Class action lawsuit alleges Google pays Apple to stay out of the search engine market

AppleInsider

A class-action antitrust case has been filed that claims Apple and Google have violated U.S. antitrust laws in how they deal with each other, up to and including the payments that keeps Google's search engine as default on Apple products.

The complaint claims that Google and Apple have agreed that Apple would forego developing its own search engine to avoid competing with Google.

It also alleges that there has been a secret agreement that Google would share its search profits with Apple, and that Apple would give preferential treatment to Google on all Apple devices. By doing so, both companies are alleged to have worked together to suppress the competition of smaller competitors, effectively pushing them out of the search engine market. It also claims because of the alleged collusion, advertising rates are higher than in a competitive system.

The complaint states that these agreements were made in regular secret meetings between Apple and Google executives.

The lawsuit seeks the disgorgement of the billion-dollar payments of Google to Apple. It also seeks an injunction prohibiting the non-compete agreement between Google and Apple, the profit-sharing agreement, the preferential treatment for Google on Apple devices, and the alleged payment from Google to Apple.

Lastly, the plaintiffs are asking for the breakup of both Google and Apple into "separate and independent companies in accordance with the precedent of the breakup of Standard Oil company into Exxon, Mobile, Conoco, Amoco, Sohio, Chevron, and others."

The Standard Oil comparison is questionable. At the time of the lawsuit under the Sherman Antitrust Act, it controlled 91% of oil production and about 84% of final oil and oil product sales in the United States. Apple has less than 50% of the mobile market in the U.S., and less than 10% of the computing market.

There have only been a few documented meetings between the CEOs of Apple and Google in person in the last decade. Additionally, both Google and Apple say that the payments for Google to be the standard search engine on iOS are just for that, and users can select other engines if they prefer.

Furthermore, contrary to the suit's claims, Apple has its own advertising business that it uses in the App Store. It also has its own Internet search engine that it uses for Siri and Spotlight Searches -- just not a web-accessible one.

Read on AppleInsider

DAalseth

Not sure if "secret agreement" is the right word when everyone who has paid any attention to the industry knows about Google paying Apple to be the default search engine. That's gone on for years, and the user isn't locked in, that's just the default.
Not sure how they can prove the existence of any "non-compete" agreement. Apple has their own office suite to compete with Google Docs, has iCloud to compete with Google Drive, has their own Maps app to compete with Google Maps, the list goes on and on. Plus the advertising and search tools mentioned in the article.
Someone someday might make an argument for the breakup of Google and Apple. But these aren't the people, this isn't the justification, and that day isn't any time soon.
This is going nowhere.

winstoner71

DAalseth said:

Not sure if "secret agreement" is the right word when everyone who has paid any attention to the industry knows about Google paying Apple to be the default search engine. That's gone on for years, and the user isn't locked in, that's just the default.
Not sure how they can prove the existence of any "non-compete" agreement. Apple has their own office suite to compete with Google Docs, has iCloud to compete with Google Drive, has their own Maps app to compete with Google Maps, the list goes on and on. Plus the advertising and search tools mentioned in the article.
Someone someday might make an argument for the breakup of Google and Apple. But these aren't the people, this isn't the justification, and that day isn't any time soon.
This is going nowhere.

*mic drops*

shareef777

I guess Apple could just NOT default to a search engine and prompt the user to choose one during setup. But then we’d have the same argument regarding the default browser, email client, messages app, etc. The setup process would become a laborious hour long process.

ORRRRR, Apple can just default to whatever they want and continue to give the user the option to change to whatever they want after initial setup. If the user can’t figure out how to change the default, then they likely don’t care enough to change it in the first place. Unless of course the user is a lawyer trying to cash in.

chadbag

I am interested in seeing how this claim/case hoes forward and what sort of evidence they can present.  

jungmark

Lawyers. It’s called business deals. If Apple wanted to create a search engine, it would have already. Apple has proven with Maps that if it can do it better and with more privacy it would. 

