Apple has most of the elements it needs to create its own search engine

Posted:
in General Discussion edited October 2023

Apple could make its own search engine and end its reliance on Google, a report points out, with Apple already possessing most of the components it needs to go it alone.




Using Google for search has been lucrative for Apple, with the search giant paying Apple billions to be the top search option in iOS. But while the arrangement being discussed in court is beneficial to Apple, there's always a possibility of it deciding to go its own way.

In Sunday's "Power On" newsletter for Bloomberg, Mark Gurman reasons that Apple could create its own search engine and create an Apple Watch-sized revenue stream with the sale of advertising. One that is a "long shot" from actually happening due to how the incentives of the Apple-Google deal line up, despite repeated rumors on the topic.

A person involved with the deal explained that the alignment of incentives was a big part of its creation, since while Apple could promote rival searches, it at least earns by steering customers to Google.

However, Apple could earn more revenue than the Google deal by bringing search in-house. This possibility has helped Apple push to work on its own search technology, which helps on-device services but not web search.

Going it alone



In the what-if scenario, Gurman proposes Apple could offer a more integrated and private solution than Google. This is already evident in search engines made for services like the App Store and Maps.

Apple has also been working on a next-gen search engine for apps codenamed "Pegasus" under former Google executive John Giannandrea over the last few years. That will apparently arrive on apps like the App Store soon, offering more accurate search results.

Another piece of evidence is Spotlight, which does rely on Bing and Google for search results, which may get more improvements through generative AI tools.

The Applebot web crawler is also an important element, since it scours the Internet for websites similar to Microsoft and Google's versions. Then there's the advertising technology team that could eventually create an advertising group for web search.

It is reasoned that comments from Apple SVP of Services Eddy Cue saying Google's search is the best and that Apple has no incentive to make its own are probably true, but could also be a measure to try and protect Google from government enforcement. If the US believes Google violated antitrust laws, the existing billion-dollar search deal could go up in smoke.

Google therefore remains Apple's best option, at least until Apple believes it has made a better one.

Read on AppleInsider

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 34
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,513member
    lmasanti said:
    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. 




    Alex1NFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 2 of 34
    red oakred oak Posts: 1,078member
    Wearables revenue is about $35 billion per year.  Google Search gross revenue is $162 billion/year

    So, that would be 21% of Google’s total search revenue.  Seems low but not outlandish.  I bet it is closer to 30-35% and growing every year 

    Apple continuing to build internal expertise and launch internally build search features is key to having leverage over Google in negotiations.  It is fundamental 
    Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 34
    avon b7 said:

    Apple may have enough users, but what evidence do you or Gurman have to support the view that they could be more profitable with their own search engine than the deal they have with Google?   Creating, enhancing, and maintaining a search engine isn’t free.  Then there’s the fact that Apple prides itself on maintaining privacy of its users, so any advertising they sell won’t be as profitable as Google’s as those ads won’t be as “targeted” as privacy violating as Google can make them.

    I think the OP is right - it must be a slow news day.  There’s no way Apple will do their own search engine - unless it was forbidden to sell the integration with one to the highest bidder - currently Google - under some sort of anti-trust decree.

    Alex1NFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 34
    As long as they call it Sherlock and compensate Karelia, I am good with it!
    williamlondondarkvader
  • Reply 5 of 34
    AppleishAppleish Posts: 681member
    Reliance? Every day that goes by that they don't buy DuckDuckGo, I am amazed.
    Alex1NFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 34
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 2,217member
    A huge aspect of Web Search is control over indexing. Website owners can decide which pages get indexed, which pages should be ignored, get insights into search activity around their target market, get analytics for their own site, etc. Google covers all of these areas well. I just can't see Apple investing into providing the same types of tools.

    You're not changing a market when the market is already mature and well-served.

    Do I wish there was an opportunity for Apple to compete with Google? Absolutely! I just can't see it happening.
    Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 34
    Wouldn’t generative AI render a traditional search engine less useful?  If search is built into the OS, why use a browser or engine?  This has bigger implications for Google since I don’t see how they can grow ad revenue with this.
    edited October 2023 Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 34
    I don’t see Apple trying to make a “Google Search”. I do see Apple making a “ChatGPT Siri + Search” 
    Alex1N
  • Reply 9 of 34
    M68000M68000 Posts: 705member
    Appleish said:
    Reliance? Every day that goes by that they don't buy DuckDuckGo, I am amazed.
    Instead of buying everything, how about Apple starting something on it’s own with no outside help or acquisitions.  How about that idea?
    darkvaderAlex1N
  • Reply 10 of 34
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Boy, I think this is a simplification! Do they have the thousands of people in place that Google does? Are they prepared to spend the billions every year that Google does? Are they prepared to lose the half billion, or more, per year in this that Microsoft does? Starting a search engine in 1995 was fairly easy. Building it up over the decades cost a lot as it gets more sophisticated. Starting at this stage of the game would be very difficult. And what would be the point? There is no way they could compete for maybe a decade, if at all. Microsoft has got all the money and they been doing it for decades, but they have a whole 3% worldwide, a bit more here.

