First thing first… we need to acknoledge that it is a… ‘no news week’… so Gruman… and also Kuo… need to ‘fill’ their sites with… anything,
This quote is funny: “However, Apple could earn more revenue than the Google deal by bringing search in-”
You know… Apple knows nothing about ‘doing business’… so Gruman cleverly notes that they are wrong if they do not make their own search engine.
I just remember two quotes… I think both from Steve Jobs…: “We are proud as much of what we have done as of what we have not done!” “We like to enter a market when we can change it!“
So… why should Apple enter the search market for… selling ads? Do we remember the iAds idea?
Do we remember the “TV as a hobby” until they develop Apple TV+? But people keep ‘telling’ Apple to buy Disney, Netflix, ESPN, ABC…
Maybe… Apple is a trillion valued company… by not following bloggers and journalists' ideas.
It's important to not forget how Google got going at the outset.
For every search you made through Google, Google was earning revenues by just presenting the results page to you with two or three clearly marked promoted links. You didn't have to click on any of them for Google to get the revenue. That remains of course but a lot more has been added and interwoven into it since.
At the very least, Apple now has enough users to make regular search a viable and very profitable option. That would earn them revenue, increase competition and potentially take customers away from Google.
Of course, it's no wonder Google got where it got today because it's search infrastructure, algorithms included, is class leading.
However, you don't have to beat Google at its own game. You just have to be good enough and know how to market the functionality.
IMO, the current Apple - Google 'agreement' is basically a scheme to stifle competition and share the rewards.
When Google got into internet search, they changed how to monetize search by creating new innovative ways to do it. They got to where they are today by being more innovative than the competition. That would not be true today for anyone creating a search engine, including Apple. All they would be doing is trying to duplicate what Google is already doing. AI might be the game changer but even then, Google is not standing still with AI and won't be caught by surprise if AI turns out to be the next innovative way to search the internet.
No, Google monetised search by copying the approach of Goto.com (later renamed to Overture) and selling keyword search data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Google) - but the technological aspects of the business were indeed innovative and clearly superior to the alternatives of the time. They have maintained that technical superiority over time, but the market dominance is no longer primarily due to their search capabilities.
You're not changing a market when the market is already mature and well-served.
The mobile phone market was mature and well served in 2007.
No, it really wasn’t. Phones were pretty terrible then. Most of us didn’t notice because there was nothing better to compare to. The iPhone changed everything. Nothing major has come along since, just incremental improvements.
Apple has spent 13+ years trying to do a virtual assistant and Siri still sucks. Safari, while a great browser in many ways, remains incompatible in various ways with too many websites where product selection and purchasing are involved, requiring me to keep Firefox at the ready. (Telecharge for Broadway shows, to choose but one major example, will often not function, but is fine on Firefox.) Apple Maps took many years to stop being a punchline. So count me as VERY dubious about Apple Search.
First thing first… we need to acknoledge that it is a… ‘no news week’… so Gruman… and also Kuo… need to ‘fill’ their sites with… anything,
This quote is funny: “However, Apple could earn more revenue than the Google deal by bringing search in-”
You know… Apple knows nothing about ‘doing business’… so Gruman cleverly notes that they are wrong if they do not make their own search engine.
I just remember two quotes… I think both from Steve Jobs…: “We are proud as much of what we have done as of what we have not done!” “We like to enter a market when we can change it!“
So… why should Apple enter the search market for… selling ads? Do we remember the iAds idea?
Do we remember the “TV as a hobby” until they develop Apple TV+? But people keep ‘telling’ Apple to buy Disney, Netflix, ESPN, ABC…
Maybe… Apple is a trillion valued company… by not following bloggers and journalists' ideas.
It's important to not forget how Google got going at the outset.
For every search you made through Google, Google was earning revenues by just presenting the results page to you with two or three clearly marked promoted links. You didn't have to click on any of them for Google to get the revenue. That remains of course but a lot more has been added and interwoven into it since.
At the very least, Apple now has enough users to make regular search a viable and very profitable option. That would earn them revenue, increase competition and potentially take customers away from Google.
Of course, it's no wonder Google got where it got today because it's search infrastructure, algorithms included, is class leading.
However, you don't have to beat Google at its own game. You just have to be good enough and know how to market the functionality.
IMO, the current Apple - Google 'agreement' is basically a scheme to stifle competition and share the rewards.
When Google got into internet search, they changed how to monetize search by creating new innovative ways to do it. They got to where they are today by being more innovative than the competition. That would not be true today for anyone creating a search engine, including Apple. All they would be doing is trying to duplicate what Google is already doing. AI might be the game changer but even then, Google is not standing still with AI and won't be caught by surprise if AI turns out to be the next innovative way to search the internet.
When MS introduced Bing in 2009, MS it loss over $24B in two years and was still losing $1B a quarter in 2011. Bing didn't turn a profit until about 2015 when MS reported Bing generated $1B in revenue. Bing, after nearly 15 years, now generates $12B in revenue for MS and is profitable. But search is still no where near as profitable for MS as it is for Google, even though MS have just as many Windows users as Apple have iOS users. Even if Apple were to cut the cost and time in half, in order for Apple search to reach $12B in revenue, that is still a long way from making up for the loss of $15+B that Apple gets annually from Google revenue sharing with search on iOS. MS was referring to this when in court when a representative on the stand commented that Apple makes more money from Bing than MS. He was referring to Apple making $15+B a year because Google sees Bing as a threat, if Apple were to ever decide to have Bing as their default. Without Bing, Google would have no need to offer Apple as much in revenue sharing. (so it's assumed)
How can this "agreement" stifle competition when Apple is not competing in the search business? That's like saying that HP is "stifling" competition because they are using CPU's made by other companies, rather than to invest in making their own. Would Apple be "stifling" competition if they were to buy Bing or DuckDuckGo? Of course not, so long as Apple themselves are not in the search engine business. By Google offering Android as Open Source for any mobile device makers to use for free, is Google "stifling" competition"? So instead of mobile device makers having to create their own mobile OS, they are limiting consumers choice by freely choosing to make more profit from using Android for free. Did MS "stifle" competition when they chose to exit the mobile phone market because it was not profitable for them? For sure Samsung can create their own mobile OS, they have one. But Samsung chooses to make more profit from marketing phones using Android, instead of marketing phones that uses their own mobile OS. Are they "stifling" competition by not really trying to compete in the mobile OS market with their own mobile OS because Android phones are more profitable?
One can't "stifle" competition by eliminating someone that is not currently competing with them. So long as Apple is not competing in the search engine business, Google can not be "stifling" competition because of Apple freely choosing not to compete (by making their own search engine). And surely, Apple can not be "stifling" competition because they choose not to invest the time and money to create a search engine in order to compete. But if Google were to offer money to Bing or DuckDuckGo to no longer compete or offer to buy them out, Google could be accused of "stifling"competition and any buyout would not be approved.
Several issues there.
Apple Search would not have to earn the company more revenue than the current Google deal.
Just like its other services business (Apple TV+) , profitability is not the initial goal.
Taking control away from Google, reducing its control, would be more than enough.
Google feeds so well off of the search pie that it can pay Apple billions and still sees the deal as profitable. Obviously in economic terms because Google is the king of search but how many of those billions are really there just to keep a competitor out of the the hen house?
Apple taking a net business loss (in Google deal terms) would be real. Apple is unlikely to be able to match those revenues from the get go, but taking a slice of the search pie away from Google would also be reducing its control of the search business in general. That would be a massive power shift in industry terms and, unlike say, Apple Maps, Apple search would not be limited to Apple device owners.
The owners themselves are different. Microsoft Windows users are not the same as mobile device users. The value attributed to Windows users from a search perspective is massively lower than that of mobile device users. There is no comparison here. PC users will occasionally switch away from work or regular productive use and search for something. What they search for may have a certain commercial value to a search provider.
However, most mobile users, apart from massively outnumbering Windows users will often be using their 'work downtime' to carry out searches for commercial reasons.
Your workplace might actively control how much time you spend using work resources for 'non-work' activities. Those same people, during breaks or while traveling to and from work, or at home will actively be using far more of their time on searches for commercial reasons.
If you, as a search provider, could choose between a huge group of Windows users or a huge group of mobile device users, which one would you choose? And if it was you who could default the search engine to your own own platform? Microsoft does not really have that option in the wider mobile space.
It's not difficult to see how the current situation might be stifling innovation/competition and harming consumers. The question is how the authorities might see the situation. IMO, if forced to look at the Apple-Google deal, I'm inclined to think they will see it as harmful and stifling competition.
It's not that just because Apple isn't providing a service that can't be part of the problem. The issue here is if someone says Apple is being paid to NOT get into the search business. Eddy Cue claims they don't because Google is better. For me that's hogwash but it's not my decision.
First thing first… we need to acknoledge that it is a… ‘no news week’… so Gruman… and also Kuo… need to ‘fill’ their sites with… anything,
This quote is funny: “However, Apple could earn more revenue than the Google deal by bringing search in-”
You know… Apple knows nothing about ‘doing business’… so Gruman cleverly notes that they are wrong if they do not make their own search engine.
I just remember two quotes… I think both from Steve Jobs…: “We are proud as much of what we have done as of what we have not done!” “We like to enter a market when we can change it!“
So… why should Apple enter the search market for… selling ads? Do we remember the iAds idea?
Do we remember the “TV as a hobby” until they develop Apple TV+? But people keep ‘telling’ Apple to buy Disney, Netflix, ESPN, ABC…
Maybe… Apple is a trillion valued company… by not following bloggers and journalists' ideas.
It's important to not forget how Google got going at the outset.
For every search you made through Google, Google was earning revenues by just presenting the results page to you with two or three clearly marked promoted links. You didn't have to click on any of them for Google to get the revenue. That remains of course but a lot more has been added and interwoven into it since.
At the very least, Apple now has enough users to make regular search a viable and very profitable option. That would earn them revenue, increase competition and potentially take customers away from Google.
Of course, it's no wonder Google got where it got today because it's search infrastructure, algorithms included, is class leading.
However, you don't have to beat Google at its own game. You just have to be good enough and know how to market the functionality.
IMO, the current Apple - Google 'agreement' is basically a scheme to stifle competition and share the rewards.