If Apple did have its own search engine, these same scum sucking lawyers would sue for tying  search to iOS. 

9secondkox2

Interesting. 

I think it’s obvious that Apple would be the go to for search in not only iOS and Mac markets due to a privacy focus. Not to mention a much more aesthetically pleasing experience. 

That Apple has not taken over this arena already is a mystery. 

Apple stands to make a ton of money with search snd increase its user base in the broader digital market. 

Apple has everything else to roll out with it, maps, email, etc. would be a great hub to direct users to products snd services as well. 

Google pays Apple to be default on iPhone. That’s true. But that’s just normal business. Free money basically. Apple must be weighing thst against how much it projects it would make on its own search ad revenue. 

That doesn’t constitute some illegal scheme. 

That’s business. 

Even so, I wish it were illegal just so Apple would release its own engine. Using anything Google just sucks. 

Anilu_777

9secondkox2 said:

Interesting. 

I think it’s obvious that Apple would be the go to for search in not only iOS and Mac markets due to a privacy focus. Not to mention a much more aesthetically pleasing experience. 

That Apple has not taken over this arena already is a mystery. 

Apple stands to make a ton of money with search snd increase its user base in the broader digital market. 

Apple has everything else to roll out with it, maps, email, etc. would be a great hub to direct users to products snd services as well. 

Google pays Apple to be default on iPhone. That’s true. But that’s just normal business. Free money basically. Apple must be weighing thst against how much it projects it would make on its own search ad revenue. 

That doesn’t constitute some illegal scheme. 

That’s business. 

Even so, I wish it were illegal just so Apple would release its own engine. Using anything Google just sucks. 

I’ve known about Google being the default for years because it shows you during setup. So I change to DuckDuck Go and I’m happy. 

avon b7

DAalseth said:

Not sure if "secret agreement" is the right word when everyone who has paid any attention to the industry knows about Google paying Apple to be the default search engine. That's gone on for years, and the user isn't locked in, that's just the default.
Not sure how they can prove the existence of any "non-compete" agreement. Apple has their own office suite to compete with Google Docs, has iCloud to compete with Google Drive, has their own Maps app to compete with Google Maps, the list goes on and on. Plus the advertising and search tools mentioned in the article.
Someone someday might make an argument for the breakup of Google and Apple. But these aren't the people, this isn't the justification, and that day isn't any time soon.
This is going nowhere.

That's basically how I see it, too, but if any proof were to emerge, both companies would be bracing themselves for some very, hefty fines. 

On the subject of whether it is 'anticompetitive' to pay for the right to have your search engines as default options, I think the EU might raise its collective eyebrow for situations where simple financial clout may put competitors at a disadvantage but someone would have to lodge a formal complaint on this specific issue and proof is the question again. 

genovelle

9secondkox2 said:

Interesting. 

I think it’s obvious that Apple would be the go to for search in not only iOS and Mac markets due to a privacy focus. Not to mention a much more aesthetically pleasing experience. 

That Apple has not taken over this arena already is a mystery. 

Apple stands to make a ton of money with search snd increase its user base in the broader digital market. 

Apple has everything else to roll out with it, maps, email, etc. would be a great hub to direct users to products snd services as well. 

Google pays Apple to be default on iPhone. That’s true. But that’s just normal business. Free money basically. Apple must be weighing thst against how much it projects it would make on its own search ad revenue. 

That doesn’t constitute some illegal scheme. 

That’s business. 

Even so, I wish it were illegal just so Apple would release its own engine. Using anything Google just sucks. 

Apple has never wanted to be in these markets.  The were forced into  each because their partners decided to compete against them with their own IP and then hold them hostage in these areas for competitive reasons. 

viclauyyc

Can someone tell me if apple, or any other company for that matter, counter sue the law firm/plaintiff if the lawsuit fail in court?

Because, I think Apple have enough of these BS lawsuit and it is time to sue back. 

