10 ms·

Apple Should Buy a Search Engine, Analyst Says

58 points by asimpletune 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ajzinsbwbs 6y ago
I think Apple doesn’t just want to direct users to some search engine, they want it to be the best search engine. The current deal, where Google pays billions for that usage, is a pretty good partnership. Every other search engine probably would be worse at making money off that traffic and thus couldn’t afford to pay as much for it, and also would give a less premium user experience. Why would Apple rock the boat?
- jfoster 6y ago
  They didn't take that approach with maps. Might not have been as lucrative, but could've been cheaper than developing their own, inferior maps solution.
  - 1cvmask 6y ago
    They did Apple because Google orpahned their maps app on the iPhone by giving turn-by-turn navigation capabilities first to their Android app. Classic strategy tax that backfired as the most used maps app on Apple is the default app and Google has a fraction of the users on the iPhone.
    - cma 6y ago
      Given the effect on early Android adoption, it might not have backfired.
      - azinman2 6y ago
        You think a strong percentage of people switched to Android simply for maps?
        ajzinsbwbs 6y ago
        A big factor in my switching from Android to iOS was Google Maps support coming to CarPlay. So I wouldn’t write it off.
    - tinus_hn 6y ago
      Google also required user location data which Apple was not prepared to give. And Apple of course didn’t want to be in a second place position (apart from navigation there were also the better looking vector maps being reserved for Android etc).
  - frequentnapper 6y ago
    Might've been a way to hedge their bets. Maybe they don't want their users' fundamental tools to all be reliant upon Google.
    - jfoster 6y ago
      Maps is no different than search. Google lose plenty if they don't get iOS users.
croissantswan 6y ago
I don't know how Apple can think they will remain competitive with Siri without building a search engine. However, Apple are really bad at executing on cloud services of any kind. With any amount of resources there are certain things that company just cannot get right, and search is definitely one of them. I would love to know what it is organizationally that makes them so terrible at web apps and cloud services.
- lucasmullens 6y ago
  Apple doesn't have to own a search engine to use one in Siri. They could pay Google/Bing/DuckDuckGo to provide an API. Companies don't need to merge into one big monopoly to have synergy with each other.
  - yellow_postit 6y ago
    This is what they do already to power the web results in Siri except the search companies pay Apple.
- martinald 6y ago
  I think apple has quite a strong reliance on using their own tools and frameworks, which is fine for macOS and iOS as they are both mature, but on web they don't really have anything. The app store still seems to be running on webobjects (at least from URL structure), which hasn't been updated much in the past 10 years.
- fatboy 6y ago
  Their developer-facing web stuff is a daily tax on my mental health. I can't imagine how useless an Apple search engine would be.
- yellow_postit 6y ago
  Speech Recognition is something I would be more concerned about. Amazon and Google with a decidedly more “liberal” stance on data collection have more raw material to train and validate models on.
x32n23nr 6y ago
The article has a few weak assumptions: > Sacconaghi estimates that Alphabet (ticker: GOOGL) pays Apple (AAPL) between $7 billion and $8 billion a year for Google to be the default search engine for iOS ... The real figure is probably $12 billion - https://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-engine/* https://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-en... > Google pays that large sum to Apple in part out of concern about what Microsoft (MSFT) might be willing to pay Apple to supplant Google with Bing* Unlikely. Apple does not have search, and they simply need the best search available for their devices to stay true to being "premium". > Sacconaghi thinks Apple should consider acquiring the No. 4 search engine (after Google, Bing, and Yahoo)—privately held DuckDuckGo. He thinks Apple could likely buy it for under $1 billion, “ This is completely off. DDG is highly unlikely to be worth that much. As discussed in this other thread - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23458202 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23458202, DDG is dependent on Bing both for search and ads. > And he also writes that “If Apple attempts to acquire DuckDuckGo but is blocked by regulators, it would arguably put Apple in a worse position than ever, given that Google and Microsoft would then know Apple has no alternatives.” This does not make much sense to me. It's not the kind of thing I see regulators going after. Happy to be schooled though.
- greenknight 6y ago
  > Unlikely. Apple does not have search, and they simply need the best search available for their devices to stay true to being "premium". That being said, how did Apple Maps turn out vs Google Maps?
