Putting aside the debate about the overall nefarious nature of Google, it's disturbing that the federal government can inject themselves in a free-will business decision wherein Apple can decide is the up front money is a better return on their investment than building out.
If Apple were COERCED into this deal, that is a very different story. But they were not as far as any reporting of this scenario is known.
The feds can and should inject themselves into free-will business decisions. They have been placed there to do exactly that. Otherwise there would still be slavery and free immigration as businesses loved both, the environment would be a toxic waste ground, and products would once again be "unsafe at any speed".
Antitrust: "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.". A behavior that was deemed fully inappropriate 140 years ago and still is. You could even go read the Bible and find that the problem was addressed earlier. There was never a "Here is Earth - stand still and be greedy as hell".
For Google to know that their main competitor on mobile won't compete against them, and for Apple to be OK with the way Google handles our privacy the moment we write something that isn't a URL... disgusting.
We will have better search and privacy without this deal.
If there is no way that Apple would make their own search engine and regards googles search engine as best, why would Google pay apple $20 billion for default placement ? Love?
The contract with Google states that Apple must legally defend it and so he does. Cue also defended his illegal price fixing on books until he stopped doing so. And Cue saying "we can't afford it"... from the company that spent a decade on Car. Cue is a true corporate apparatchik.
Apple has gone a step further than the article mentions. It now wants to participate in Google's legal defense, concerned that Google cannot adequately protect both themselves and Apple's interests against the government's demands for a break-up.
The development of a search engine would require diverting both capital investment and employees because creating a search engine would cost billions of dollars and take many years. Search is rapidly evolving due to recent and ongoing developments in Artificial Intelligence, making it economically risky to devote the huge resources that would be required to create a search engine.
makes it sound like not only should Google not be paying apple, but that apple should be paying Google.
If Cue truly means this then it implies (1) Google is dumb for paying apple and (2) apple is dumb for pointing out that Google is dumb.
But I think neither apple nor Google are dumb, which makes me think Cue doesn’t believe what he’s saying but does believe (or hopes) that the audience for his message is dumb.
Wow, quite the leap in logic.
Google is paying Apple for default placement, but not so that Apple doesn't create their own search engine. Both companies knew Apple wasn't planning one, something frenemies would understand. Google wanted a guaranteed fast track to Apple users and their shopping plans, worth about $40B/year in profit as of 2021 after paying Apple their cut. That's minimally $160B into Google coffers over the past four years and probably north of $200Billion. AS for Apple they got at least $80B for doing essentially nothing and at zero cost. Pure profit. Surely you understood why the two made a deal?
If there is no way that Apple would make their own search engine and regards googles search engine as best, why would Google pay apple $20 billion for default placement ? Love?
The didn't "pay Apple $20B for placement". They paid Apple $20B in 2021 because it worked out to be the contractually agreed on 1/3rd cut, perhaps a percentage or two higher, of search revenue Google collected from Safari searches. Default settings are rarely changed, which Google understands, an so id Microsoft who also wanted that default. More profit with less work, a LOT more and essentially guaranteed.
With Apple and Google it was not set at a flat $20B. It is percentage-based and could have been more or less based on how much profit Google realized.
There's no other search provider who would have delivered better results for Apple, and there still isn't. Apple likes profit, and profit without effort is even better.
You’re missing the forest for the chlorophyll in the leaves of the trees.
If Google is clearly the best search engine that Apple really wants to use and Apple would never ever want to build their own, why does there need to be a contract? Why does there need to be any payments?
Because if Google is willing to pay what works out to be $20B/yr then Apple would be nuts to say nah keep the money.
Putting aside the debate about the overall nefarious nature of Google, it's disturbing that the federal government can inject themselves in a free-will business decision wherein Apple can decide is the up front money is a better return on their investment than building out.
If Apple were COERCED into this deal, that is a very different story. But they were not as far as any reporting of this scenario is known.
The feds can and should inject themselves into free-will business decisions. They have been placed there to do exactly that. Otherwise there would still be slavery and free immigration as businesses loved both, the environment would be a toxic waste ground, and products would once again be "unsafe at any speed".
Antitrust: "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.". A behavior that was deemed fully inappropriate 140 years ago and still is. You could even go read the Bible and find that the problem was addressed earlier. There was never a "Here is Earth - stand still and be greedy as hell".
For Google to know that their main competitor on mobile won't compete against them, and for Apple to be OK with the way Google handles our privacy the moment we write something that isn't a URL... disgusting.
We will have better search and privacy without this deal.
This is a free will decision by Apple in return for financial compensation and elimination of a tremendous level of up front and ongoing expense. If they didn't like the deal strategically or monetarily, they could freely tell Google NO. It's not up to the government to get into that type of decision. To tell company's they MUST develop a product or feature for the marketplace? That's a very ill-guided way to think.
