Apple won't make a Google search rival, says Cue

AppleInsider

Apple executive Eddy Cue is expected to testify in court that the company has no plan to make an "Apple Search" engine, because its deal with Google is the best for users.

Eddy Cue at the 2014 Code Conference (Source: Re/code)

As previously reported, Apple's Senior Vice President of Services, Eddy Cue, is scheduled to testify as a witness in the US vs Google antitrust trial. Ahead of his appearance, CNBC says that he is expected to defend Apple's deal with Google.

Specifically, Cue is expected to tell the federal court that Apple will not create a rival search engine, despite multiple previous rumors, going back some years. Sources familiar with his expected testimony say that Apple doesn't believe there is a reason to create an 'Apple Search," because Google already exists.

This does fit with Tim Cook saying in 2018 of Google, that "I think their search engine is the best."

Eddy Cue negotiated the deal between Google and Apple. While details are not public, CNBC says it is estimated that Google will pay up to $19 billion this year, in order to stay as the default search engine on iPhones.

Cue's testimony is in an antitrust case brought against Google by the US Department of Justice. Apple is not part of the case, but Cue and other Apple executives have been subpoenaed to provide testimony.

Controversially, the trial has already seen Justice Department attorney Kenneth Dintzer allegedly share information about confidential trade secrets in a public call. Apple has filed a confidentiality protest.

The trial is expected to last for ten weeks.

Read on AppleInsider

beowulfschmidt

I mean, I'd hardly expect him to testify any differently.

[email protected]

Apple’s iOS is already enabling immediate sharing of my search history data between Google and DuckDuckGo, despite me having turned off all possible cookies trackers and address book sharing. Searches on one affected and tainted search results on the other, making them indistinguishable to me anymore.

darelrex

I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.

Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.

rob53

[email protected] said:

Apple’s iOS is already enabling immediate sharing of my search history data between Google and DuckDuckGo, despite me having turned off all possible cookies trackers and address book sharing. Searches on one affected and tainted search results on the other, making them indistinguishable to me anymore.

See https://duckduckgo.com/privacy 
--We don’t track you. That’s our Privacy Policy in a nutshell.

We don’t save or share your search or browsing history when you search on DuckDuckGo or use our apps and extensions.

DuckDuckGo says they don't share search or browsing history. Does Google search somehow grab DDG search history? As for address book sharing, DDG doesn't have anything to do with that. Of course, you're using an msn.com email account so things might be different on Windows browsers.

mainyehc

Translation: “Apple will turn its internal search and AI algorithm tech into a search engine at some point and you’ll gonna love it” 😂

dope_ahmine

What is the Justice Department’s agenda for sharing confidential trade secrets to the public anyway?
  🤔

maltz

Seeing how well their Maps rival compares (even now), not making a search rival is probably wise.

PauloSeraa

maltz said:

Seeing how well their Maps rival compares (even now), not making a search rival is probably wise.

Nonsense.

Afarstar

maltz said:

Seeing how well their Maps rival compares (even now), not making a search rival is probably wise.

Apple Maps are far better in the UK than Google maps. Navigation, spoken commands, appearance and integration with Apple Watch - it’s a no brainer. 

mikethemartian

So, in other words, Apple doesn’t think it could develop a search engine that could compete successfully with Google.

mikethemartian

darelrex said:

I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.

Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.

I thought Apple was devoted to the privacy and security of their users?

melgross

I see no reason why Apple would want to make a “real” search engine beyond what they need to do now for searches. When we look at technologies that Apple considers to be necessary that they own, search doesn’t seem to be one of them. Look at how long it’s taking them to come out with their own modem. And that’s after Intel did have a working, pretty good, but not quite equal to Qualcomm’s modem. It’s costing them billions every year. How much has it cost to develop their own SoCs? Just two examples out of many.

with Google paying them that much money to just remain the default engine, why should Apple spend many billions on a rival which likely wouldn’t be as good? They should have just bought DuckGoGo, if they wanted to do this, which frankly, isn’t that good now and is a pain to use (best not to speak much about their crappy browser, world beatingly bad!). The chief of DGG said, in the trial, hearings, whatever, that it was very difficult to change engines, which is manifestly untrue. It takes, at most, 30 seconds even with turning your phone on as a first step. That one of the arguments, just how difficult it is to do. But it isn’t. It’s absurdly easy. If Google wasn’t the best engine, people would switch, but it is, and so they don’t.

why would Apple want to compete with that? They don’t. They’re too smart.

danox

The Justice department will end that sweetheart deal that Google has, giving Apple billions of dollars per year for a default position on Apple devices, and when that contract ends by force. All bets are off on what Apple will do.

I think Apple should concentrate on making local search within the Apple devices, that a customer owns within their personal network work at the highest level possible.
Internet search is currently just a series of sponsored results with ads, I always end up looking at page two or three for what I really wanted to find and that experience is the same with all of the current internet search engines.

gatorguy

rob53 said:

[email protected] said:

Apple’s iOS is already enabling immediate sharing of my search history data between Google and DuckDuckGo, despite me having turned off all possible cookies trackers and address book sharing. Searches on one affected and tainted search results on the other, making them indistinguishable to me anymore.

See https://duckduckgo.com/privacy 
--We don’t track you. That’s our Privacy Policy in a nutshell.

We don’t save or share your search or browsing history when you search on DuckDuckGo or use our apps and extensions.

DuckDuckGo says they don't share search or browsing history. Does Google search somehow grab DDG search history? As for address book sharing, DDG doesn't have anything to do with that. Of course, you're using an msn.com email account so things might be different on Windows browsers.