When Google got into internet search, they changed how to monetize search by creating new innovative ways to do it. They got to where they are today by being more innovative than the competition. That would not be true today for anyone creating a search engine, including Apple. All they would be doing is trying to duplicate what Google is already doing. AI might be the game changer but even then, Google is not standing still with AI and won't be caught by surprise if AI turns out to be the next innovative way to search the internet.
When MS introduced Bing in 2009, MS it loss over $24B in two years and was still losing $1B a quarter in 2011. Bing didn't turn a profit until about 2015 when MS reported Bing generated $1B in revenue. Bing, after nearly 15 years, now generates $12B in revenue for MS and is profitable. But search is still no where near as profitable for MS as it is for Google, even though MS have just as many Windows users as Apple have iOS users. Even if Apple were to cut the cost and time in half, in order for Apple search to reach $12B in revenue, that is still a long way from making up for the loss of $15+B that Apple gets annually from Google revenue sharing with search on iOS. MS was referring to this when in court when a representative on the stand commented that Apple makes more money from Bing than MS. He was referring to Apple making $15+B a year because Google sees Bing as a threat, if Apple were to ever decide to have Bing as their default. Without Bing, Google would have no need to offer Apple as much in revenue sharing. (so it's assumed)
How can this "agreement" stifle competition when Apple is not competing in the search business? That's like saying that HP is "stifling" competition because they are using CPU's made by other companies, rather than to invest in making their own. Would Apple be "stifling" competition if they were to buy Bing or DuckDuckGo? Of course not, so long as Apple themselves are not in the search engine business. By Google offering Android as Open Source for any mobile device makers to use for free, is Google "stifling" competition"? So instead of mobile device makers having to create their own mobile OS, they are limiting consumers choice by freely choosing to make more profit from using Android for free. Did MS "stifle" competition when they chose to exit the mobile phone market because it was not profitable for them? For sure Samsung can create their own mobile OS, they have one. But Samsung chooses to make more profit from marketing phones using Android, instead of marketing phones that uses their own mobile OS. Are they "stifling" competition by not really trying to compete in the mobile OS market with their own mobile OS because Android phones are more profitable?
One can't "stifle" competition by eliminating someone that is not currently competing with them. So long as Apple is not competing in the search engine business, Google can not be "stifling" competition because of Apple freely choosing not to compete (by making their own search engine). And surely, Apple can not be "stifling" competition because they choose not to invest the time and money to create a search engine in order to compete. But if Google were to offer money to Bing or DuckDuckGo to no longer compete or offer to buy them out, Google could be accused of "stifling"competition and any buyout would not be approved.
Several issues there.
Apple Search would not have to earn the company more revenue than the current Google deal.
Just like its other services business (Apple TV+) , profitability is not the initial goal.
Taking control away from Google, reducing its control, would be more than enough.
Google feeds so well off of the search pie that it can pay Apple billions and still sees the deal as profitable. Obviously in economic terms because Google is the king of search but how many of those billions are really there just to keep a competitor out of the the hen house?
Apple taking a net business loss (in Google deal terms) would be real. Apple is unlikely to be able to match those revenues from the get go, but taking a slice of the search pie away from Google would also be reducing its control of the search business in general. That would be a massive power shift in industry terms and, unlike say, Apple Maps, Apple search would not be limited to Apple device owners.
The owners themselves are different. Microsoft Windows users are not the same as mobile device users. The value attributed to Windows users from a search perspective is massively lower than that of mobile device users. There is no comparison here. PC users will occasionally switch away from work or regular productive use and search for something. What they search for may have a certain commercial value to a search provider.
However, most mobile users, apart from massively outnumbering Windows users will often be using their 'work downtime' to carry out searches for commercial reasons.
Your workplace might actively control how much time you spend using work resources for 'non-work' activities. Those same people, during breaks or while traveling to and from work, or at home will actively be using far more of their time on searches for commercial reasons.
If you, as a search provider, could choose between a huge group of Windows users or a huge group of mobile device users, which one would you choose? And if it was you who could default the search engine to your own own platform? Microsoft does not really have that option in the wider mobile space.
It's not difficult to see how the current situation might be stifling innovation/competition and harming consumers. The question is how the authorities might see the situation. IMO, if forced to look at the Apple-Google deal, I'm inclined to think they will see it as harmful and stifling competition.
It's not that just because Apple isn't providing a service that can't be part of the problem. The issue here is if someone says Apple is being paid to NOT get into the search business. Eddy Cue claims they don't because Google is better. For me that's hogwash but it's not my decision.
Just one thing. It’s not revenue, it’s profit. Virtually all the $19 billion, or so, that Apple is getting from Google is profit, other than a minuscule amount for accounting, etc. To match that, search would have to be much more in revenue as it would also have to account for the billions Apple would be spending on it every year.
First thing first… we need to acknoledge that it is a… ‘no news week’… so Gruman… and also Kuo… need to ‘fill’ their sites with… anything,
This quote is funny: “However, Apple could earn more revenue than the Google deal by bringing search in-”
You know… Apple knows nothing about ‘doing business’… so Gruman cleverly notes that they are wrong if they do not make their own search engine.
I just remember two quotes… I think both from Steve Jobs…: “We are proud as much of what we have done as of what we have not done!” “We like to enter a market when we can change it!“
So… why should Apple enter the search market for… selling ads? Do we remember the iAds idea?
Do we remember the “TV as a hobby” until they develop Apple TV+? But people keep ‘telling’ Apple to buy Disney, Netflix, ESPN, ABC…
Maybe… Apple is a trillion valued company… by not following bloggers and journalists' ideas.
It's important to not forget how Google got going at the outset.
For every search you made through Google, Google was earning revenues by just presenting the results page to you with two or three clearly marked promoted links. You didn't have to click on any of them for Google to get the revenue. That remains of course but a lot more has been added and interwoven into it since.
At the very least, Apple now has enough users to make regular search a viable and very profitable option. That would earn them revenue, increase competition and potentially take customers away from Google.
Of course, it's no wonder Google got where it got today because it's search infrastructure, algorithms included, is class leading.
However, you don't have to beat Google at its own game. You just have to be good enough and know how to market the functionality.
IMO, the current Apple - Google 'agreement' is basically a scheme to stifle competition and share the rewards.
When Google got into internet search, they changed how to monetize search by creating new innovative ways to do it. They got to where they are today by being more innovative than the competition. That would not be true today for anyone creating a search engine, including Apple. All they would be doing is trying to duplicate what Google is already doing. AI might be the game changer but even then, Google is not standing still with AI and won't be caught by surprise if AI turns out to be the next innovative way to search the internet.
When MS introduced Bing in 2009, MS it loss over $24B in two years and was still losing $1B a quarter in 2011. Bing didn't turn a profit until about 2015 when MS reported Bing generated $1B in revenue. Bing, after nearly 15 years, now generates $12B in revenue for MS and is profitable. But search is still no where near as profitable for MS as it is for Google, even though MS have just as many Windows users as Apple have iOS users. Even if Apple were to cut the cost and time in half, in order for Apple search to reach $12B in revenue, that is still a long way from making up for the loss of $15+B that Apple gets annually from Google revenue sharing with search on iOS. MS was referring to this when in court when a representative on the stand commented that Apple makes more money from Bing than MS. He was referring to Apple making $15+B a year because Google sees Bing as a threat, if Apple were to ever decide to have Bing as their default. Without Bing, Google would have no need to offer Apple as much in revenue sharing. (so it's assumed)
How can this "agreement" stifle competition when Apple is not competing in the search business? That's like saying that HP is "stifling" competition because they are using CPU's made by other companies, rather than to invest in making their own. Would Apple be "stifling" competition if they were to buy Bing or DuckDuckGo? Of course not, so long as Apple themselves are not in the search engine business. By Google offering Android as Open Source for any mobile device makers to use for free, is Google "stifling" competition"? So instead of mobile device makers having to create their own mobile OS, they are limiting consumers choice by freely choosing to make more profit from using Android for free. Did MS "stifle" competition when they chose to exit the mobile phone market because it was not profitable for them? For sure Samsung can create their own mobile OS, they have one. But Samsung chooses to make more profit from marketing phones using Android, instead of marketing phones that uses their own mobile OS. Are they "stifling" competition by not really trying to compete in the mobile OS market with their own mobile OS because Android phones are more profitable?
One can't "stifle" competition by eliminating someone that is not currently competing with them. So long as Apple is not competing in the search engine business, Google can not be "stifling" competition because of Apple freely choosing not to compete (by making their own search engine). And surely, Apple can not be "stifling" competition because they choose not to invest the time and money to create a search engine in order to compete. But if Google were to offer money to Bing or DuckDuckGo to no longer compete or offer to buy them out, Google could be accused of "stifling"competition and any buyout would not be approved.
Several issues there.
Apple Search would not have to earn the company more revenue than the current Google deal.
Just like its other services business (Apple TV+) , profitability is not the initial goal.
Taking control away from Google, reducing its control, would be more than enough.
Google feeds so well off of the search pie that it can pay Apple billions and still sees the deal as profitable. Obviously in economic terms because Google is the king of search but how many of those billions are really there just to keep a competitor out of the the hen house?
Apple taking a net business loss (in Google deal terms) would be real. Apple is unlikely to be able to match those revenues from the get go, but taking a slice of the search pie away from Google would also be reducing its control of the search business in general. That would be a massive power shift in industry terms and, unlike say, Apple Maps, Apple search would not be limited to Apple device owners.
The owners themselves are different. Microsoft Windows users are not the same as mobile device users. The value attributed to Windows users from a search perspective is massively lower than that of mobile device users. There is no comparison here. PC users will occasionally switch away from work or regular productive use and search for something. What they search for may have a certain commercial value to a search provider.
However, most mobile users, apart from massively outnumbering Windows users will often be using their 'work downtime' to carry out searches for commercial reasons.
Your workplace might actively control how much time you spend using work resources for 'non-work' activities. Those same people, during breaks or while traveling to and from work, or at home will actively be using far more of their time on searches for commercial reasons.
If you, as a search provider, could choose between a huge group of Windows users or a huge group of mobile device users, which one would you choose? And if it was you who could default the search engine to your own own platform? Microsoft does not really have that option in the wider mobile space.