I don't like Google, would like Apple to have a search product (and I bet they have a working infrastructure in their labs and have for some time, just like all companies play safety bets). But none of that matters, as Apple is not being forced or coerced into this position AFAWK. And the money that Apple collects helps them fund other R&D projects which benefits the market in many other ways outside of search.
And you don't think Apple ADDING their own search engine (and ad revenue) wouldn't garner the same or even greater scrutiny from the government for monopolistic behavior? They would own the OS, the computer, the default browser, and now the search? (Personally I think this would be a great option given how well Apple generally handles integration and privacy...) Nonetheless it's simple to see -
Governments have a sophmoric intelligence where big=bad, success=sanctions. It's very misguided in many ways, and really is a crass money grab in most cases. Small companies can be guilty of be anti-competitive behaviors, and large companies can operate cleanly. The law itself is so vague - "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade." Boy, without much effort you could arbitrarily apply this to nearly anything, like Coke buying shelf space at a grocery store, or Ralph Lauren leasing a large corner of Macy's for their good exclusively. It's so arbitrarily and capriciously applied, it stifles business grown in many way.
And if anyone says "What about the little guy who can't compete?" My answer would be bullshit. Figure it out. Most of the tech companies with huge SUCCESS started with nothing or next to it and innovated their way past established companies into success (including Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, eBay, PayPal, Tesla and so many others).
The government stifles innovation at almost every turn. And you think forcing Apple to create a search engine is going to help the little guys? HA! Or forcing them to default to DDG is a great thing?
Apple already gives users a choice, they simply default to Google and get paid for it. Really smart actually...
Governments have a sophmoric [sic] intelligence... ... The government stifles innovation at almost every turn.
It seems you believe governments exist on their own. They don't. You directly elect most of those in government while the rest is chosen and approved by those you elected.
I do however agree that politicians like to create legislation. It is their way of showing action to us as voters. No reason to be sophomoric or vulgar about it.
Apple could literally launch a comparable search engine tomorrow.
Between Siri, apple intelligence, and the fact that apple had one of the first search engines decades ago, this is pure comedy.
The reality is that Apple gets a boatload of money from Google just to do something they’d likely do anyway and are partnered with Google in receiving the kinds of data that apple doesn’t collect themselves - so they get to keep the hood guy name while getting some of the bad guy benefits.
Cue is a lifer, so he knows how to move the chess pieces.
Apple NEEDS to win this for itself AND Google. Because lots of unsavory details risk being discovered in ther deal.
“Free will” is not a legal defence. Corporations conspiring to create monopolies and other anti-competitive behaviours that are detrimental to markets and consumer interests is a thing.
Also, although Apple is siding with Google this time, nothing can stop Apple from finding a way to rid Google from their devices in future, if they choose. An AI-powered voice assistant that immediately gives complete and useful answers to queries, would be one such technology. “Google Search” is a series steps between us and the information that we want; it’s like how we used a physical telephone book to find a number to dial on our telephone—extra steps that the smartphone made redundant.
Apple NEEDS to win this for itself AND Google. Because lots of unsavory details risk being discovered in ther deal.
The discovery phase was done long ago, as was the trial and outcome. No one in this court is looking for more "unsavory details". Done and over. Apple wants to join Google to defend against the government's suggested cure.
Any post-judgment appeals are sometime in the future, and Apple has not suggested they would like to be involved there as well.
I don’t use Google as my default and I find the Google window which pops up on some websites a bit irritating. I also don’t buy from advertising within search results or any web pages.
However, services such as Google Earth which are largely free to use are great. These things can only be provided free to users because of the scale of the provider. Indeed, except for the scale of the providers, they wouldn’t exist.
It’s the same with Apple constantly facing court action because of its success. There are plenty of other options in all instances and all these companies started from nothing with a good idea. There is nothing stopping anyone else doing the same thing.
In the long run it makes no difference breaking up a company, proof of which are the five big US oil companies which started from nothing and became one large company subsequently split up. They still control the oil market.
What it does do is give the protesting body a chance to collect a load of money in fines.
In the long run it makes no difference breaking up a company, proof of which are the five big US oil companies which started from nothing and became one large company subsequently split up. They still control the oil market.
Did breaking up Bell/AT&T cause more competition and better devices (hint... iPhone) or would you be happy to have just one telco and only their devices?
People are free to use what ever search engine they want, but rest assured that Google search is superior by far than any other. With new AI capabilities being introduced into Google search, it is blowing away the competition including Bing and DuckDuckGo.
For the record Google’s AI boosted search is one of the specific REASONS I gave up on Google. All I get from them now are ads and AI generated garbage.