    id rather just pull in the $15-20 billion a year.
    gatorguyAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 34
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member

    M68000 said:
    Appleish said:
    Reliance? Every day that goes by that they don't buy DuckDuckGo, I am amazed.
    Instead of buying everything, how about Apple starting something on its own with no outside help or acquisitions.  How about that idea?
    No good.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 34
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,025member
    avon b7 said:
    lmasanti said:
    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.





    edited October 2023 thtgatorguymuthuk_vanalingamtmayAlex1NFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 34
    thttht Posts: 5,355member
    Wouldn’t generative AI render a traditional search engine less useful?  If search is built into the OS, why use a browser or engine?  This has bigger implications for Google since I don’t see how they can grow ad revenue with this.
    You have to think about how an AI chatbot company is going to make money. They either have to make it a subscription or have it show users ads. The economics for a service provider aren't any different between a traditional search engine and a new LLM powered chatbot engine.

    So, if we count ourselves lucky, LLM services providers will be able to get 100+ million subscribers at $100 per year rates, they may have enough revenue and profit to have factual no-nonsense results. If they don't, get ready for ads embedded from LLM chatbots. It's going to be even worse than the ads you see today from various companies after entering a search.

    Since it may be in text form with "footnotes" indicating this or that is an ad, it's not going to take much to influence readers from going out and buying some fast food when you just was checking to see if their was a sale on vegetables at the local supermarket.

    Who are we talking about here? It's rich techbros, who are morally and ethically reprehensible, that are building these things. So, you basically have to imagine the worst possible outcome for LLM chatbot services, than go even beyond that worst possible outcome.
    edited October 2023 Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 34
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    davidw said:
    avon b7 said:
    lmasanti said:
    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.





    I just read that all of Microsoft search products,  or just Bing, had revenue closer to $9 billion. At any rate, we don’t know what it makes. It was profitable for two years around the 2015-2016 time, but is believed to not be profitable now. The problem is that Microsoft has a habit, when a business isn’t meeting expectations, to lump it in with other businesses which are doing better. Prying the specific data out is difficult, if not impossible, which is the entire idea for them. So I wonder why Bing, being so profitable and all would be offered to Apple.
    Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 34
    longfanglongfang Posts: 436member
    avon b7 said:
    lmasanti said:
    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. 



    Or it could be a preemptive measure to ward accusations of steering customers to their own search engine.  

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 34
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,513member
    twolf2919 said:
    avon b7 said:

    Apple may have enough users, but what evidence do you or Gurman have to support the view that they could be more profitable with their own search engine than the deal they have with Google?   Creating, enhancing, and maintaining a search engine isn’t free.  Then there’s the fact that Apple prides itself on maintaining privacy of its users, so any advertising they sell won’t be as profitable as Google’s as those ads won’t be as “targeted” as privacy violating as Google can make them.

    I think the OP is right - it must be a slow news day.  There’s no way Apple will do their own search engine - unless it was forbidden to sell the integration with one to the highest bidder - currently Google - under some sort of anti-trust decree.

    There is no 'evidence' until a comparative product comes to market and can be evaluated. 

    I'm not sure why Apple would need to generate more revenue than the current deal gets them. Money is not the sole objective in this scenario (at least initially). 

    Taking a slice of the pie away from Google would reduce its own revenues and level the playing field to a degree. 

    It would also put the spotlight on the current multi billion dollar deal. 

    Would Google still be willing to pay Apple to be the default option on Apple devices with Apple offering its own search engine?

    It would be reasonable to suppose (just like with Maps) that any Apple offering would need a few years of development to fully get going so Google would still be the best (again, at least initially). 

    Obviously, the 10 or 20 billion dollars (or whatever in between number it may be) they currently hand over to Apple is still profitable for them so that alone, probably indicates how important that situation is to then. 

    But now let's open things up a bit. Let's imagine Apple cancels the default search engine deal with Google. Let's imagine they provide their own and it's decent enough to gain traction. Now let's imagine Apple decides to open its engine up to a worldwide audience via web and app. 

    Now, that would be a completely different story and, as a revenue driver, the question would be, why wouldn't they do that? 

    After all, when Huawei lost access to GMS it is exactly what they did, via Petal Search. The precedent is there, although at least part of it seems to have moved into bed with Bing this year (perhaps a deal similar to the Google Apple one). 

    edited October 2023 Alex1N
  • Reply 17 of 34
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,244member
    avon b7 said:
    twolf2919 said:
    avon b7 said:

    Apple may have enough users, but what evidence do you or Gurman have to support the view that they could be more profitable with their own search engine than the deal they have with Google?   Creating, enhancing, and maintaining a search engine isn’t free.  Then there’s the fact that Apple prides itself on maintaining privacy of its users, so any advertising they sell won’t be as profitable as Google’s as those ads won’t be as “targeted” as privacy violating as Google can make them.

    I think the OP is right - it must be a slow news day.  There’s no way Apple will do their own search engine - unless it was forbidden to sell the integration with one to the highest bidder - currently Google - under some sort of anti-trust decree.

    There is no 'evidence' until a comparative product comes to market and can be evaluated. 