It's not difficult to see how the current situation might be stifling innovation/competition and harming consumers. The question is how the authorities might see the situation. IMO, if forced to look at the Apple-Google deal, I'm inclined to think they will see it as harmful and stifling competition.
It's not that just because Apple isn't providing a service that can't be part of the problem. The issue here is if someone says Apple is being paid to NOT get into the search business. Eddy Cue claims they don't because Google is better. For me that's hogwash but it's not my decision.
NO, Apple search would have to be more "profitable" than what Apple is making from Google revenue sharing deal. Apple search revenue might have to be over $30B a year to match that "profit", when one includes the cost of developing and running a search engine. And Apple might not be willing to go the extra mile and reduce customers privacy, in order to make more profit with targeted search ads. And for sure, Apple don't have as many ways to data mine their customers, as Google have. Hell, Google does a better job of data mining iOS customers than Apple. So it is almost certain that Apple search will never achieve the same level of profitability for Apple, that it is for Google. It is completely wrong to think that all Apple have to do be successful with search is to generate $15B a year in revenue. It's going to take way more than that.
MS been at it for nearly 15 years and their revenue is only about $12B. And even if Apple were able to reach profitability with their search in 5 years, what do you think Google would be paying Apple in revenue sharing then. Remember, Google revenue sharing started at $1B a year for Apple about 10 years ago. it's now up to $15B a year and would most likely be over to $20B in five years. And this at a profit margin that is most likely over 75%, for Apple.
Apple TV+ (and Apple Music for that matter) goal is to sell hardware by offering Apple users something they can't get on Android. (though one can access their Apple TV+ account on Android with a web browser.) You seem to keep forgetting Apple makes over 70% of their profit from selling hardware. Apple Map exist for the same reason. Apple was fearful that Google Map on iOS would never be as good as Google Map on Android and thus they would lose hardware sales to Android. Apple do not want to lose hardware sales because music streaming might be a better experience on Android than iOS and thus Apple Music. Those conditions do not exist with Google search. Google search is the same on iOS as it is on Android and maybe even better on iOS. Apple do not have to worry about losing hardware sale to Android because of Google search being inferior or not available on iOS. What is the point of Apple developing a search engine, if it doesn't lead to more hardware sales (or to keep the users they already have)?
Eddy Cue didn't comment that Google search was"better", he commented that Google search is the "best" option for iOS users. Can you dispute that as "hogwash", even if Apple was not getting any revenue sharing?
And consider this, if Apple developed a search engine, not all the market share they'll get, will come at Google's expense. What if DuckDuckGo go out of business because Apple search took away 50% of their already very small market share? Surely Bing would also lose some market shares. If Apple search got 10% of the search on iOS, only 5% of it might be at the expense of Google. So exactly, how would Apple competing in internet search, level the playing field for the small developers. The search ad revenue "pie" don't get any larger just because Apple competes for it. The pieces just get smaller for everyone already competing. It's actually laughable that you might think Apple competing in the internet search market, will somehow benefit the likes of DuckDuckGo, MS or Yahoo. Remember, if it does happen, Apple search by default will be the "default" on Safari. Unless some EU gatekeeper BS states that Apple can't promote their own search engine, on their own browser, on their own devices that are using their own OS (iOS and MacOS).
First thing first… we need to acknoledge that it is a… ‘no news week’… so Gruman… and also Kuo… need to ‘fill’ their sites with… anything,
This quote is funny: “However, Apple could earn more revenue than the Google deal by bringing search in-”
You know… Apple knows nothing about ‘doing business’… so Gruman cleverly notes that they are wrong if they do not make their own search engine.
I just remember two quotes… I think both from Steve Jobs…: “We are proud as much of what we have done as of what we have not done!” “We like to enter a market when we can change it!“
So… why should Apple enter the search market for… selling ads? Do we remember the iAds idea?
Do we remember the “TV as a hobby” until they develop Apple TV+? But people keep ‘telling’ Apple to buy Disney, Netflix, ESPN, ABC…
Maybe… Apple is a trillion valued company… by not following bloggers and journalists' ideas.
It's important to not forget how Google got going at the outset.
For every search you made through Google, Google was earning revenues by just presenting the results page to you with two or three clearly marked promoted links. You didn't have to click on any of them for Google to get the revenue. That remains of course but a lot more has been added and interwoven into it since.
At the very least, Apple now has enough users to make regular search a viable and very profitable option. That would earn them revenue, increase competition and potentially take customers away from Google.
Of course, it's no wonder Google got where it got today because it's search infrastructure, algorithms included, is class leading.
However, you don't have to beat Google at its own game. You just have to be good enough and know how to market the functionality.
IMO, the current Apple - Google 'agreement' is basically a scheme to stifle competition and share the rewards.
When Google got into internet search, they changed how to monetize search by creating new innovative ways to do it. They got to where they are today by being more innovative than the competition. That would not be true today for anyone creating a search engine, including Apple. All they would be doing is trying to duplicate what Google is already doing. AI might be the game changer but even then, Google is not standing still with AI and won't be caught by surprise if AI turns out to be the next innovative way to search the internet.
When MS introduced Bing in 2009, MS it loss over $24B in two years and was still losing $1B a quarter in 2011. Bing didn't turn a profit until about 2015 when MS reported Bing generated $1B in revenue. Bing, after nearly 15 years, now generates $12B in revenue for MS and is profitable. But search is still no where near as profitable for MS as it is for Google, even though MS have just as many Windows users as Apple have iOS users. Even if Apple were to cut the cost and time in half, in order for Apple search to reach $12B in revenue, that is still a long way from making up for the loss of $15+B that Apple gets annually from Google revenue sharing with search on iOS. MS was referring to this when in court when a representative on the stand commented that Apple makes more money from Bing than MS. He was referring to Apple making $15+B a year because Google sees Bing as a threat, if Apple were to ever decide to have Bing as their default. Without Bing, Google would have no need to offer Apple as much in revenue sharing. (so it's assumed)
How can this "agreement" stifle competition when Apple is not competing in the search business? That's like saying that HP is "stifling" competition because they are using CPU's made by other companies, rather than to invest in making their own. Would Apple be "stifling" competition if they were to buy Bing or DuckDuckGo? Of course not, so long as Apple themselves are not in the search engine business. By Google offering Android as Open Source for any mobile device makers to use for free, is Google "stifling" competition"? So instead of mobile device makers having to create their own mobile OS, they are limiting consumers choice by freely choosing to make more profit from using Android for free. Did MS "stifle" competition when they chose to exit the mobile phone market because it was not profitable for them? For sure Samsung can create their own mobile OS, they have one. But Samsung chooses to make more profit from marketing phones using Android, instead of marketing phones that uses their own mobile OS. Are they "stifling" competition by not really trying to compete in the mobile OS market with their own mobile OS because Android phones are more profitable?
One can't "stifle" competition by eliminating someone that is not currently competing with them. So long as Apple is not competing in the search engine business, Google can not be "stifling" competition because of Apple freely choosing not to compete (by making their own search engine). And surely, Apple can not be "stifling" competition because they choose not to invest the time and money to create a search engine in order to compete. But if Google were to offer money to Bing or DuckDuckGo to no longer compete or offer to buy them out, Google could be accused of "stifling"competition and any buyout would not be approved.
Several issues there.
Apple Search would not have to earn the company more revenue than the current Google deal.
Just like its other services business (Apple TV+) , profitability is not the initial goal.
Taking control away from Google, reducing its control, would be more than enough.
Google feeds so well off of the search pie that it can pay Apple billions and still sees the deal as profitable. Obviously in economic terms because Google is the king of search but how many of those billions are really there just to keep a competitor out of the the hen house?
Apple taking a net business loss (in Google deal terms) would be real. Apple is unlikely to be able to match those revenues from the get go, but taking a slice of the search pie away from Google would also be reducing its control of the search business in general. That would be a massive power shift in industry terms and, unlike say, Apple Maps, Apple search would not be limited to Apple device owners.
The owners themselves are different. Microsoft Windows users are not the same as mobile device users. The value attributed to Windows users from a search perspective is massively lower than that of mobile device users. There is no comparison here. PC users will occasionally switch away from work or regular productive use and search for something. What they search for may have a certain commercial value to a search provider.
However, most mobile users, apart from massively outnumbering Windows users will often be using their 'work downtime' to carry out searches for commercial reasons.
Your workplace might actively control how much time you spend using work resources for 'non-work' activities. Those same people, during breaks or while traveling to and from work, or at home will actively be using far more of their time on searches for commercial reasons.
If you, as a search provider, could choose between a huge group of Windows users or a huge group of mobile device users, which one would you choose? And if it was you who could default the search engine to your own own platform? Microsoft does not really have that option in the wider mobile space.
It's not difficult to see how the current situation might be stifling innovation/competition and harming consumers. The question is how the authorities might see the situation. IMO, if forced to look at the Apple-Google deal, I'm inclined to think they will see it as harmful and stifling competition.
It's not that just because Apple isn't providing a service that can't be part of the problem. The issue here is if someone says Apple is being paid to NOT get into the search business. Eddy Cue claims they don't because Google is better. For me that's hogwash but it's not my decision.
Just one thing. It’s not revenue, it’s profit. Virtually all the $19 billion, or so, that Apple is getting from Google is profit, other than a minuscule amount for accounting, etc. To match that, search would have to be much more in revenue as it would also have to account for the billions Apple would be spending on it every year.
As I made clear, the initial goal would have little or nothing to do with money for the sake of money.
It remains revenue for Apple.
It would be about taking business away from a competitor, offering up a competing service and leveling the playing field.
Have you ever wondered just how much 'profit' Google gets out of the current deal?
During recent downturns and restructuring of the advertising business, Google has not been immune.
I'd wager the Apple deal maybe isn't as clear cut of an issue within Google although it's hard to really know.
Its own ads through services like YouTube are probably already on the limit of what non-subscription users are willing to take.
Has TikTok hit YouTube hard?
Paid subscriptions across the board are probably due for a shake up with prices creeping higher and more content becoming paid or ad supported. None of the big players have it easy now that the honeymoon period is over. Post Covid and inflationary headwinds are having a negative effect on the streaming business.
There is also a risk of Apple inadvertently getting on the wrong side of a fine here.