Well, I don't know what you have searched Google for, but I beg to differ. Perhaps you can post an example of the AI garbage that you mentioned. I have found great information for the Google AI although it is still experimental.
Apple apparently cares about your Privacy, yet it continues to use Google as its default search engine. This is purely a financial decision only.
Apple does care about your privacy, that's why you get prompted to allow certain things like cookies that lead to advertising or not.
In terms of financial decision, I am sure financial is a factor for Apple just like it is for others like Bing, DuckDuckGo and Yahoo. If it was not a factor, the losing search engines would not be complaining to the DOJ. They want to make money and keep all the profit
Apple apparently cares about your Privacy, yet it continues to use Google as its default search engine. This is purely a financial decision only.
Apple does care about your privacy, that's why you get prompted to allow certain things like cookies that lead to advertising or not.
In terms of financial decision, I am sure financial is a factor for Apple just like it is for others like Bing, DuckDuckGo and Yahoo. If it was not a factor, the losing search engines would not be complaining to the DOJ. They want to make money and keep all the profit
IMO, Apple prioritizes privacy only when it doesn't affect their profits. Despite Google's poor privacy reputation, Apple still allows them access to their customers. It's possible Google pays Apple billions annually because they earn even more from Apple users.
You do not become successful by trying to create products when you can leverage the existing work of others. Car manufacturers stay out of the tire manufacturing business because it is not core to their operations of design and production. Multiple manufacturers exist so you use those. Additionally this is not a field you just jump into.
Search is certainly something Apple could get into but would it really make sense to try and create a search engine that would pale in comparison to Google, DDG, or Bing. It would be the laughing stock of the industry for several years until it got some type of relevancy. At that point they would have to find users which would be next to impossible as everyone uses Google.
Any sane company takes the money and never looks back. The government telling a company the products they can and cannot purchase is absurd. Asking 1000 people about search engines would yield: Google - 900+, Bin - 90+, DDG - 5+, and everyone else.
You do not become successful by trying to create products when you can leverage the existing work of others. Car manufacturers stay out of the tire manufacturing business because it is not core to their operations of design and production. Multiple manufacturers exist so you use those. Additionally this is not a field you just jump into.
Search is certainly something Apple could get into but would it really make sense to try and create a search engine that would pale in comparison to Google, DDG, or Bing. It would be the laughing stock of the industry for several years until it got some type of relevancy. At that point they would have to find users which would be next to impossible as everyone uses Google.
Any sane company takes the money and never looks back. The government telling a company the products they can and cannot purchase is absurd. Asking 1000 people about search engines would yield: Google - 900+, Bin - 90+, DDG - 5+, and everyone else.
Yeah, the lawyerly argument that Google buying default placement on iPhone Safari - iPhone Safari is the only web browser of concern here - and prevented Apple from developing its own search engine is farcical. If Google offered less money, Apple would have accepted billions, less billions than Google but billions still, from MS for Bing being the iPhone Safari search default. Apple is most certainly plying for these type of default placement deals with GenAI.
Kind of wish Eddie Cue did a LOLROTFL in court testimony if or when asked the question and then go into detail why it is farcical. To make money at "search", you need to own both ends of the business of making money with search. You need to control the ad business, both the user data and the ad businesses. Apple has zero inroads in this and it is downright antithetical to their business. Then, they need to have a search service that billions of users automatically go to use. There is already an incumbent whose brand is used as a verb here, which basically makes it impossible. To support all this stuff, the capital costs for the data centers will be 10s of billions. Just a farcical idea. Every new search service attempt has failed over the past 20 years.
Now, I do agree that Google search+ads business is monopoly, but I'm not sure there is any remedy save for preventing Google from using its profits to buy out competition. That is effectively what they did with iPhone Safari. So, there are things the government can do to prevent things like that. Facebook has been doing the same thing with VR. Microsoft does the same thing with gaming, for a long time now. The government always approves of the buyouts and the monopolistic practices - they actively participate in it - and helps all these companies to their dominant positions. Then, they come back to try to the close the box, and never seem to be effective. It's a whirlwind.
As usual though, the dominant incumbents are overtaken by asymmetrical technologies making the incumbent's businesses less valuable, such as OpenAI being better at natural language interfaces than Google. It's curiously been a race that Google hasn't been running as fast as they should. They have been having a very hard time turning the ship. Wonder why.
Nonsense, Eddie Cueless the death of Android, Google search or Chrome would have no lasting effects on Apple at least not in a negative sense….. The only thing it would eliminate is a constant me too copycat company, and Samsung going down would generate a similar effect.
Comments
The feds can and should inject themselves into free-will business decisions. They have been placed there to do exactly that. Otherwise there would still be slavery and free immigration as businesses loved both, the environment would be a toxic waste ground, and products would once again be "unsafe at any speed".
