They use Google Ads: I Googled "crane schools in california" and one of the results was an ad for California Crane School. Apparently they think that they are paying too much on those ads: "The complaint alleges that advertising rates are higher than rates would be in a competitive system".
They're entirely correct. Google and Apple operate as a cartel.
If the web experience wasn't 90% Google (outside of social media), and the phone experience wasn't 50% Apple / 50% Google, everything would be cheaper due to competition.
Just look at the percentages app developers pay. In a free market with five alternatives, there probably wouldn't even be an app store. We'd do native app downloads over the web and invest a ton of energy into security and privacy controls.
> We'd do native app downloads over the web and invest a ton of energy into security and privacy controls.
This has been demonstrated to be false. This scenario is exactly what we used to have in the windows PC era and no one invested "a ton of energy into security and privacy controls".
That unfulfilled need is exactly what propelled Apple to the #1 spot when it came to the mobile era.
> That unfulfilled need is exactly what propelled Apple to the #1 spot when it came to the mobile era.
iPod is what propelled Apple to the #1 spot. They had a significant lead on touch, cool brand, music, luxury, and slick UI. It has nothing to do with their app store or software distribution model or other such "nerdy" topics that most consumers aren't even aware of.
the part of my web experience that Google is responsible is exceedingly inexpensive and I have a hard time understanding how competition could reduce the price I pay. Economies of scale don't work in favor of competition unfortunately.
The phone market isn't 50% Google unless you count Samsung as a subsidiary of it. Nor does the existence of Apple help me, the consumer, since they obviously don't compete on price.
Would more competition actually drive advertising rates down?
Buyers don't have the option to buy from just one supplier. They want to reach everybody in their niche. Thus, they have to buy from every supplier and cannot negotiate the price down. If they leave, a competitor will take those clients and pay whatever those users are worth.
Yes. This is necessary, because US anti-trust law is grounded in consumer harm. It's not enough to say "hey, these two companies are colluding;" if a suit is to be brought, it has to be of the form "These two companies are colluding and as a result I'm getting screwed."