Although often glossed in people's minds the risk of seeing Google broken up still exists, however small that risk might be.
Google might actually be far weaker and prone to negative ripples in parts of its core business and I'm including cloud in this group too as smaller players are rising fast.
AI is taking us into unknown territory from a financial perspective and most people say Google looks well positioned but analysts also point to risks.
Apple entering search on all platforms could cause a microfissure that could open up over time.
Especially if the deal is deemed to be illegal. Then we might see Eddy Cue change his tune.
First thing first… we need to acknoledge that it is a… ‘no news week’… so Gruman… and also Kuo… need to ‘fill’ their sites with… anything,
This quote is funny: “However, Apple could earn more revenue than the Google deal by bringing search in-”
You know… Apple knows nothing about ‘doing business’… so Gruman cleverly notes that they are wrong if they do not make their own search engine.
I just remember two quotes… I think both from Steve Jobs…: “We are proud as much of what we have done as of what we have not done!” “We like to enter a market when we can change it!“
So… why should Apple enter the search market for… selling ads? Do we remember the iAds idea?
Do we remember the “TV as a hobby” until they develop Apple TV+? But people keep ‘telling’ Apple to buy Disney, Netflix, ESPN, ABC…
Maybe… Apple is a trillion valued company… by not following bloggers and journalists' ideas.
It's important to not forget how Google got going at the outset.
For every search you made through Google, Google was earning revenues by just presenting the results page to you with two or three clearly marked promoted links. You didn't have to click on any of them for Google to get the revenue. That remains of course but a lot more has been added and interwoven into it since.
At the very least, Apple now has enough users to make regular search a viable and very profitable option. That would earn them revenue, increase competition and potentially take customers away from Google.
Of course, it's no wonder Google got where it got today because it's search infrastructure, algorithms included, is class leading.
However, you don't have to beat Google at its own game. You just have to be good enough and know how to market the functionality.
IMO, the current Apple - Google 'agreement' is basically a scheme to stifle competition and share the rewards.
When Google got into internet search, they changed how to monetize search by creating new innovative ways to do it. They got to where they are today by being more innovative than the competition. That would not be true today for anyone creating a search engine, including Apple. All they would be doing is trying to duplicate what Google is already doing. AI might be the game changer but even then, Google is not standing still with AI and won't be caught by surprise if AI turns out to be the next innovative way to search the internet.
When MS introduced Bing in 2009, MS it loss over $24B in two years and was still losing $1B a quarter in 2011. Bing didn't turn a profit until about 2015 when MS reported Bing generated $1B in revenue. Bing, after nearly 15 years, now generates $12B in revenue for MS and is profitable. But search is still no where near as profitable for MS as it is for Google, even though MS have just as many Windows users as Apple have iOS users. Even if Apple were to cut the cost and time in half, in order for Apple search to reach $12B in revenue, that is still a long way from making up for the loss of $15+B that Apple gets annually from Google revenue sharing with search on iOS. MS was referring to this when in court when a representative on the stand commented that Apple makes more money from Bing than MS. He was referring to Apple making $15+B a year because Google sees Bing as a threat, if Apple were to ever decide to have Bing as their default. Without Bing, Google would have no need to offer Apple as much in revenue sharing. (so it's assumed)
How can this "agreement" stifle competition when Apple is not competing in the search business? That's like saying that HP is "stifling" competition because they are using CPU's made by other companies, rather than to invest in making their own. Would Apple be "stifling" competition if they were to buy Bing or DuckDuckGo? Of course not, so long as Apple themselves are not in the search engine business. By Google offering Android as Open Source for any mobile device makers to use for free, is Google "stifling" competition"? So instead of mobile device makers having to create their own mobile OS, they are limiting consumers choice by freely choosing to make more profit from using Android for free. Did MS "stifle" competition when they chose to exit the mobile phone market because it was not profitable for them? For sure Samsung can create their own mobile OS, they have one. But Samsung chooses to make more profit from marketing phones using Android, instead of marketing phones that uses their own mobile OS. Are they "stifling" competition by not really trying to compete in the mobile OS market with their own mobile OS because Android phones are more profitable?
One can't "stifle" competition by eliminating someone that is not currently competing with them. So long as Apple is not competing in the search engine business, Google can not be "stifling" competition because of Apple freely choosing not to compete (by making their own search engine). And surely, Apple can not be "stifling" competition because they choose not to invest the time and money to create a search engine in order to compete. But if Google were to offer money to Bing or DuckDuckGo to no longer compete or offer to buy them out, Google could be accused of "stifling"competition and any buyout would not be approved.
Several issues there.
Apple Search would not have to earn the company more revenue than the current Google deal.
Just like its other services business (Apple TV+) , profitability is not the initial goal.
Taking control away from Google, reducing its control, would be more than enough.
Google feeds so well off of the search pie that it can pay Apple billions and still sees the deal as profitable. Obviously in economic terms because Google is the king of search but how many of those billions are really there just to keep a competitor out of the the hen house?
Apple taking a net business loss (in Google deal terms) would be real. Apple is unlikely to be able to match those revenues from the get go, but taking a slice of the search pie away from Google would also be reducing its control of the search business in general. That would be a massive power shift in industry terms and, unlike say, Apple Maps, Apple search would not be limited to Apple device owners.
The owners themselves are different. Microsoft Windows users are not the same as mobile device users. The value attributed to Windows users from a search perspective is massively lower than that of mobile device users. There is no comparison here. PC users will occasionally switch away from work or regular productive use and search for something. What they search for may have a certain commercial value to a search provider.
However, most mobile users, apart from massively outnumbering Windows users will often be using their 'work downtime' to carry out searches for commercial reasons.
Your workplace might actively control how much time you spend using work resources for 'non-work' activities. Those same people, during breaks or while traveling to and from work, or at home will actively be using far more of their time on searches for commercial reasons.
If you, as a search provider, could choose between a huge group of Windows users or a huge group of mobile device users, which one would you choose? And if it was you who could default the search engine to your own own platform? Microsoft does not really have that option in the wider mobile space.
It's not difficult to see how the current situation might be stifling innovation/competition and harming consumers. The question is how the authorities might see the situation. IMO, if forced to look at the Apple-Google deal, I'm inclined to think they will see it as harmful and stifling competition.
It's not that just because Apple isn't providing a service that can't be part of the problem. The issue here is if someone says Apple is being paid to NOT get into the search business. Eddy Cue claims they don't because Google is better. For me that's hogwash but it's not my decision.
Just one thing. It’s not revenue, it’s profit. Virtually all the $19 billion, or so, that Apple is getting from Google is profit, other than a minuscule amount for accounting, etc. To match that, search would have to be much more in revenue as it would also have to account for the billions Apple would be spending on it every year.
As I made clear, the initial goal would have little or nothing to do with money for the sake of money.
It remains revenue for Apple.
It would be about taking business away from a competitor, offering up a competing service and leveling the playing field.
Have you ever wondered just how much 'profit' Google gets out of the current deal?
During recent downturns and restructuring of the advertising business, Google has not been immune.
I'd wager the Apple deal maybe isn't as clear cut of an issue within Google although it's hard to really know.
Its own ads through services like YouTube are probably already on the limit of what non-subscription users are willing to take.
Has TikTok hit YouTube hard?
Paid subscriptions across the board are probably due for a shake up with prices creeping higher and more content becoming paid or ad supported. None of the big players have it easy now that the honeymoon period is over. Post Covid and inflationary headwinds are having a negative effect on the streaming business.
There is also a risk of Apple inadvertently getting on the wrong side of a fine here.
Although often glossed in people's minds the risk of seeing Google broken up still exists, however small that risk might be.
Google might actually be far weaker and prone to negative ripples in parts of its core business and I'm including cloud in this group too as smaller players are rising fast.
AI is taking us into unknown territory from a financial perspective and most people say Google looks well positioned but analysts also point to risks.
Apple entering search on all platforms could cause a microfissure that could open up over time.
Especially if the deal is deemed to be illegal. Then we might see Eddy Cue change his tune.
We’re talking about Apple’s end here, not Google’s. So it’s profit that matters, not revenue. Almost all of Google’s profit comes from advertising. If app,EU had a search engine would they be nearly as aggressive as Google in getting user info? It doubt it. Their company direction is in the opposite direction. Not that they do t collect, but not nearly as much, nor most of the same type. So what would it cost for Apple to come up with similar profits? Too much I believe.
First thing first… we need to acknoledge that it is a… ‘no news week’… so Gruman… and also Kuo… need to ‘fill’ their sites with… anything,
This quote is funny: “However, Apple could earn more revenue than the Google deal by bringing search in-”
You know… Apple knows nothing about ‘doing business’… so Gruman cleverly notes that they are wrong if they do not make their own search engine.
I just remember two quotes… I think both from Steve Jobs…: “We are proud as much of what we have done as of what we have not done!” “We like to enter a market when we can change it!“
So… why should Apple enter the search market for… selling ads? Do we remember the iAds idea?
Do we remember the “TV as a hobby” until they develop Apple TV+? But people keep ‘telling’ Apple to buy Disney, Netflix, ESPN, ABC…
Maybe… Apple is a trillion valued company… by not following bloggers and journalists' ideas.
It's important to not forget how Google got going at the outset.
For every search you made through Google, Google was earning revenues by just presenting the results page to you with two or three clearly marked promoted links. You didn't have to click on any of them for Google to get the revenue. That remains of course but a lot more has been added and interwoven into it since.
At the very least, Apple now has enough users to make regular search a viable and very profitable option. That would earn them revenue, increase competition and potentially take customers away from Google.
Of course, it's no wonder Google got where it got today because it's search infrastructure, algorithms included, is class leading.
However, you don't have to beat Google at its own game. You just have to be good enough and know how to market the functionality.
IMO, the current Apple - Google 'agreement' is basically a scheme to stifle competition and share the rewards.
When Google got into internet search, they changed how to monetize search by creating new innovative ways to do it. They got to where they are today by being more innovative than the competition. That would not be true today for anyone creating a search engine, including Apple. All they would be doing is trying to duplicate what Google is already doing. AI might be the game changer but even then, Google is not standing still with AI and won't be caught by surprise if AI turns out to be the next innovative way to search the internet.