Back to this article, even if Apple create its own search engine, someone, mostly EU, will sue for unfair advantage as Apple own the platform. 

rotateleftbyte

viclauyyc said:

Can someone tell me if apple, or any other company for that matter, counter sue the law firm/plaintiff if the lawsuit fail in court?

Because, I think Apple have enough of these BS lawsuit and it is time to sue back. 

Back to this article, even if Apple create its own search engine, someone, mostly EU, will sue for unfair advantage as Apple own the platform. 

I think it is time for Apple to go after the lawyers bringing these hopeless lawsuits. Report them to their Bar Association every time.
Vexatious litigation is a good way to get disbarred. IANAL etc.

badmonk

Perhaps the most insane class action law suit against Apple of all time.  The contract with Alphabet to be the default search engine on Mac products has been known for awhile (and again easy to change to another).  This makes sense in the context of MSFT’s bundling of Explorer with Windows bringing them much EU grief in the past.

But a secret agreement to not develop a search engine?   So now Apple is being sued for not developing a product???

This proves the point that we are living in an era of unbridled stupidity.

stevegee

article doesn’t mention who is beyond this asinine lawsuit; i’d like to know who because *i* don’t feel the least bit harmed by “higher advertising rates”.

davidw

avon b7 said:

DAalseth said:

Not sure if "secret agreement" is the right word when everyone who has paid any attention to the industry knows about Google paying Apple to be the default search engine. That's gone on for years, and the user isn't locked in, that's just the default.
Not sure how they can prove the existence of any "non-compete" agreement. Apple has their own office suite to compete with Google Docs, has iCloud to compete with Google Drive, has their own Maps app to compete with Google Maps, the list goes on and on. Plus the advertising and search tools mentioned in the article.
Someone someday might make an argument for the breakup of Google and Apple. But these aren't the people, this isn't the justification, and that day isn't any time soon.
This is going nowhere.

That's basically how I see it, too, but if any proof were to emerge, both companies would be bracing themselves for some very, hefty fines. 

On the subject of whether it is 'anticompetitive' to pay for the right to have your search engines as default options, I think the EU might raise its collective eyebrow for situations where simple financial clout may put competitors at a disadvantage but someone would have to lodge a formal complaint on this specific issue and proof is the question again. 

If any proof of what, were to emerge? If there were proof that secret meetings took place between Apple and Google, where Google agreed to pay Apple to be their default search engine, how does that change what nearly everyone already knows? That Apple is getting paid by Google to be their default search engine. Neither party have denied this deal. The only thing that is a secret is how much Google is paying Apple.

What difference does it make whether that deal was made in a "secret meeting" or out in the open?  There is nothing anti-competetiv about holding "secret" meetings, even if the meetings were between competitors. What might be anti-competitive is the result of those "secret" meetings. 

How about this? Google is paying FireFox for using Google as their default search engine. And have been in one form or another, for quite awhile. 

https://www.androidheadlines.com/2020/08/mozilla-firefox-google-search

No secret deal there. Plus FireFox has about twice the browser market share of Safari. 

https://netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?options={"filter":{"$and":[{"deviceType":{"$in":["Desktop/laptop"]}}]},"dateLabel":"Trend","attributes":"share","group":"browser","sort":{"share":-1},"id":"browsersDesktop","dateInterval":"Monthly","dateStart":"2019-11","dateEnd":"2020-10","segments":"-1000"}

If the EU don't see that deal as being anti-competitive, how can they see the Apple-Google default search engine deal as being anti-competitive? Because it might have been made in a secret meeting? Oh yeah! The EU is not interested in FireFox. Firefox is not one of the big 5 US techs. FireFox can not be milked for hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes and fines.  