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    > That being said, how did Apple Maps turn out vs Google Maps? Best is subjective, and Apple Maps UI is leagues ahead of Google Maps in my experience. Accuracy is improving over time.
  - awinder 6y ago
    Apple Maps really has improved, and they just rolled out a huge map tile quality improvement to get denser displays (the “closer to google” argument). With recent quality improvements I take Apple Maps over google maps grand majority of time (well in pre-lockdown life). It took a while but I think its finally working out genuinely well now.
bonestormii_ 6y ago
Government should investigate Apple for anti-trust violations, future analyst says.
mehrdada 6y ago
Let’s unpack this somewhat misguided commentary: First, Apple is building a search engine, in a non traditional sense, by providing a first level of results directly via Safari suggestions and Spotlight/Siri on client devices. That layer gives them enough ability to capture specific verticals should they find them profitable. Second, and more subtle question, would be whether to become a full-fledged player in this space. Apple, of all tech companies, seems to care the most about the bottom line and does not go about reckless dick-measuring contests. Building search is hard, and it is questionable that Apple in the medium term would be able to profit more than it already does from Google search. At very least this would be a can of worms they open with unknown profitability. Note that to make money off of search you have to also build the ad side of things and then try to compete with Google who owns the rest of the ecosystem and has levers to undercut you. It’s even possible that the current arrangement is more favorable to Apple, as Google indirectly benefits by preserving their monopoly and may be willing to pay even more than that particular transaction should be valued independently. Where owning the search space matters to Apple most is the option value, and Apple so far has a cheap way to do it (Microsoft had been paying the costs). In addition, Apple has been minimally boosting DuckDuckGo by giving it some free exposure for the just-in-case scenario. My take is Tim Cook is going to watchfully wait and let this play for as long as possible while ensuring they have enough leverage to keep Google paying up, instead of pulling another Apple Maps. Right now the focus is to take some Android marketshare mid-market and sell some services there. Once they own quite a big chunk of client devices, perhaps it will make sense to give the middle finger to Google. P.S. all of this is especially true now that Pixel has failed to capture any meaningful share of the high end iOS market to be a real threat for Apple.
- dionian 6y ago
  I agree, Apple is not an advertising company, and free search engines business model seems to be ad related
  - NicoJuicy 6y ago
    They already tried and gaatjes ( iAd )
  - 6y ago
1f60c 6y ago
Apple has already been crawling the web in some capacity for its Siri Website Suggestion feature. There are obviously some hurdles to take, so there's nothing that says they couldn't create their own search engine.
m-p-3 6y ago
Then they'd make it integrated exclusively in Apple products, like Dark Sky. I prefer one more search engine available to everyone, not one less.
tcbasche 6y ago
> Sacconaghi thinks Apple should consider acquiring the No. 4 search engine (after Google, Bing, and Yahoo)—privately held DuckDuckGo Oh please, literally nobody outside of tech has heard of DDG, let alone would want to use it on their iPhone
- bdcravens 6y ago
  The question is, how many would care if when they searched on their phone the results went to search.apple.com? Again, we're talking about people outside of tech.
  - austhrow743 6y ago
    No it’s not. No reason to buy duck duck go if you’re not going to use the name. If they want Apple branded Bing search they could just work something out with Microsoft directly.
    - bdcravens 6y ago
      I would agree, except for DDG's privacy stance, and the advantages Apple would have if they wanted to make that a marketing point as opposed to integrating with a third party.
- mbreese 6y ago
  I actually saw a DDG ad on the highway in my town recently (in the Midwest). I was a pretty surprised seeing this. Unfortunately, it wasn't as clear as it could have been about what it was. (My wife had no clue from the billboard what it was). So, at least they are trying to get more users (via billboard ads).
  - blendergeek 6y ago
    DuckDuckGo recently launched a major billboard campaign. I first saw a billboard in the wild then saw their announcement when it was on Hacker News. https://duckduckgo.com/billboards/ https://duckduckgo.com/billboards/
utopcell 6y ago
The article suggests that Apple should buy DuckDuckGo, a much smaller player than the top-3 (Google, Bing, Yahoo) for fear of being "uncomfortably dependent on Bing". First, if Apple wanted a search engine, they could have acquired Yahoo for ~4BN a few years back when it went up for sale. Second, as has been mentioned multiple times, DDG's organic search results come from Bing.