When MS introduced Bing in 2009, MS it loss over $24B in two years and was still losing $1B a quarter in 2011. Bing didn't turn a profit until about 2015 when MS reported Bing generated $1B in revenue. Bing, after nearly 15 years, now generates $12B in revenue for MS and is profitable. But search is still no where near as profitable for MS as it is for Google, even though MS have just as many Windows users as Apple have iOS users. Even if Apple were to cut the cost and time in half, in order for Apple search to reach $12B in revenue, that is still a long way from making up for the loss of $15+B that Apple gets annually from Google revenue sharing with search on iOS. MS was referring to this when in court when a representative on the stand commented that Apple makes more money from Bing than MS. He was referring to Apple making $15+B a year because Google sees Bing as a threat, if Apple were to ever decide to have Bing as their default. Without Bing, Google would have no need to offer Apple as much in revenue sharing. (so it's assumed)
How can this "agreement" stifle competition when Apple is not competing in the search business? That's like saying that HP is "stifling" competition because they are using CPU's made by other companies, rather than to invest in making their own. Would Apple be "stifling" competition if they were to buy Bing or DuckDuckGo? Of course not, so long as Apple themselves are not in the search engine business. By Google offering Android as Open Source for any mobile device makers to use for free, is Google "stifling" competition"? So instead of mobile device makers having to create their own mobile OS, they are limiting consumers choice by freely choosing to make more profit from using Android for free. Did MS "stifle" competition when they chose to exit the mobile phone market because it was not profitable for them? For sure Samsung can create their own mobile OS, they have one. But Samsung chooses to make more profit from marketing phones using Android, instead of marketing phones that uses their own mobile OS. Are they "stifling" competition by not really trying to compete in the mobile OS market with their own mobile OS because Android phones are more profitable?
One can't "stifle" competition by eliminating someone that is not currently competing with them. So long as Apple is not competing in the search engine business, Google can not be "stifling" competition because of Apple freely choosing not to compete (by making their own search engine). And surely, Apple can not be "stifling" competition because they choose not to invest the time and money to create a search engine in order to compete. But if Google were to offer money to Bing or DuckDuckGo to no longer compete or offer to buy them out, Google could be accused of "stifling"competition and any buyout would not be approved.
Several issues there.
Apple Search would not have to earn the company more revenue than the current Google deal.
Just like its other services business (Apple TV+) , profitability is not the initial goal.
Taking control away from Google, reducing its control, would be more than enough.
Google feeds so well off of the search pie that it can pay Apple billions and still sees the deal as profitable. Obviously in economic terms because Google is the king of search but how many of those billions are really there just to keep a competitor out of the the hen house?
Apple taking a net business loss (in Google deal terms) would be real. Apple is unlikely to be able to match those revenues from the get go, but taking a slice of the search pie away from Google would also be reducing its control of the search business in general. That would be a massive power shift in industry terms and, unlike say, Apple Maps, Apple search would not be limited to Apple device owners.
The owners themselves are different. Microsoft Windows users are not the same as mobile device users. The value attributed to Windows users from a search perspective is massively lower than that of mobile device users. There is no comparison here. PC users will occasionally switch away from work or regular productive use and search for something. What they search for may have a certain commercial value to a search provider.
However, most mobile users, apart from massively outnumbering Windows users will often be using their 'work downtime' to carry out searches for commercial reasons.
Your workplace might actively control how much time you spend using work resources for 'non-work' activities. Those same people, during breaks or while traveling to and from work, or at home will actively be using far more of their time on searches for commercial reasons.
If you, as a search provider, could choose between a huge group of Windows users or a huge group of mobile device users, which one would you choose? And if it was you who could default the search engine to your own own platform? Microsoft does not really have that option in the wider mobile space.
It's not difficult to see how the current situation might be stifling innovation/competition and harming consumers. The question is how the authorities might see the situation. IMO, if forced to look at the Apple-Google deal, I'm inclined to think they will see it as harmful and stifling competition.
It's not that just because Apple isn't providing a service that can't be part of the problem. The issue here is if someone says Apple is being paid to NOT get into the search business. Eddy Cue claims they don't because Google is better. For me that's hogwash but it's not my decision.
Just one thing. It’s not revenue, it’s profit. Virtually all the $19 billion, or so, that Apple is getting from Google is profit, other than a minuscule amount for accounting, etc. To match that, search would have to be much more in revenue as it would also have to account for the billions Apple would be spending on it every year.
As I made clear, the initial goal would have little or nothing to do with money for the sake of money.
It remains revenue for Apple.
It would be about taking business away from a competitor, offering up a competing service and leveling the playing field.
Have you ever wondered just how much 'profit' Google gets out of the current deal?
During recent downturns and restructuring of the advertising business, Google has not been immune.
I'd wager the Apple deal maybe isn't as clear cut of an issue within Google although it's hard to really know.
Its own ads through services like YouTube are probably already on the limit of what non-subscription users are willing to take.
Has TikTok hit YouTube hard?
Paid subscriptions across the board are probably due for a shake up with prices creeping higher and more content becoming paid or ad supported. None of the big players have it easy now that the honeymoon period is over. Post Covid and inflationary headwinds are having a negative effect on the streaming business.
There is also a risk of Apple inadvertently getting on the wrong side of a fine here.
Although often glossed in people's minds the risk of seeing Google broken up still exists, however small that risk might be.
Google might actually be far weaker and prone to negative ripples in parts of its core business and I'm including cloud in this group too as smaller players are rising fast.
AI is taking us into unknown territory from a financial perspective and most people say Google looks well positioned but analysts also point to risks.
Apple entering search on all platforms could cause a microfissure that could open up over time.
Especially if the deal is deemed to be illegal. Then we might see Eddy Cue change his tune.
We’re talking about Apple’s end here, not Google’s. So it’s profit that matters, not revenue. Almost all of Google’s profit comes from advertising. If app,EU had a search engine would they be nearly as aggressive as Google in getting user info? It doubt it. Their company direction is in the opposite direction. Not that they do t collect, but not nearly as much, nor most of the same type. So what would it cost for Apple to come up with similar profits? Too much I believe.
Apple's end is tied to Google's end here.
Any result from Apple doing search and defaulting to it on all major platforms will have a direct on itself (losing Google's payments for default privilege) and Google having a competitor taking its default status away (and replacing it with Apple's). If that weren't bad enough, Apple wouldn't limit its offering to iOS/macOS users.
We could argue that Google branding is strong enough for it to retain users while not being the default but I'd say that isn't really the case and is a major reason it pays Apple in the first place.
First thing first… we need to acknoledge that it is a… ‘no news week’… so Gruman… and also Kuo… need to ‘fill’ their sites with… anything,
This quote is funny: “However, Apple could earn more revenue than the Google deal by bringing search in-”
You know… Apple knows nothing about ‘doing business’… so Gruman cleverly notes that they are wrong if they do not make their own search engine.
I just remember two quotes… I think both from Steve Jobs…: “We are proud as much of what we have done as of what we have not done!” “We like to enter a market when we can change it!“
So… why should Apple enter the search market for… selling ads? Do we remember the iAds idea?
Do we remember the “TV as a hobby” until they develop Apple TV+? But people keep ‘telling’ Apple to buy Disney, Netflix, ESPN, ABC…
Maybe… Apple is a trillion valued company… by not following bloggers and journalists' ideas.
It's important to not forget how Google got going at the outset.
For every search you made through Google, Google was earning revenues by just presenting the results page to you with two or three clearly marked promoted links. You didn't have to click on any of them for Google to get the revenue. That remains of course but a lot more has been added and interwoven into it since.
At the very least, Apple now has enough users to make regular search a viable and very profitable option. That would earn them revenue, increase competition and potentially take customers away from Google.
Of course, it's no wonder Google got where it got today because it's search infrastructure, algorithms included, is class leading.
However, you don't have to beat Google at its own game. You just have to be good enough and know how to market the functionality.
IMO, the current Apple - Google 'agreement' is basically a scheme to stifle competition and share the rewards.
When Google got into internet search, they changed how to monetize search by creating new innovative ways to do it. They got to where they are today by being more innovative than the competition. That would not be true today for anyone creating a search engine, including Apple. All they would be doing is trying to duplicate what Google is already doing. AI might be the game changer but even then, Google is not standing still with AI and won't be caught by surprise if AI turns out to be the next innovative way to search the internet.
When MS introduced Bing in 2009, MS it loss over $24B in two years and was still losing $1B a quarter in 2011. Bing didn't turn a profit until about 2015 when MS reported Bing generated $1B in revenue. Bing, after nearly 15 years, now generates $12B in revenue for MS and is profitable. But search is still no where near as profitable for MS as it is for Google, even though MS have just as many Windows users as Apple have iOS users. Even if Apple were to cut the cost and time in half, in order for Apple search to reach $12B in revenue, that is still a long way from making up for the loss of $15+B that Apple gets annually from Google revenue sharing with search on iOS. MS was referring to this when in court when a representative on the stand commented that Apple makes more money from Bing than MS. He was referring to Apple making $15+B a year because Google sees Bing as a threat, if Apple were to ever decide to have Bing as their default. Without Bing, Google would have no need to offer Apple as much in revenue sharing. (so it's assumed)
How can this "agreement" stifle competition when Apple is not competing in the search business? That's like saying that HP is "stifling" competition because they are using CPU's made by other companies, rather than to invest in making their own. Would Apple be "stifling" competition if they were to buy Bing or DuckDuckGo? Of course not, so long as Apple themselves are not in the search engine business. By Google offering Android as Open Source for any mobile device makers to use for free, is Google "stifling" competition"? So instead of mobile device makers having to create their own mobile OS, they are limiting consumers choice by freely choosing to make more profit from using Android for free. Did MS "stifle" competition when they chose to exit the mobile phone market because it was not profitable for them? For sure Samsung can create their own mobile OS, they have one. But Samsung chooses to make more profit from marketing phones using Android, instead of marketing phones that uses their own mobile OS. Are they "stifling" competition by not really trying to compete in the mobile OS market with their own mobile OS because Android phones are more profitable?