Under current ant-trust laws, one can not (or at least should not) be charged with being anti-competitive when making a deal with someone that is not a competitor. Apple do not have an internet search engine that competes with Google.  Apple market share in internet search engines is essentially ..... ZERO. Is Apple being anti-competitive by not having or wanting to invest in having, their own search engine? Is Apple being anti-competitive because they choose to use Google for their default search engine, instead of someone else's? (Regardless of being paid to do so.) Is Apple forcing Safari users to use Google search engine?

There is no "collusion" involve because Apple is not a competitor with Google, in the internet search engine market.

>Collusion is a non-competitive, secret, and sometimes illegal agreement between rivals which attempts to disrupt the market's equilibrium. The act of collusion involves people or companies which would typically compete against one another, but who conspire to work together to gain an unfair market advantage. <

Over 90% of internet searches are already done using Google search engine. How much of that would change if Google was not the default search engine on Safari. About 3.7% at the most. That's only if every Safari user don't use the Google search engine as their default.
 
Google has a huge search engine market share because they have 70% of the browser market with Chrome. Google search engine is obviously the default on Chrome. Chrome competes with Safari in the browser market. If Google and Apple made a deal so Chrome becomes the default browser on iOS and MacOS, then there might be an anti-trust case. For sure there would be, if Microsoft made such a deal with Windows.  

If these anti-trust politicians wants to limit Google dominance in the search engine market, then they might have success by forcing Google to not have Google search engine as the default on Chrome. Which might actually be a monopoly that is subject to anti-trust, in the browser market. 

Just because the search engine market on iOS and MacOS might be very lucrative in terms of ROI, this shouldn't make the 25% of iOS and MacOS users, a separate "relevant market" for anti-trust consideration. And neither should the 3.7% market share of Safari users. 

The real anti-trust would be between Google and Facebook in the paid online ad market. If it can be proven that Google and Facebook colluded to fix the price of online ads, to agree to not complete with each other in certain areas and among other things to limit competition between themselves and over all, then the US (and specially the  EU), can expect a massive pay day.  

https://nypost.com/2021/10/18/details-of-alleged-google-facebook-collusion-must-be-made-public-judge-orders/

avon b7

davidw said:

avon b7 said:

DAalseth said:

Not sure if "secret agreement" is the right word when everyone who has paid any attention to the industry knows about Google paying Apple to be the default search engine. That's gone on for years, and the user isn't locked in, that's just the default.
Not sure how they can prove the existence of any "non-compete" agreement. Apple has their own office suite to compete with Google Docs, has iCloud to compete with Google Drive, has their own Maps app to compete with Google Maps, the list goes on and on. Plus the advertising and search tools mentioned in the article.
Someone someday might make an argument for the breakup of Google and Apple. But these aren't the people, this isn't the justification, and that day isn't any time soon.
This is going nowhere.

That's basically how I see it, too, but if any proof were to emerge, both companies would be bracing themselves for some very, hefty fines. 

On the subject of whether it is 'anticompetitive' to pay for the right to have your search engines as default options, I think the EU might raise its collective eyebrow for situations where simple financial clout may put competitors at a disadvantage but someone would have to lodge a formal complaint on this specific issue and proof is the question again. 

If any proof of what, were to emerge? If there were proof that secret meetings took place between Apple and Google, where Google agreed to pay Apple to be their default search engine, how does that change what nearly everyone already knows? That Apple is getting paid by Google to be their default search engine. Neither party have denied this deal. The only thing that is a secret is how much Google is paying Apple.

What difference does it make whether that deal was made in a "secret meeting" or out in the open?  There is nothing anti-competetiv about holding "secret" meetings, even if the meetings were between competitors. What might be anti-competitive is the result of those "secret" meetings. 