- randomstring 6y ago
  Yahoo isn't a search engine and hasn't been for years. Just check the "Powered by Bing™" at the bottom of every search result. That leaves just two search engines, Google and Bing. Not counting non-US search engines that may have significant market share in their respective countries.
  - utopcell 6y ago
    In the years before the acquisition by Verizon, while Marissa Mayer was still CEO, Yahoo had rebooted its own search engine, an effort that was abandoned shortly before the sale. At that time, Apple could have very well acquired a formidable search engine if they wanted to.
    - evgen 6y ago
      Nothing coming out of Yahoo has been “formidable” in over two decades.
elf25 6y ago
Dummest thing I've ever heard.
pier25 6y ago
Even if Apple did buy DDG, it would probably become another mediocre hobby product much like Siri.
- subsubzero 6y ago
  It could be, but apple maps and its 1B dollar update may prove otherwise, I feel like this was one update that really was worth it for Apple, the new maps update is excellent and I no longer use google maps. Siri on the other hand...
  - pier25 6y ago
    Are you in the US? I live in Mexico and even hardcore Apple fans don't use it here. It's either Waze or Google Maps.
ponker 6y ago
The qualifications for being an "analyst" are about one-millionth of those required to decide whether Apple should buy a search engine. This commentary is like me telling Lebron James what strategies to use in the upcoming basketball season.
- smabie 6y ago
  Are you saying that corporate development is harder than being an equity analyst? Not that it means all that much, but an equity analyst is considered to be a more prestigious (and harder to land) position than a corporate development job.
subsubzero 6y ago
I feel like every year an analyst says Apple should buy something: - Apple should by netflix and get into the streaming game(considering how much appleTV stinks this may be a good idea!) - Apple should buy Disney, there is the synergy of two trusted brands in the entertainment/media space(Steve Jobs did own Pixar which Disney now owns) - Apple should buy twitter, they can expand their news and reach a large connected audience. Things I think Apple should do: Buy a large email provider, they had a yearly $100 a year email subscription service but that was a flop, make it free and make it iOS exclusive(as an alternative to gmail). Buy Spotify, given they have iTunes getting spotify would make sense, perhaps antitrust issues with this one.
- hellotomyrars 6y ago
  They are an email provider. And it's already exclusive. You need a Mac/iOS device to get an icloud email address. iTunes/Apple Music is incredibly healthy and the only reason to buy Spotify is to extinguish the biggest competition they have. There is no other benefit to them and it's a bad look aside from any potential legal issues. Things I think Apple should do: Something that other people aren't doing. Extensively and seriously overhaul or eliminate their traditional computing business. (They are poised to do this and may very well in the coming years with their ARM on Mac strategy). I realize that the new Mac Pro is marketed to a very specific set of people but my latest iPhone cost significantly less than the wheels they will sell you for the Mac Pro. It makes no sense.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  Kinda reminds me of the circlejerk I'd get into with my friends about games when I was a kid. "You know what they should make? They should make Halo but it's one big open world and you can gain levels and loot. That would be sooo cool. Oh, and you can build a space ship and fly to other planets where wars are going on. Wouldn't that be sick? I don't understand why they aren't working on this." That's the level of analysis I see in these articles.
- skinnymuch 6y ago
  Netflix makes the most sense. Definitely made the most sense in hindsight or bullish on Netflix. Buying it for $100B or so would’ve been great. Apple would’ve been in an insanely strong position right now with whatever combined thing they’d come out with. For the sake of a competitive market, I’m happy it didn’t happen. I much prefer Netflix not being owned by a bigger company. I don’t get Spotify. Spotify would cost $40B+ to buy after the premium they’d have to offer. Apple Music keeps growing its user base. Not sure if it would be allowed by regulators. There’s still Rhapsody in the west for music. Beyond that I don’t think any streaming service survived. Again for the sake of competitiveness I wouldn’t want this to happen. I still miss Rdio’s design. Along with other things I don’t think Spotify or Apple Music really improved on since the Rdio, MOG, Zune music (forgot the name now) days, early Spotify, Rhapsody/Napster days.