One can't "stifle" competition by eliminating someone that is not currently competing with them. So long as Apple is not competing in the search engine business, Google can not be "stifling" competition because of Apple freely choosing not to compete (by making their own search engine). And surely, Apple can not be "stifling" competition because they choose not to invest the time and money to create a search engine in order to compete. But if Google were to offer money to Bing or DuckDuckGo to no longer compete or offer to buy them out, Google could be accused of "stifling"competition and any buyout would not be approved.
Several issues there.
Apple Search would not have to earn the company more revenue than the current Google deal.
Just like its other services business (Apple TV+) , profitability is not the initial goal.
Taking control away from Google, reducing its control, would be more than enough.
Google feeds so well off of the search pie that it can pay Apple billions and still sees the deal as profitable. Obviously in economic terms because Google is the king of search but how many of those billions are really there just to keep a competitor out of the the hen house?
Apple taking a net business loss (in Google deal terms) would be real. Apple is unlikely to be able to match those revenues from the get go, but taking a slice of the search pie away from Google would also be reducing its control of the search business in general. That would be a massive power shift in industry terms and, unlike say, Apple Maps, Apple search would not be limited to Apple device owners.
The owners themselves are different. Microsoft Windows users are not the same as mobile device users. The value attributed to Windows users from a search perspective is massively lower than that of mobile device users. There is no comparison here. PC users will occasionally switch away from work or regular productive use and search for something. What they search for may have a certain commercial value to a search provider.
However, most mobile users, apart from massively outnumbering Windows users will often be using their 'work downtime' to carry out searches for commercial reasons.
Your workplace might actively control how much time you spend using work resources for 'non-work' activities. Those same people, during breaks or while traveling to and from work, or at home will actively be using far more of their time on searches for commercial reasons.
If you, as a search provider, could choose between a huge group of Windows users or a huge group of mobile device users, which one would you choose? And if it was you who could default the search engine to your own own platform? Microsoft does not really have that option in the wider mobile space.
It's not difficult to see how the current situation might be stifling innovation/competition and harming consumers. The question is how the authorities might see the situation. IMO, if forced to look at the Apple-Google deal, I'm inclined to think they will see it as harmful and stifling competition.
It's not that just because Apple isn't providing a service that can't be part of the problem. The issue here is if someone says Apple is being paid to NOT get into the search business. Eddy Cue claims they don't because Google is better. For me that's hogwash but it's not my decision.
Just one thing. It’s not revenue, it’s profit. Virtually all the $19 billion, or so, that Apple is getting from Google is profit, other than a minuscule amount for accounting, etc. To match that, search would have to be much more in revenue as it would also have to account for the billions Apple would be spending on it every year.
As I made clear, the initial goal would have little or nothing to do with money for the sake of money.
It remains revenue for Apple.
It would be about taking business away from a competitor, offering up a competing service and leveling the playing field.
Have you ever wondered just how much 'profit' Google gets out of the current deal?
During recent downturns and restructuring of the advertising business, Google has not been immune.
I'd wager the Apple deal maybe isn't as clear cut of an issue within Google although it's hard to really know.
Its own ads through services like YouTube are probably already on the limit of what non-subscription users are willing to take.
Has TikTok hit YouTube hard?
Paid subscriptions across the board are probably due for a shake up with prices creeping higher and more content becoming paid or ad supported. None of the big players have it easy now that the honeymoon period is over. Post Covid and inflationary headwinds are having a negative effect on the streaming business.
There is also a risk of Apple inadvertently getting on the wrong side of a fine here.
Although often glossed in people's minds the risk of seeing Google broken up still exists, however small that risk might be.
Google might actually be far weaker and prone to negative ripples in parts of its core business and I'm including cloud in this group too as smaller players are rising fast.
AI is taking us into unknown territory from a financial perspective and most people say Google looks well positioned but analysts also point to risks.
Apple entering search on all platforms could cause a microfissure that could open up over time.
Especially if the deal is deemed to be illegal. Then we might see Eddy Cue change his tune.
We’re talking about Apple’s end here, not Google’s. So it’s profit that matters, not revenue. Almost all of Google’s profit comes from advertising. If app,EU had a search engine would they be nearly as aggressive as Google in getting user info? It doubt it. Their company direction is in the opposite direction. Not that they do t collect, but not nearly as much, nor most of the same type. So what would it cost for Apple to come up with similar profits? Too much I believe.
Apple's end is tied to Google's end here.
Any result from Apple doing search and defaulting to it on all major platforms will have a direct on itself (losing Google's payments for default privilege) and Google having a competitor taking its default status away (and replacing it with Apple's). If that weren't bad enough, Apple wouldn't limit its offering to iOS/macOS users.
We could argue that Google branding is strong enough for it to retain users while not being the default but I'd say that isn't really the case and is a major reason it pays Apple in the first place.
Apple and Google are not the enemies you seem to believe they are. They have a lot of shared interests, and work side-by-side on some technologies and "other". Making one weaker will not make the other stronger. Apple understands that once they get to +60% market share in the US it might put them squarely in antitrust crosshairs, a place they definitely do not want to be.
A telling email from a senior Apple officer, revealed during the current trial, had this to say: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company..."
First thing first… we need to acknoledge that it is a… ‘no news week’… so Gruman… and also Kuo… need to ‘fill’ their sites with… anything,
This quote is funny: “However, Apple could earn more revenue than the Google deal by bringing search in-”
You know… Apple knows nothing about ‘doing business’… so Gruman cleverly notes that they are wrong if they do not make their own search engine.
I just remember two quotes… I think both from Steve Jobs…: “We are proud as much of what we have done as of what we have not done!” “We like to enter a market when we can change it!“
So… why should Apple enter the search market for… selling ads? Do we remember the iAds idea?
Do we remember the “TV as a hobby” until they develop Apple TV+? But people keep ‘telling’ Apple to buy Disney, Netflix, ESPN, ABC…
Maybe… Apple is a trillion valued company… by not following bloggers and journalists' ideas.
It's important to not forget how Google got going at the outset.
For every search you made through Google, Google was earning revenues by just presenting the results page to you with two or three clearly marked promoted links. You didn't have to click on any of them for Google to get the revenue. That remains of course but a lot more has been added and interwoven into it since.
At the very least, Apple now has enough users to make regular search a viable and very profitable option. That would earn them revenue, increase competition and potentially take customers away from Google.
Of course, it's no wonder Google got where it got today because it's search infrastructure, algorithms included, is class leading.
However, you don't have to beat Google at its own game. You just have to be good enough and know how to market the functionality.
IMO, the current Apple - Google 'agreement' is basically a scheme to stifle competition and share the rewards.
When Google got into internet search, they changed how to monetize search by creating new innovative ways to do it. They got to where they are today by being more innovative than the competition. That would not be true today for anyone creating a search engine, including Apple. All they would be doing is trying to duplicate what Google is already doing. AI might be the game changer but even then, Google is not standing still with AI and won't be caught by surprise if AI turns out to be the next innovative way to search the internet.
When MS introduced Bing in 2009, MS it loss over $24B in two years and was still losing $1B a quarter in 2011. Bing didn't turn a profit until about 2015 when MS reported Bing generated $1B in revenue. Bing, after nearly 15 years, now generates $12B in revenue for MS and is profitable. But search is still no where near as profitable for MS as it is for Google, even though MS have just as many Windows users as Apple have iOS users. Even if Apple were to cut the cost and time in half, in order for Apple search to reach $12B in revenue, that is still a long way from making up for the loss of $15+B that Apple gets annually from Google revenue sharing with search on iOS. MS was referring to this when in court when a representative on the stand commented that Apple makes more money from Bing than MS. He was referring to Apple making $15+B a year because Google sees Bing as a threat, if Apple were to ever decide to have Bing as their default. Without Bing, Google would have no need to offer Apple as much in revenue sharing. (so it's assumed)
How can this "agreement" stifle competition when Apple is not competing in the search business? That's like saying that HP is "stifling" competition because they are using CPU's made by other companies, rather than to invest in making their own. Would Apple be "stifling" competition if they were to buy Bing or DuckDuckGo? Of course not, so long as Apple themselves are not in the search engine business. By Google offering Android as Open Source for any mobile device makers to use for free, is Google "stifling" competition"? So instead of mobile device makers having to create their own mobile OS, they are limiting consumers choice by freely choosing to make more profit from using Android for free. Did MS "stifle" competition when they chose to exit the mobile phone market because it was not profitable for them? For sure Samsung can create their own mobile OS, they have one. But Samsung chooses to make more profit from marketing phones using Android, instead of marketing phones that uses their own mobile OS. Are they "stifling" competition by not really trying to compete in the mobile OS market with their own mobile OS because Android phones are more profitable?
One can't "stifle" competition by eliminating someone that is not currently competing with them. So long as Apple is not competing in the search engine business, Google can not be "stifling" competition because of Apple freely choosing not to compete (by making their own search engine). And surely, Apple can not be "stifling" competition because they choose not to invest the time and money to create a search engine in order to compete. But if Google were to offer money to Bing or DuckDuckGo to no longer compete or offer to buy them out, Google could be accused of "stifling"competition and any buyout would not be approved.
Several issues there.
Apple Search would not have to earn the company more revenue than the current Google deal.
Just like its other services business (Apple TV+) , profitability is not the initial goal.
Taking control away from Google, reducing its control, would be more than enough.
Google feeds so well off of the search pie that it can pay Apple billions and still sees the deal as profitable. Obviously in economic terms because Google is the king of search but how many of those billions are really there just to keep a competitor out of the the hen house?
Apple taking a net business loss (in Google deal terms) would be real. Apple is unlikely to be able to match those revenues from the get go, but taking a slice of the search pie away from Google would also be reducing its control of the search business in general. That would be a massive power shift in industry terms and, unlike say, Apple Maps, Apple search would not be limited to Apple device owners.
The owners themselves are different. Microsoft Windows users are not the same as mobile device users. The value attributed to Windows users from a search perspective is massively lower than that of mobile device users. There is no comparison here. PC users will occasionally switch away from work or regular productive use and search for something. What they search for may have a certain commercial value to a search provider.
However, most mobile users, apart from massively outnumbering Windows users will often be using their 'work downtime' to carry out searches for commercial reasons.
Your workplace might actively control how much time you spend using work resources for 'non-work' activities. Those same people, during breaks or while traveling to and from work, or at home will actively be using far more of their time on searches for commercial reasons.
