EsquireCats

Pathetic priorities.

Without malicious evidence (for Microsoft there was ample in the Halloween documents) the risk is that the rules can be applied to any business that merely has a successful diversified business model.

I appreciate that these are complicated matters, but I doubt there is any realistic remedy that will save Spotify - their issues didn’t come about from Apple taking a tiny cut of their revenue. 

It's slightly disingenuous because Chrome ties in with Google's "web history" feature (which feeds your browsing history into their own data aggregation systems). So basically this just blocks *other* data aggregators (e.g. facebook), meaning only Google can do it.

Apple's Safari on the other hand doesn't building tracking information whatsoever. The history feature in Safari has no secret secondary function, it's for the user and only the user.

If Google should already be in this space under a different brand. Otherwise these other privacy focused engines will just come and keep eating larger and larger portions of their lunch  

..or you know there could be merit to the complaint:
since even US companies (including Apple) have taken issue with Qualcomm over this precise issue and demanding royalties for IP that is not reasonably theirs, while also pulling BS antics such as requesting 1.3Bn merely in processing fees. 

The anti-USA European conspiracy theory is so ignorantly nationalistic and frankly comically uninformed that it does not warrant a fuller response.