Until a few months ago they actually DID share personal browsing history with Microsoft despite what they claimed, as discovered by researchers. Not long after DDG says they have now disabled that sharing. 

gatorguy

mikethemartian said:

darelrex said:

I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.

Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.

I thought Apple was devoted to the privacy and security of their users?

Why would Safari now be insecure simply because Google runs within it as the search engine? As for "privacy" you are still relegated to a number. Google isn't nefariously tracking Mike-Whatever-Your-Last-Name-is. "You" are just one number in a basket of users with similar demographics.  Google ain't out to getcha, LOL. 

AppleZulu

mikethemartian said:

So, in other words, Apple doesn’t think it could develop a search engine that could compete successfully with Google.

Or, the Next Big Thing is already in the pipeline at Apple, and it will render google search irrelevant without being a "rival" to it. This may be a surprise, but there was a time before searching the web was a thing, and there will be a time when we remember how we used to "google" with a chuckle as children make weirded out looks with their faces.

melgross

danox said:

The Justice department will end that sweetheart deal that Google has, giving Apple billions of dollars per year for a default position on Apple devices, and when that contract ends by force. All bets are off on what Apple will do.

I think Apple should concentrate on making local search within the Apple devices, that a customer owns within their personal network work at the highest level possible.
Internet search is currently just a series of sponsored results with ads, I always end up looking at page two or three for what I really wanted to find and that experience is the same with all of the current internet search engines.

We don’t know that. It hinges on how difficult it is to change engines. This was what Microsoft had to contend with here and in the EU when they had their problems. Microsoft made it very difficult to find and change browsers. That was by design as they had their own and wanted that to be used vs any other. Since Apple doesn’t have an engine, they’re not part of the lawsuit. But if it’s easy to change, the JD may not be able to convince anyone it’s a bad thing. Really, the government isn’t supposed to get in between business dealings between two companies unless they can PROVE that doing so will benefit the public. The CEO of DGG tried to say how difficult it was, but it isn’t, and I hope Apple, or Google, is showing, there, that yes indeed, it isn’t. So if it isn’t, and people who may want to switch can find out how easily (and Apple does tell how)it is and do it easily, the JD may not have a case in that part of this. Breaking up Google for other reasons is different however.

danvm

darelrex said:

I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.

Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.

Apple has some "me-too copies" too, and some of them still behind the competiion.  For example,

Apple Maps / Google Maps
HomePod / Sonos Era
AirTag / Tile
Apple TV+ / Netflix
Apple Arcade / MS GamePass
Apple Music / Spotify

I don't see issues in Apple developing a search engine, even if it is a "me-too copy".  

AppleZulu

danvm said:

darelrex said:

I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.

Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.

Apple has some "me-too copies" too, and some of them still behind the competiion.  For example,

Apple Maps / Google Maps
HomePod / Sonos Era
AirTag / Tile
Apple TV+ / Netflix
Apple Arcade / MS GamePass
Apple Music / Spotify

I don't see issues in Apple developing a search engine, even if it is a "me-too copy".  

I’d disagree that these are just “Me Too”

Apple Maps / Google Maps
- Apple isn’t using maps to mine and sell user data, which is kind of important. Also, they created it when they realized just how much ”location services” would become a core OS function. Maps is just the user-facing part of a much deeper program.

HomePod / Sonos Era
Haven’t heard the Sonos device so can’t compare, but HomePod is brilliant audio. Also, like maps, HomePod is the tip of a bigger functional iceberg. It’s needed for HomeKit functionality. See above for context on HomeKit’s approach to user privacy. 

AirTag / Tile
AirTag has a vastly larger back end to support it, and thus superior functionality. See above for more on location services as a core function, as well as approaches to user privacy. That brings us to AirTag’s innovations in breaking the tracker’s utility for stalking. Tile skipped that part until Apple brought it up, then tried to copy it, then undermined those protections with a disingenuous “honor system” that allows tile users to stalk anyway. 

Apple TV+ / Netflix
Not the same thing. AppleTV+ isn’t a back catalog archive like Netflix. New content is brilliant. Try watching Ted Lasso. 

Apple Arcade / MS GamePass
Haven’t paid enough attention to this one to comment. 

Apple Music / Spotify
Apple Music has always been subscription-based and ad-free. They pay musicians more. They changed the paradigm with lossless and spatial audio by offering them not as an expensive premium, but as an included feature for all subscribers, and it works on the hardware millions already have. Before that, multi-channel audio was a niche thing that -all the way back to quad records in the early 1970s- could never achieve  critical mass to become mainstream. Now, thanks to Apple, lots of new music and back-catalog remixes are coming out in Dolby Atmos every week. That’s not a me-too thing. That’s 100% because of Apple. 

gatorguy

AppleZulu said:

danvm said:

darelrex said:

I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.

Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.

Apple has some "me-too copies" too, and some of them still behind the competiion.  For example,

Apple Maps / Google Maps
HomePod / Sonos Era
AirTag / Tile
Apple TV+ / Netflix
Apple Arcade / MS GamePass
Apple Music / Spotify

I don't see issues in Apple developing a search engine, even if it is a "me-too copy".  

I’d disagree that these are just “Me Too”

Apple Maps / Google Maps
- Apple isn’t using maps to mine and sell user data....

Are folks so intent on "winning" that stretching the truth, even making things up, and then posting as though it's the gospel truth is that important? Just be honest. Geesh.

Yeah, Google mines user data. A lot of data. Microsoft mines user data as does Amazon, also a lot of data. Even Apple mines user data, even if not as much as those first three.

What Google and Apple DON'T do is sell user data. 

I'm not 100% certain about those other two. but I suspect not.