If you, as a search provider, could choose between a huge group of Windows users or a huge group of mobile device users, which one would you choose? And if it was you who could default the search engine to your own own platform? Microsoft does not really have that option in the wider mobile space.
It's not difficult to see how the current situation might be stifling innovation/competition and harming consumers. The question is how the authorities might see the situation. IMO, if forced to look at the Apple-Google deal, I'm inclined to think they will see it as harmful and stifling competition.
It's not that just because Apple isn't providing a service that can't be part of the problem. The issue here is if someone says Apple is being paid to NOT get into the search business. Eddy Cue claims they don't because Google is better. For me that's hogwash but it's not my decision.
NO, Apple search would have to be more "profitable" than what Apple is making from Google revenue sharing deal. Apple search revenue might have to be over $30B a year to match that "profit", when one includes the cost of developing and running a search engine. And Apple might not be willing to go the extra mile and reduce customers privacy, in order to make more profit with targeted search ads. And for sure, Apple don't have as many ways to data mine their customers, as Google have. Hell, Google does a better job of data mining iOS customers than Apple. So it is almost certain that Apple search will never achieve the same level of profitability for Apple, that it is for Google. It is completely wrong to think that all Apple have to do be successful with search is to generate $15B a year in revenue. It's going to take way more than that.
MS been at it for nearly 15 years and their revenue is only about $12B. And even if Apple were able to reach profitability with their search in 5 years, what do you think Google would be paying Apple in revenue sharing then. Remember, Google revenue sharing started at $1B a year for Apple about 10 years ago. it's now up to $15B a year and would most likely be over to $20B in five years. And this at a profit margin that is most likely over 75%, for Apple.
Apple TV+ (and Apple Music for that matter) goal is to sell hardware by offering Apple users something they can't get on Android. (though one can access their Apple TV+ account on Android with a web browser.) You seem to keep forgetting Apple makes over 70% of their profit from selling hardware. Apple Map exist for the same reason. Apple was fearful that Google Map on iOS would never be as good as Google Map on Android and thus they would lose hardware sales to Android. Apple do not want to lose hardware sales because music streaming might be a better experience on Android than iOS and thus Apple Music. Those conditions do not exist with Google search. Google search is the same on iOS as it is on Android and maybe even better on iOS. Apple do not have to worry about losing hardware sale to Android because of Google search being inferior or not available on iOS. What is the point of Apple developing a search engine, if it doesn't lead to more hardware sales (or to keep the users they already have)?
Eddy Cue didn't comment that Google search was"better", he commented that Google search is the "best" option for iOS users. Can you dispute that as "hogwash", even if Apple was not getting any revenue sharing?
And consider this, if Apple developed a search engine, not all the market share they'll get, will come at Google's expense. What if DuckDuckGo go out of business because Apple search took away 50% of their already very small market share? Surely Bing would also lose some market shares. If Apple search got 10% of the search on iOS, only 5% of it might be at the expense of Google. So exactly, how would Apple competing in internet search, level the playing field for the small developers. The search ad revenue "pie" don't get any larger just because Apple competes for it. The pieces just get smaller for everyone already competing. It's actually laughable that you might think Apple competing in the internet search market, will somehow benefit the likes of DuckDuckGo, MS or Yahoo. Remember, if it does happen, Apple search by default will be the "default" on Safari. Unless some EU gatekeeper BS states that Apple can't promote their own search engine, on their own browser, on their own devices that are using their own OS (iOS and MacOS).
No. As I have already explained, there is zero need for Apple to be profitable. At least while they get the ball rolling.
Microsoft and web search is irrelevant when compared to mobile device search today. Again, I have already explained why. The comparison is not a good one.
I never forget that Apple makes most of its profit through hardware, and while Apple TV may no longer be a 'hobby', it means nothing here. Apple TV+ is not limited to Apple TV hardware for good reason and clearly, having it available on other streaming platform devices, tells us that the goal of that service is not to sell Apple hardware.
Eddy Cue would have no option but to say Google is better at search. Apple has no competing product and Google Search is one of the crown jewels for a reason.
It is literally impossible to know what outcome an Apple Search effort would have on the market. It would be for the market (under regulation) to sort that question out.
What we can safely say though is that there would be an impact on Google.
The billions it pays Apple for its 'default' status is proof enough of that.
First thing first… we need to acknoledge that it is a… ‘no news week’… so Gruman… and also Kuo… need to ‘fill’ their sites with… anything,
This quote is funny: “However, Apple could earn more revenue than the Google deal by bringing search in-”
You know… Apple knows nothing about ‘doing business’… so Gruman cleverly notes that they are wrong if they do not make their own search engine.
I just remember two quotes… I think both from Steve Jobs…: “We are proud as much of what we have done as of what we have not done!” “We like to enter a market when we can change it!“
So… why should Apple enter the search market for… selling ads? Do we remember the iAds idea?
Do we remember the “TV as a hobby” until they develop Apple TV+? But people keep ‘telling’ Apple to buy Disney, Netflix, ESPN, ABC…
Maybe… Apple is a trillion valued company… by not following bloggers and journalists' ideas.
It's important to not forget how Google got going at the outset.
For every search you made through Google, Google was earning revenues by just presenting the results page to you with two or three clearly marked promoted links. You didn't have to click on any of them for Google to get the revenue. That remains of course but a lot more has been added and interwoven into it since.
At the very least, Apple now has enough users to make regular search a viable and very profitable option. That would earn them revenue, increase competition and potentially take customers away from Google.
Of course, it's no wonder Google got where it got today because it's search infrastructure, algorithms included, is class leading.
However, you don't have to beat Google at its own game. You just have to be good enough and know how to market the functionality.
IMO, the current Apple - Google 'agreement' is basically a scheme to stifle competition and share the rewards.
When Google got into internet search, they changed how to monetize search by creating new innovative ways to do it. They got to where they are today by being more innovative than the competition. That would not be true today for anyone creating a search engine, including Apple. All they would be doing is trying to duplicate what Google is already doing. AI might be the game changer but even then, Google is not standing still with AI and won't be caught by surprise if AI turns out to be the next innovative way to search the internet.
When MS introduced Bing in 2009, MS it loss over $24B in two years and was still losing $1B a quarter in 2011. Bing didn't turn a profit until about 2015 when MS reported Bing generated $1B in revenue. Bing, after nearly 15 years, now generates $12B in revenue for MS and is profitable. But search is still no where near as profitable for MS as it is for Google, even though MS have just as many Windows users as Apple have iOS users. Even if Apple were to cut the cost and time in half, in order for Apple search to reach $12B in revenue, that is still a long way from making up for the loss of $15+B that Apple gets annually from Google revenue sharing with search on iOS. MS was referring to this when in court when a representative on the stand commented that Apple makes more money from Bing than MS. He was referring to Apple making $15+B a year because Google sees Bing as a threat, if Apple were to ever decide to have Bing as their default. Without Bing, Google would have no need to offer Apple as much in revenue sharing. (so it's assumed)
How can this "agreement" stifle competition when Apple is not competing in the search business? That's like saying that HP is "stifling" competition because they are using CPU's made by other companies, rather than to invest in making their own. Would Apple be "stifling" competition if they were to buy Bing or DuckDuckGo? Of course not, so long as Apple themselves are not in the search engine business. By Google offering Android as Open Source for any mobile device makers to use for free, is Google "stifling" competition"? So instead of mobile device makers having to create their own mobile OS, they are limiting consumers choice by freely choosing to make more profit from using Android for free. Did MS "stifle" competition when they chose to exit the mobile phone market because it was not profitable for them? For sure Samsung can create their own mobile OS, they have one. But Samsung chooses to make more profit from marketing phones using Android, instead of marketing phones that uses their own mobile OS. Are they "stifling" competition by not really trying to compete in the mobile OS market with their own mobile OS because Android phones are more profitable?
One can't "stifle" competition by eliminating someone that is not currently competing with them. So long as Apple is not competing in the search engine business, Google can not be "stifling" competition because of Apple freely choosing not to compete (by making their own search engine). And surely, Apple can not be "stifling" competition because they choose not to invest the time and money to create a search engine in order to compete. But if Google were to offer money to Bing or DuckDuckGo to no longer compete or offer to buy them out, Google could be accused of "stifling"competition and any buyout would not be approved.
Several issues there.
Apple Search would not have to earn the company more revenue than the current Google deal.
Just like its other services business (Apple TV+) , profitability is not the initial goal.
Taking control away from Google, reducing its control, would be more than enough.
Google feeds so well off of the search pie that it can pay Apple billions and still sees the deal as profitable. Obviously in economic terms because Google is the king of search but how many of those billions are really there just to keep a competitor out of the the hen house?
Apple taking a net business loss (in Google deal terms) would be real. Apple is unlikely to be able to match those revenues from the get go, but taking a slice of the search pie away from Google would also be reducing its control of the search business in general. That would be a massive power shift in industry terms and, unlike say, Apple Maps, Apple search would not be limited to Apple device owners.
The owners themselves are different. Microsoft Windows users are not the same as mobile device users. The value attributed to Windows users from a search perspective is massively lower than that of mobile device users. There is no comparison here. PC users will occasionally switch away from work or regular productive use and search for something. What they search for may have a certain commercial value to a search provider.
However, most mobile users, apart from massively outnumbering Windows users will often be using their 'work downtime' to carry out searches for commercial reasons.
Your workplace might actively control how much time you spend using work resources for 'non-work' activities. Those same people, during breaks or while traveling to and from work, or at home will actively be using far more of their time on searches for commercial reasons.
If you, as a search provider, could choose between a huge group of Windows users or a huge group of mobile device users, which one would you choose? And if it was you who could default the search engine to your own own platform? Microsoft does not really have that option in the wider mobile space.
It's not difficult to see how the current situation might be stifling innovation/competition and harming consumers. The question is how the authorities might see the situation. IMO, if forced to look at the Apple-Google deal, I'm inclined to think they will see it as harmful and stifling competition.
It's not that just because Apple isn't providing a service that can't be part of the problem. The issue here is if someone says Apple is being paid to NOT get into the search business. Eddy Cue claims they don't because Google is better. For me that's hogwash but it's not my decision.