    I'm not sure why Apple would need to generate more revenue than the current deal gets them. Money is not the sole objective in this scenario (at least initially). 

    Taking a slice of the pie away from Google would reduce its own revenues and level the playing field to a degree. 

    It would also put the spotlight on the current multi billion dollar deal. 

    Would Google still be willing to pay Apple to be the default option on Apple devices with Apple offering its own search engine?

    It would be reasonable to suppose (just like with Maps) that any Apple offering would need a few years of development to fully get going so Google would still be the best (again, at least initially). 

    Obviously, the 10 or 20 billion dollars (or whatever in between number it may be) they currently hand over to Apple is still profitable for them so that alone, probably indicates how important that situation is to then. 

    But now let's open things up a bit. Let's imagine Apple cancels the default search engine deal with Google. Let's imagine they provide their own and it's decent enough to gain traction. Now let's imagine Apple decides to open its engine up to a worldwide audience via web and app. 

    Now, that would be a completely different story and, as a revenue driver, the question would be, why wouldn't they do that? 

    After all, when Huawei lost access to GMS it is exactly what they did, via Petal Search. The precedent is there, although at least part of it seems to have moved into bed with Bing this year (perhaps a deal similar to the Google Apple one). 

    Why wouldn't Apple do it?

    Regulators would then have Apple in the Spotlight, yet again, for adding a piece to their ecosystem which makes Apple that much more sticky.

    The remedy to that would be to attempt to "level the playing field", one of your favorite mantras. The potential increase in revenue doesn't justify going down that path.

    So, pray tell, why hasn't the EU invested in a competitor to Google search, being the haven for innovation and all that? 
    edited October 2023 FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 34
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,513member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    twolf2919 said:
    avon b7 said:

    Apple may have enough users, but what evidence do you or Gurman have to support the view that they could be more profitable with their own search engine than the deal they have with Google?   Creating, enhancing, and maintaining a search engine isn’t free.  Then there’s the fact that Apple prides itself on maintaining privacy of its users, so any advertising they sell won’t be as profitable as Google’s as those ads won’t be as “targeted” as privacy violating as Google can make them.

    I think the OP is right - it must be a slow news day.  There’s no way Apple will do their own search engine - unless it was forbidden to sell the integration with one to the highest bidder - currently Google - under some sort of anti-trust decree.

    There is no 'evidence' until a comparative product comes to market and can be evaluated. 

    I'm not sure why Apple would need to generate more revenue than the current deal gets them. Money is not the sole objective in this scenario (at least initially). 

    Taking a slice of the pie away from Google would reduce its own revenues and level the playing field to a degree. 

    It would also put the spotlight on the current multi billion dollar deal. 

    Would Google still be willing to pay Apple to be the default option on Apple devices with Apple offering its own search engine?

    It would be reasonable to suppose (just like with Maps) that any Apple offering would need a few years of development to fully get going so Google would still be the best (again, at least initially). 

    Obviously, the 10 or 20 billion dollars (or whatever in between number it may be) they currently hand over to Apple is still profitable for them so that alone, probably indicates how important that situation is to then. 

    But now let's open things up a bit. Let's imagine Apple cancels the default search engine deal with Google. Let's imagine they provide their own and it's decent enough to gain traction. Now let's imagine Apple decides to open its engine up to a worldwide audience via web and app. 

    Now, that would be a completely different story and, as a revenue driver, the question would be, why wouldn't they do that? 

    After all, when Huawei lost access to GMS it is exactly what they did, via Petal Search. The precedent is there, although at least part of it seems to have moved into bed with Bing this year (perhaps a deal similar to the Google Apple one). 

    Why wouldn't Apple do it?

    Regulators would then have Apple in the Spotlight, yet again, for adding a piece to their ecosystem which makes Apple that much more sticky.

    The remedy to that would be to attempt to "level the playing field", one of your favorite mantras. The potential increase in revenue doesn't justify going down that path.

    So, pray tell, why hasn't the EU invested in a competitor to Google search, being the haven for innovation and all that? 
    Apple, like Google and others fall foul when they abuse a dominant position. 

    As things stand, Apple does not enjoy a dominant position in search. 

    That said, does the current deal put both companies on thin ice? IMO, yes. 

    It could be interpreted that the deal is collusion to NOT compete. 

    How would Apple search make a system more 'sticky' in terms of lock in? 

    The answer: it wouldn't. 

    Much less if 'Apple Search' were opened up via web/app to all platforms.

    The EU does want to level the playing field. It does want competition and Google Search is already being investigated. 
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 19 of 34
    Every search engine is great, until you compare the results against Google. I'd be happy to never use Google again, but as someone who uses internet search as a professional aid, that's not an option. Google is much more powerful and useful than every other search engine, x1000.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 20 of 34
    noelosnoelos Posts: 125member
    I think Apple *could* start a search engine but if they wanted to be as valuable to advertisers as Google/Facebook ad markets they would have to indulge in some of the same shady user tracking behaviours.

    With the status quo they get to remain the company of privacy first for their customers while making a huge chunk of money from Google for rent-seeking.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.