kube-system 6y ago
Gotta love it when Wall Street comments on the strategy of companies they only partially understand. In order to stop paying a third-party for search results, Apple should buy a company that mostly pays third parties for search results? > Apple could likely buy it for under $1 billion > a deal would be fairly easy to digest given DuckDuckGo’s small size, with fewer than 100 employees. Exactly what kind of tech does this author think DDG has that Apple couldn't build better than DDG with 1,000 employees making a $500,000 salary for 2 years? I love DDG, but I don't think this person really knows what it is.
- TAForObvReasons 6y ago
  Cynical part of me expects to hear about DDG raising another round in the near future. This is the type of article I'd want out there if I were looking to raise money, giving a seemingly plausible exit strategy with a valuation
jedberg 6y ago
In the last week I've heard multiple ads for DDG during podcasts about business and startups, saw an article today on HN about how DDG is better than Google on privacy, the same article again with a different title about mobile choice, and now this article about an analyst who thinks Apple should buy DDG. If I didn't know better, I would think DDG is trying to get bought...
- minikites 6y ago
  Or they know how to read the room and press on their main competitive advantage.
foobar_ 6y ago
It already has a trillion dollars, it doesn't have to worry about trivial bullshit like cost-cutting. Wall street types don't really understand product building ... the math is more like, if you increase water in cola, you can increase profits by 20%.
mdasen 6y ago
The issue with suggesting buying Duck Duck Go is that they’re reliant on Microsoft/Bing for results. That would mean Apple coming to a deal with Microsoft for search access where Apple runA the ads business. If you think you can make $20B on ads and Microsoft charges you $15B for search access on that scale, why not just let Google pay you $7B and make more money? It’s possible that Microsoft would charge less or that Apple could make more, but buying DDG doesn’t get them unlimited access to Bing’s results for one low price. I’m not implying that DDG doesn’t have any technology, but they are reliant on Microsoft for the hardest parts and there’s no guarantee that Microsoft would grant Apple as favorable terms when it’s not just a niche project, but a major competitor’s new foray.
makecheck 6y ago
Frankly, much of Apple’s search technology over the years has been terrible so (assuming it’s a competency issue) they should at least consider buying something better. The App Store certainly can’t find things well...I suspect that is “by design” though. Long ago I had to replace Spotlight with Alfred to get good performance on the desktop. Apple isn’t an ad company, I can’t imagine they’d make a significant amount of money releasing a general search engine just to have one.
uniqueid 6y ago
If Apple acquires a search engine, that engine will instantly lose most of its value. People do not want to use a search engine that appears to be a side-project. What Apple should do, along with others in the industry, is jointly create and fund a new search engine, based on non-commercial principles. I'll quote an old HN comment: > I don’t understand why Google’s competitors don’t form an > independent search engine. If I were Microsoft, I’d talk to > Apple and others to see if they would help fund a spun off Bing. > > The internet badly needs a big alternative search engine that > isn’t beholden to advertisers or dependent on a single > corporate owner. > > The benefit of such a search engine (whose main incentive is to > just be a good search engine) is obvious for the public, but > would also give companies who rely on their own OS, leverage > against Google.
AnonC 6y ago
It used to be that "Apple should buy Netflix" for several years, on and off. Now this. Analysts have always misunderstood Apple, what it focuses on and what it will not do. They come up with meaningless recommendations that Apple will not even spare time for an elevator pitch. Wherever Apple sees any deficiencies, it works by secrecy, non-acceptance (or denial, like "you're holding it wrong", depending on the case) and creating its own way out of it without any or barely any acknowledgment of deficiencies (or wrong doing, as the case may be). I personally believe that, more than having a search engine, Apple would be better off with an online maps solution (including navigation) that anybody could use, regardless of their hardware and OS. It has already opened up it's iWork suite on the cloud for everyone with a browser. Would Apple consider such a move with maps (though it's a very weak competitor in most countries outside the US)? I don't think so. Also DuckDuckGo is nowhere close to Google's results for many intents and purposes (I know anecdotally many people find it extremely useful). Apple buying it would be a dead investment not just for this reason, but also because Apple doesn't really know how to manage and run certain online services well
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  that anybody could use If it isn't going to help sell some other product or service then I think that is unlikely. but also because Apple doesn't really know how to manage and run certain online services well That was certainly the case ten years ago, more recently they seem to have improved.