Just one thing. It’s not revenue, it’s profit. Virtually all the $19 billion, or so, that Apple is getting from Google is profit, other than a minuscule amount for accounting, etc. To match that, search would have to be much more in revenue as it would also have to account for the billions Apple would be spending on it every year.
As I made clear, the initial goal would have little or nothing to do with money for the sake of money.
It remains revenue for Apple.
It would be about taking business away from a competitor, offering up a competing service and leveling the playing field.
Have you ever wondered just how much 'profit' Google gets out of the current deal?
During recent downturns and restructuring of the advertising business, Google has not been immune.
I'd wager the Apple deal maybe isn't as clear cut of an issue within Google although it's hard to really know.
Its own ads through services like YouTube are probably already on the limit of what non-subscription users are willing to take.
Has TikTok hit YouTube hard?
Paid subscriptions across the board are probably due for a shake up with prices creeping higher and more content becoming paid or ad supported. None of the big players have it easy now that the honeymoon period is over. Post Covid and inflationary headwinds are having a negative effect on the streaming business.
There is also a risk of Apple inadvertently getting on the wrong side of a fine here.
Although often glossed in people's minds the risk of seeing Google broken up still exists, however small that risk might be.
Google might actually be far weaker and prone to negative ripples in parts of its core business and I'm including cloud in this group too as smaller players are rising fast.
AI is taking us into unknown territory from a financial perspective and most people say Google looks well positioned but analysts also point to risks.
Apple entering search on all platforms could cause a microfissure that could open up over time.
Especially if the deal is deemed to be illegal. Then we might see Eddy Cue change his tune.
We’re talking about Apple’s end here, not Google’s. So it’s profit that matters, not revenue. Almost all of Google’s profit comes from advertising. If app,EU had a search engine would they be nearly as aggressive as Google in getting user info? It doubt it. Their company direction is in the opposite direction. Not that they do t collect, but not nearly as much, nor most of the same type. So what would it cost for Apple to come up with similar profits? Too much I believe.
Apple's end is tied to Google's end here.
Any result from Apple doing search and defaulting to it on all major platforms will have a direct on itself (losing Google's payments for default privilege) and Google having a competitor taking its default status away (and replacing it with Apple's). If that weren't bad enough, Apple wouldn't limit its offering to iOS/macOS users.
We could argue that Google branding is strong enough for it to retain users while not being the default but I'd say that isn't really the case and is a major reason it pays Apple in the first place.
Apple and Google are not the enemies you seem to believe they are. They have a lot of shared interests, and work side-by-side on some technologies and "other". Making one weaker will not make the other stronger. Apple understands that once they get to +60% market share in the US it might put them squarely in antitrust crosshairs, a place they definitely do not want to be.
A telling email from a senior Apple officer, revealed during the current trial, had this to say: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company..."
Definitely friends but definitely enemies. Just like Samsung: frenemies.
To become stronger in any given mature market inevitably means making someone else weaker.
Google losing it's default search status on Apple devices would definitely make Google weaker. They know having that status has very much been worth the price it currently pays Apple.
Google losing it's default status to a third company would be bad for it. Losing it to Apple would be far worse, but in the longer term.
There is a lot of Google inertia out there and for good reason: Google is unmatched in search and in scope.
However, all inertia eventually comes to an end if you don't have something to keep things going - like default status.
Search, in itself, is unlikely to help Apple increase its market share in the US. That would be down to other factors and in the current climate no single company should feel comfortable if it dominates any sector. We are probably closer than ever to seeing constant fines resulting from investigations or even the threat of being broken up.
For Apple, search has obvious potential. It's a revenue driver that it can control.
Google competes (in spite of collaborative efforts) with Apple. They both want to knock the wind out of each other though.
Leverage is key. Maps, cloud services, email.... Search is just one more area for Apple.
It's all about strategic interests. Up to now, Apple has been happy to sit back and count the Google green. That could change at any moment and just like with Pixel phones, any move by Apple wouldn't have to be groundbreaking. There would be no need to make a massive splash.
Of course, there is also the real possibility of the deal being ended through regulatory requirements.
There are a lot of unknowns. For all the billions Google has paid Apple for its default search privilege, we still don't really know how 'worth it' it is to Google.
It might be a massively profitable deal to them or just barely profitable, but worthwhile, if it means Apple doesn't jump in with its own solution.
This trial might see that kind of data get flushed and even fleshed out.
The famous quote:
"Our vision is that we work as if we are one company..."
is probably causing lost sleep in the current climate.
Comments
Apple Search would not have to earn the company more revenue than the current Google deal.
Just like its other services business (Apple TV+) , profitability is not the initial goal.
Taking control away from Google, reducing its control, would be more than enough.
Google feeds so well off of the search pie that it can pay Apple billions and still sees the deal as profitable. Obviously in economic terms because Google is the king of search but how many of those billions are really there just to keep a competitor out of the the hen house?
Apple taking a net business loss (in Google deal terms) would be real. Apple is unlikely to be able to match those revenues from the get go, but taking a slice of the search pie away from Google would also be reducing its control of the search business in general. That would be a massive power shift in industry terms and, unlike say, Apple Maps, Apple search would not be limited to Apple device owners.
The owners themselves are different. Microsoft Windows users are not the same as mobile device users. The value attributed to Windows users from a search perspective is massively lower than that of mobile device users. There is no comparison here. PC users will occasionally switch away from work or regular productive use and search for something. What they search for may have a certain commercial value to a search provider.
However, most mobile users, apart from massively outnumbering Windows users will often be using their 'work downtime' to carry out searches for commercial reasons.
Your workplace might actively control how much time you spend using work resources for 'non-work' activities. Those same people, during breaks or while traveling to and from work, or at home will actively be using far more of their time on searches for commercial reasons.
If you, as a search provider, could choose between a huge group of Windows users or a huge group of mobile device users, which one would you choose? And if it was you who could default the search engine to your own own platform? Microsoft does not really have that option in the wider mobile space.
It's not difficult to see how the current situation might be stifling innovation/competition and harming consumers. The question is how the authorities might see the situation. IMO, if forced to look at the Apple-Google deal, I'm inclined to think they will see it as harmful and stifling competition.
It's not that just because Apple isn't providing a service that can't be part of the problem. The issue here is if someone says Apple is being paid to NOT get into the search business. Eddy Cue claims they don't because Google is better. For me that's hogwash but it's not my decision.
It remains revenue for Apple.
It would be about taking business away from a competitor, offering up a competing service and leveling the playing field.
Have you ever wondered just how much 'profit' Google gets out of the current deal?
During recent downturns and restructuring of the advertising business, Google has not been immune.
I'd wager the Apple deal maybe isn't as clear cut of an issue within Google although it's hard to really know.
Its own ads through services like YouTube are probably already on the limit of what non-subscription users are willing to take.
Has TikTok hit YouTube hard?
Paid subscriptions across the board are probably due for a shake up with prices creeping higher and more content becoming paid or ad supported. None of the big players have it easy now that the honeymoon period is over. Post Covid and inflationary headwinds are having a negative effect on the streaming business.
There is also a risk of Apple inadvertently getting on the wrong side of a fine here.
Although often glossed in people's minds the risk of seeing Google broken up still exists, however small that risk might be.
Google might actually be far weaker and prone to negative ripples in parts of its core business and I'm including cloud in this group too as smaller players are rising fast.
AI is taking us into unknown territory from a financial perspective and most people say Google looks well positioned but analysts also point to risks.
Apple entering search on all platforms could cause a microfissure that could open up over time.
Especially if the deal is deemed to be illegal. Then we might see Eddy Cue change his tune.
Any result from Apple doing search and defaulting to it on all major platforms will have a direct on itself (losing Google's payments for default privilege) and Google having a competitor taking its default status away (and replacing it with Apple's). If that weren't bad enough, Apple wouldn't limit its offering to iOS/macOS users.
We could argue that Google branding is strong enough for it to retain users while not being the default but I'd say that isn't really the case and is a major reason it pays Apple in the first place.
A telling email from a senior Apple officer, revealed during the current trial, had this to say: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company..."
Microsoft and web search is irrelevant when compared to mobile device search today. Again, I have already explained why. The comparison is not a good one.
I never forget that Apple makes most of its profit through hardware, and while Apple TV may no longer be a 'hobby', it means nothing here. Apple TV+ is not limited to Apple TV hardware for good reason and clearly, having it available on other streaming platform devices, tells us that the goal of that service is not to sell Apple hardware.
Eddy Cue would have no option but to say Google is better at search. Apple has no competing product and Google Search is one of the crown jewels for a reason.
It is literally impossible to know what outcome an Apple Search effort would have on the market. It would be for the market (under regulation) to sort that question out.
What we can safely say though is that there would be an impact on Google.
The billions it pays Apple for its 'default' status is proof enough of that.
To become stronger in any given mature market inevitably means making someone else weaker.
Google losing it's default search status on Apple devices would definitely make Google weaker. They know having that status has very much been worth the price it currently pays Apple.
Google losing it's default status to a third company would be bad for it. Losing it to Apple would be far worse, but in the longer term.
There is a lot of Google inertia out there and for good reason: Google is unmatched in search and in scope.
However, all inertia eventually comes to an end if you don't have something to keep things going - like default status.
Search, in itself, is unlikely to help Apple increase its market share in the US. That would be down to other factors and in the current climate no single company should feel comfortable if it dominates any sector. We are probably closer than ever to seeing constant fines resulting from investigations or even the threat of being broken up.
For Apple, search has obvious potential. It's a revenue driver that it can control.
Google competes (in spite of collaborative efforts) with Apple. They both want to knock the wind out of each other though.
Leverage is key. Maps, cloud services, email.... Search is just one more area for Apple.
It's all about strategic interests. Up to now, Apple has been happy to sit back and count the Google green. That could change at any moment and just like with Pixel phones, any move by Apple wouldn't have to be groundbreaking. There would be no need to make a massive splash.
Of course, there is also the real possibility of the deal being ended through regulatory requirements.
There are a lot of unknowns. For all the billions Google has paid Apple for its default search privilege, we still don't really know how 'worth it' it is to Google.
It might be a massively profitable deal to them or just barely profitable, but worthwhile, if it means Apple doesn't jump in with its own solution.
This trial might see that kind of data get flushed and even fleshed out.
The famous quote:
is probably causing lost sleep in the current climate.