How about this? Google is paying FireFox for using Google as their default search engine. And have been in one form or another, for quite awhile. 

https://www.androidheadlines.com/2020/08/mozilla-firefox-google-search

No secret deal there. Plus FireFox has about twice the browser market share of Safari. 

https://netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?options={"filter":{"$and":[{"deviceType":{"$in":["Desktop/laptop"]}}]},"dateLabel":"Trend","attributes":"share","group":"browser","sort":{"share":-1},"id":"browsersDesktop","dateInterval":"Monthly","dateStart":"2019-11","dateEnd":"2020-10","segments":"-1000"}

If the EU don't see that deal as being anti-competitive, how can they see the Apple-Google default search engine deal as being anti-competitive? Because it might have been made in a secret meeting? Oh yeah! The EU is not interested in FireFox. Firefox is not one of the big 5 US techs. FireFox can not be milked for hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes and fines.  

Under current ant-trust laws, one can not (or at least should not) be charged with being anti-competitive when making a deal with someone that is not a competitor. Apple do not have an internet search engine that competes with Google.  Apple market share in internet search engines is essentially ..... ZERO. Is Apple being anti-competitive by not having or wanting to invest in having, their own search engine? Is Apple being anti-competitive because they choose to use Google for their default search engine, instead of someone else's? (Regardless of being paid to do so.) Is Apple forcing Safari users to use Google search engine?

There is no "collusion" involve because Apple is not a competitor with Google, in the internet search engine market.

>Collusion is a non-competitive, secret, and sometimes illegal agreement between rivals which attempts to disrupt the market's equilibrium. The act of collusion involves people or companies which would typically compete against one another, but who conspire to work together to gain an unfair market advantage. <

Over 90% of internet searches are already done using Google search engine. How much of that would change if Google was not the default search engine on Safari. About 3.7% at the most. That's only if every Safari user don't use the Google search engine as their default.
 
Google has a huge search engine market share because they have 70% of the browser market with Chrome. Google search engine is obviously the default on Chrome. Chrome competes with Safari in the browser market. If Google and Apple made a deal so Chrome becomes the default browser on iOS and MacOS, then there might be an anti-trust case. For sure there would be, if Microsoft made such a deal with Windows.  

If these anti-trust politicians wants to limit Google dominance in the search engine market, then they might have success by forcing Google to not have Google search engine as the default on Chrome. Which might actually be a monopoly that is subject to anti-trust, in the browser market. 

Just because the search engine market on iOS and MacOS might be very lucrative in terms of ROI, this shouldn't make the 25% of iOS and MacOS users, a separate "relevant market" for anti-trust consideration. And neither should the 3.7% market share of Safari users. 

The real anti-trust would be between Google and Facebook in the paid online ad market. If it can be proven that Google and Facebook colluded to fix the price of online ads, to agree to not complete with each other in certain areas and among other things to limit competition between themselves and over all, then the US (and specially the  EU), can expect a massive pay day.  

https://nypost.com/2021/10/18/details-of-alleged-google-facebook-collusion-must-be-made-public-judge-orders/

'proof' would be like evidence along the lines of Google asking Apple to make Google Search the default search engine on iOS devices and Apple refusing, and then for Google to turn around and say, 'OK. What if we double our offer but throw in one more condition - that you do not enter the search engine market'. And then Apple decided to bite. 

I doubt the EU would swallow that one quickly. 

Everything depends on what gets dragged up from meetings years ago. 

I think it's highly unlikely but if it were to emerge... 

ronn

FYI

California Crane School, Inc. filed a class action antitrust case [3:21-cv-10001, C.C.S.I. v Google LLC] on 12/27/21 against Google and Apple and the Chief Executive Officers of both companies alleging violations of the Antitrust Laws of the United States.

Info on law firms involved within the linked case.

DAalseth

ronn said:

FYI

California Crane School, Inc. filed a class action antitrust case [3:21-cv-10001, C.C.S.I. v Google LLC] on 12/27/21 against Google and Apple and the Chief Executive Officers of both companies alleging violations of the Antitrust Laws of the United States.

Info on law firms involved within the linked case.

California Crane School Inc? 

