This article makes wrong assumptions at many levels. For example, it says "...But it should give us pause about the lawsuit. If we are using a consumer welfare standard, how is paying bad for consumers?" This is exactly how competition is eliminated and it is indeed bad for customers in the medium and long term. Secondly, free competition is all about free choice to customers. By taking away free choice [of Apple], Google is actually creating a barrier for smaller search engines who may not have money like the likes of MS and Google.
Offering a lower price also drives competition out of the market. According to your standard, that "takes away free choice". Surely we don't think lower prices are bad for consumers?
I don't think I said lower prices are always bad for consumers. IMO the right question to ask would be - is to increase competition or foreclose/limit a market. If its the latter, it is not good for consumers.
This article makes wrong assumptions at many levels. For example, it says "...But it should give us pause about the lawsuit. If we are using a consumer welfare standard, how is paying bad for consumers?" This is exactly how competition is eliminated and it is indeed bad for customers in the medium and long term. Secondly, free competition is all about free choice to customers. By taking away free choice [of Apple], Google is actually creating a barrier for smaller search engines who may not have money like the likes of MS and Google.
Offering a lower price also drives competition out of the market. According to your standard, that "takes away free choice". Surely we don't think lower prices are bad for consumers?
I don't think I said lower prices are always bad for consumers. IMO the right question to ask would be - is to increase competition or foreclose/limit a market. If its the latter, it is not good for consumers.