ryuukk_ 6y ago
tldr: - people discovered DuckDuckGo is a CIA/NSA tool - they lost ton of users - they run out of money - they try to spread fake news to sell it at high price #boycott USA/UK products!
sjwright 6y ago
I don’t agree because the cultures are too divergent. But Apple could quietly invest in them to ensure someone else can’t take them over...
merricksb 6y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20200609030352/https://baseread.com/analysts-say-apple-should-buy-duckduckgo-search-engine/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200609030352/https://baseread....
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ttul 6y ago
In truth, Apple already bought a search engine when they acquired Topsy. The engineers from Topsy now work on the search tech that powers all sorts of things at Apple. That being said, DDG would be interesting as an acquisition for Apple because it would be consistent with Apple’s privacy-first approach to service design.
- matt-attack 6y ago
  But isn’t DDG just proxying search requests to Bing?
  - cirno 6y ago
    Pretty much. They claim there's multiple sources, but the results are strikingly similar. And on image search, identical.
    - stormdennis 6y ago
      If that's all DDG are doing it would be simple for Apple to replicate, no? Do Bing charge for this? If not could they legally enforce such charges? What aren't there more DDGs around?
      - ma2rten 6y ago
        Yes, Bing has an API which they charge for.
  - cottsak 6y ago
    I don't mind if it's a proxy. I value my privacy more than whether DDG is maintaining its own entire search stack.
    - armitron 6y ago
      You value your privacy but blindly trust DuckDuckGo? They say they store all your searches in their privacy policy (but "not in a personally identifiable way" they claim). They also say they effectively rewrite your search results to insert affiliate tracking. Even if their entire stack was opensource and you had strong visibility and guarantees regarding the code they're actually running in production, adversaries could be exploiting DuckDuckGo and recording all the information you send to them "in a personally identifiable way". So, basically, don't trust DuckDuckGo. They're yet another for-profit middleman (maybe parasitic, maybe not, we don't know) that, through its centralized information accumulation, enables the sort of behavior you claim you want to avoid.
badrabbit 6y ago
Hell no!! This would be worse than oracle taking over SUN Microsystems. I would litetally protest in front of an applestore and I have never protested before. Leave ddg out of your empires. It's one of the few reliable and trustworthy services I use daily. I guarantee apple will just ruin it and help google dominate in the process. Thesr analysts don't get why people use ddg!
- KarlKemp 6y ago
  It's quite something to pointedly state, in these times, that there is nothing you can think off that is more worthy of protests than... some tech-biz inside baseball.
  - dellinspiron 6y ago
    Privacy is not "inside baseball"
  - _emacsomancer_ 6y ago
    It's also probably not as bad as Oracle taking over Sun, for that matter.
  - Vinnl 6y ago
    These times prove that people do not go out to protest only the thing that is most worthy of protest, since whatever that thing is, it is not seeing significantly more protestors than other things that are also important. And that's OK. It's good if things that are important, but not quite most important, have people working to improve them as well.
- mesozoic 6y ago
  Seconded
- cmckn 6y ago
  DuckDuckGo is a Bing frontend, no? An acquisition by Apple wouldn't make sense, because they'd just be writing checks to Microsoft. In any case, I don't think the proposition is something to get upset over.
the_pwner224 6y ago
If this were to happen, it would be sad if it ended up like their recent DarkSky acquisition: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22739839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22739839 'Buy this expensive Apple Phone you cannot own / overpriced not-professional-grade MacBook Pro, or else you have no good private search engine option.' (except for Qwant which is usable but not good)
- _emacsomancer_ 6y ago
  Qwant and DDG seem similar in goodness to me.
ummonk 6y ago
Couldn't Apple just consume the Bing API directly instead? What would acquiring DuckDuckGo actually get them?