For the suit to go ANYWHERE doesn’t the plaintiff have to show how they were harmed? I could understand this if it were another search company. But this is literally a school to teach people to be crane operators. There is no way they were harmed or even involved in any way by the actions even if any of it were true. 

oldcastle

Just another self-important group which has identified a non problem that they can sell to the micro Aggressives of the  world.

waveparticle

shareef777 said:

I guess Apple could just NOT default to a search engine and prompt the user to choose one during setup. But then we’d have the same argument regarding the default browser, email client, messages app, etc. The setup process would become a laborious hour long process.

ORRRRR, Apple can just default to whatever they want and continue to give the user the option to change to whatever they want after initial setup. If the user can’t figure out how to change the default, then they likely don’t care enough to change it in the first place. Unless of course the user is a lawyer trying to cash in.

It is already doing like this. When a user first setup his new device, iOS will ask to choose search provider. 

davidw

avon b7 said:

davidw said:

avon b7 said:

DAalseth said:

Not sure if "secret agreement" is the right word when everyone who has paid any attention to the industry knows about Google paying Apple to be the default search engine. That's gone on for years, and the user isn't locked in, that's just the default.
Not sure how they can prove the existence of any "non-compete" agreement. Apple has their own office suite to compete with Google Docs, has iCloud to compete with Google Drive, has their own Maps app to compete with Google Maps, the list goes on and on. Plus the advertising and search tools mentioned in the article.
Someone someday might make an argument for the breakup of Google and Apple. But these aren't the people, this isn't the justification, and that day isn't any time soon.
This is going nowhere.

That's basically how I see it, too, but if any proof were to emerge, both companies would be bracing themselves for some very, hefty fines. 

On the subject of whether it is 'anticompetitive' to pay for the right to have your search engines as default options, I think the EU might raise its collective eyebrow for situations where simple financial clout may put competitors at a disadvantage but someone would have to lodge a formal complaint on this specific issue and proof is the question again. 

If any proof of what, were to emerge? If there were proof that secret meetings took place between Apple and Google, where Google agreed to pay Apple to be their default search engine, how does that change what nearly everyone already knows? That Apple is getting paid by Google to be their default search engine. Neither party have denied this deal. The only thing that is a secret is how much Google is paying Apple.

What difference does it make whether that deal was made in a "secret meeting" or out in the open?  There is nothing anti-competetiv about holding "secret" meetings, even if the meetings were between competitors. What might be anti-competitive is the result of those "secret" meetings. 

How about this? Google is paying FireFox for using Google as their default search engine. And have been in one form or another, for quite awhile. 

https://www.androidheadlines.com/2020/08/mozilla-firefox-google-search

No secret deal there. Plus FireFox has about twice the browser market share of Safari. 

https://netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?options={"filter":{"$and":[{"deviceType":{"$in":["Desktop/laptop"]}}]},"dateLabel":"Trend","attributes":"share","group":"browser","sort":{"share":-1},"id":"browsersDesktop","dateInterval":"Monthly","dateStart":"2019-11","dateEnd":"2020-10","segments":"-1000"}

If the EU don't see that deal as being anti-competitive, how can they see the Apple-Google default search engine deal as being anti-competitive? Because it might have been made in a secret meeting? Oh yeah! The EU is not interested in FireFox. Firefox is not one of the big 5 US techs. FireFox can not be milked for hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes and fines.  

Under current ant-trust laws, one can not (or at least should not) be charged with being anti-competitive when making a deal with someone that is not a competitor. Apple do not have an internet search engine that competes with Google.  Apple market share in internet search engines is essentially ..... ZERO. Is Apple being anti-competitive by not having or wanting to invest in having, their own search engine? Is Apple being anti-competitive because they choose to use Google for their default search engine, instead of someone else's? (Regardless of being paid to do so.) Is Apple forcing Safari users to use Google search engine?

There is no "collusion" involve because Apple is not a competitor with Google, in the internet search engine market.

