballs, as has been said), which is in no way realistically matched by would-be competition. Clearly monopolistic behaviour. But isn't about search users. Hell, the ruling you link to is literally about the impact on advertisers.

Actually read the case. Maybe start with the conclusion. Surely at some point you get tired of just making stuff up.

And as discussion continued, it was asked what the transition costs are for advertisers. He who answered that question clearly claimed it was also zero. This "someone said something about search users earlier", while technically true, is unrelated to anything being talked about here.

In danielmarkbruce speak: Actually read the comments. Whatever it is that you missed is leaving you horribly confused.

Read the comments. Read the case. Stop making things up.

You'd have known that if you read the comments.