Antitrust: "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.". A behavior that was deemed fully inappropriate 140 years ago and still is. You could even go read the Bible and find that the problem was addressed earlier. There was never a "Here is Earth - stand still and be greedy as hell".
For Google to know that their main competitor on mobile won't compete against them, and for Apple to be OK with the way Google handles our privacy the moment we write something that isn't a URL... disgusting.
We will have better search and privacy without this deal.
I don't like Google, would like Apple to have a search product (and I bet they have a working infrastructure in their labs and have for some time, just like all companies play safety bets). But none of that matters, as Apple is not being forced or coerced into this position AFAWK. And the money that Apple collects helps them fund other R&D projects which benefits the market in many other ways outside of search.
And you don't think Apple ADDING their own search engine (and ad revenue) wouldn't garner the same or even greater scrutiny from the government for monopolistic behavior? They would own the OS, the computer, the default browser, and now the search? (Personally I think this would be a great option given how well Apple generally handles integration and privacy...) Nonetheless it's simple to see -
Governments have a sophmoric intelligence where big=bad, success=sanctions. It's very misguided in many ways, and really is a crass money grab in most cases. Small companies can be guilty of be anti-competitive behaviors, and large companies can operate cleanly. The law itself is so vague - "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade." Boy, without much effort you could arbitrarily apply this to nearly anything, like Coke buying shelf space at a grocery store, or Ralph Lauren leasing a large corner of Macy's for their good exclusively. It's so arbitrarily and capriciously applied, it stifles business grown in many way.
And if anyone says "What about the little guy who can't compete?" My answer would be bullshit. Figure it out. Most of the tech companies with huge SUCCESS started with nothing or next to it and innovated their way past established companies into success (including Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, eBay, PayPal, Tesla and so many others).
The government stifles innovation at almost every turn. And you think forcing Apple to create a search engine is going to help the little guys? HA! Or forcing them to default to DDG is a great thing?
Apple already gives users a choice, they simply default to Google and get paid for it. Really smart actually...
Grow a pair.
I do however agree that politicians like to create legislation. It is their way of showing action to us as voters.
No reason to be sophomoric or vulgar about it.
Apple could literally launch a comparable search engine tomorrow.
The discovery phase was done long ago, as was the trial and outcome. No one in this court is looking for more "unsavory details". Done and over. Apple wants to join Google to defend against the government's suggested cure.
Any post-judgment appeals are sometime in the future, and Apple has not suggested they would like to be involved there as well.
In the long run it makes no difference breaking up a company, proof of which are the five big US oil companies which started from nothing and became one large company subsequently split up. They still control the oil market.
What it does do is give the protesting body a chance to collect a load of money in fines.
I have found great information for the Google AI although it is still experimental.
In terms of financial decision, I am sure financial is a factor for Apple just like it is for others like Bing, DuckDuckGo and Yahoo.
If it was not a factor, the losing search engines would not be complaining to the DOJ. They want to make money and keep all the profit
Search is certainly something Apple could get into but would it really make sense to try and create a search engine that would pale in comparison to Google, DDG, or Bing. It would be the laughing stock of the industry for several years until it got some type of relevancy. At that point they would have to find users which would be next to impossible as everyone uses Google.
Any sane company takes the money and never looks back. The government telling a company the products they can and cannot purchase is absurd. Asking 1000 people about search engines would yield: Google - 900+, Bin - 90+, DDG - 5+, and everyone else.
Kind of wish Eddie Cue did a LOLROTFL in court testimony if or when asked the question and then go into detail why it is farcical. To make money at "search", you need to own both ends of the business of making money with search. You need to control the ad business, both the user data and the ad businesses. Apple has zero inroads in this and it is downright antithetical to their business. Then, they need to have a search service that billions of users automatically go to use. There is already an incumbent whose brand is used as a verb here, which basically makes it impossible. To support all this stuff, the capital costs for the data centers will be 10s of billions. Just a farcical idea. Every new search service attempt has failed over the past 20 years.
Now, I do agree that Google search+ads business is monopoly, but I'm not sure there is any remedy save for preventing Google from using its profits to buy out competition. That is effectively what they did with iPhone Safari. So, there are things the government can do to prevent things like that. Facebook has been doing the same thing with VR. Microsoft does the same thing with gaming, for a long time now. The government always approves of the buyouts and the monopolistic practices - they actively participate in it - and helps all these companies to their dominant positions. Then, they come back to try to the close the box, and never seem to be effective. It's a whirlwind.
As usual though, the dominant incumbents are overtaken by asymmetrical technologies making the incumbent's businesses less valuable, such as OpenAI being better at natural language interfaces than Google. It's curiously been a race that Google hasn't been running as fast as they should. They have been having a very hard time turning the ship. Wonder why.