>Collusion is a non-competitive, secret, and sometimes illegal agreement between rivals which attempts to disrupt the market's equilibrium. The act of collusion involves people or companies which would typically compete against one another, but who conspire to work together to gain an unfair market advantage. <

Over 90% of internet searches are already done using Google search engine. How much of that would change if Google was not the default search engine on Safari. About 3.7% at the most. That's only if every Safari user don't use the Google search engine as their default.
 
Google has a huge search engine market share because they have 70% of the browser market with Chrome. Google search engine is obviously the default on Chrome. Chrome competes with Safari in the browser market. If Google and Apple made a deal so Chrome becomes the default browser on iOS and MacOS, then there might be an anti-trust case. For sure there would be, if Microsoft made such a deal with Windows.  

If these anti-trust politicians wants to limit Google dominance in the search engine market, then they might have success by forcing Google to not have Google search engine as the default on Chrome. Which might actually be a monopoly that is subject to anti-trust, in the browser market. 

Just because the search engine market on iOS and MacOS might be very lucrative in terms of ROI, this shouldn't make the 25% of iOS and MacOS users, a separate "relevant market" for anti-trust consideration. And neither should the 3.7% market share of Safari users. 

The real anti-trust would be between Google and Facebook in the paid online ad market. If it can be proven that Google and Facebook colluded to fix the price of online ads, to agree to not complete with each other in certain areas and among other things to limit competition between themselves and over all, then the US (and specially the  EU), can expect a massive pay day.  

https://nypost.com/2021/10/18/details-of-alleged-google-facebook-collusion-must-be-made-public-judge-orders/

'proof' would be like evidence along the lines of Google asking Apple to make Google Search the default search engine on iOS devices and Apple refusing, and then for Google to turn around and say, 'OK. What if we double our offer but throw in one more condition - that you do not enter the search engine market'. And then Apple decided to bite. 

I doubt the EU would swallow that one quickly. 

Everything depends on what gets dragged up from meetings years ago. 

I think it's highly unlikely but if it were to emerge... 

Even if Google were to pay Apple to not develop a search engine in order to ward off competition, Google can not be charged with any anti-trust violation for reducing competition that did not happen and can not be proven would  happen. There is no proof that if Apple were to develop a search engine, that Google will lose a significant percentage of their market share in the search engine market, due Apple competition. It would be delusional thinking that if Apple developed their own search engine, that it would it capture in any short period of time, much more of the search engine market, than the 3.7% of Safari market share in the browser market. Even if Apple were to make their search engine the only choice in Safari. Microsoft Bing isn't even close to being the majority search engine in Windows, even though it's the default in Edge and I.E..  

The reason why Google is paying Apple to be the default search engine is because consumers that own Apple devices spends more time on the internet and spend more money, than consumers using Android or Windows. By a long shot. Google can charge a premium for targeted ads aimed toward consumers using iOS and MacOS. What ever  Google is paying Apple to be the default search engine on Apple devices, is more than made up by how much more ad revenue they generate from Apple device users.  Not by any gain in search engine marketshare.

There's nothing anti-completive about paying to have more access to Apple customers. Plus Google is also paying Apple what ever it takes to keep Bing from being chosen as their default search engine and thus giving Microsoft better access to consumers using Apple devices. If Google had no competition in the search engine market, they would not have to pay Apple anything to be the default. If Google had no competition in the search engine market, Google search engine would always be the default, by default. This is not a secret.   

https://www.businessinsider.com/ios-users-spend-more-than-android-users-2015-12

https://www.marketingdive.com/news/survey-iphone-owners-spend-more-have-higher-incomes-than-android-users/541008/

https://moz.com/blog/apple-vs-android-aov

Any anti-trust issue here? 

https://www.tasteofhome.com/article/this-is-why-costco-only-accepts-visa-cards/

Visa is paying Costco (by way of a big reduction in the transaction fee), to be the only CC Costco will accept.  In the US, Visa have over twice the marketshare of MasterCard or American Express. (when it comes purchases made with a CC.)