- gundmc 6y ago
  The only reason would be the goodwill/value of the brand, but I can't imagine a company with the design and marketing chops of Apple running a service named "Duck Duck Go".
  - _emacsomancer_ 6y ago
    They would presumably rebrand it "Search".
philshem 6y ago
Aha! I am vindicated! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20453797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20453797
arvindamirtaa 6y ago
Given that DDG uses the Bing API, would it really be insurance enough? What it would do is give Microsoft all the leverage they need to negotiate (Give us a cheaper rate or use our API and pay us a similar rate?).
pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
An ad-tech company now owns a majority interest in Startpage. Same old story. We will take money from the ad industry to protect users from the ad industry. Brilliant! Maybe creating privacy-oriented search engines is actually a profitable venture as it seems inevitable someone on the opoposing side will eventually buy you out. These online ad investors are so aggressive I expect Pi-Hole will one day be a target.
- _emacsomancer_ 6y ago
  Yes, but unlike Startpage and Duck Duck Go, Pi-Hole is actually free and open software, so it could just be forked.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
    True, and that is why I mention it as an example. I believe these online ad industry people will try anything, even something that appears futile to you and I. Last I checked, Pi-Hole does own a trademark application. Presumably whomever acquired it could use this against a fork that tried to use the name.
    - _emacsomancer_ 6y ago
      Having to change the name doesn't seem like an insurmountable obstacle for a fork. (Pi Hole-Origin, Next-Hole, Ice-Weasel-Hole)
      - pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
        Does it seem like those names would not support a trademark suit? Would you have to use the word "Hole" in order to attract users?
        6y ago
_emacsomancer_ 6y ago
Would be the fastest way to drive the current user base away, I imagine. Of course, Apple probably wouldn't care about that.
waltherp 6y ago
Why? Just open yourself up to anti-trust issues with very little upside in earnings.
- adamlett 6y ago
  The article literally explains the why of it.
  - detaro 6y ago
    It doesn't really explain why buying a product that's primarily backed by Bings search index (at least for western customers) is better than making a deal with Microsoft directly for Bing access.
  - stirlo 6y ago
    It's a stupid why. Currently they get $8 billion for nothing. Purchase DDG (and set default) and they lose $8 billion, users complain about worse search results (just like maps) and Google just puts a banner on their homepage saying here's how to change search engine and gets the search traffic for free. Just because apple makes plenty of money doesn't mean they should buy every random startup.
carapace 6y ago
Maybe this is a stupid question but is DDG for sale?
- yodon 6y ago
  Every company is for sale at every moment, it's just a question of at what price.
  - carapace 6y ago
    Technically correct, materially useless. My impression is that the idea of Apple buying DDG is fictive, am I hallucinating or does that seem to hold water?
stirlo 6y ago
Headline: Apple should buy X!!! Analysis: "Apple can make such acquisitions for less than $1 billion. This will be less than a week of Apple’s cash flow." Logic: None! Apple makes $1 billion a week by avoiding running a bunch of minnow services with stronger competitors. Apple should buy X is a meme that needs to die.
- zaphirplane 6y ago
  Or buy something I have taken a short position in
  - jagannathtech 6y ago
    Apple should buy Tesla ;)
jjtheblunt 6y ago
one analyst says: not analysts say
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
galfarragem 6y ago
A bit off topic: try Qwant[0]. I was a user of DDG for a few years but I made the switch some months ago and didn't look back: search results are way better. AFAIK is a European company (if that is relevant to you). I'm not affiliated with it in any way, just an happy user. [0] https://www.qwant.com https://www.qwant.com
KKKKkkkk1 6y ago
Reviewing the DDG wiki page, it looks like it has VC funding since 2011. How is it able to stay afloat for so long without going public?
- philshem 6y ago
  from their blog: > DuckDuckGo has been a profitable company since 2014 without storing or sharing any personal information on people using our search engine. and > As mentioned, DuckDuckGo is profitable based mostly on keyword-based search ads, though we have always been on the search for other ways to anonymously make money so that we can reduce the dependence on advertising. https://spreadprivacy.com/duckduckgo-revenue-model/ https://spreadprivacy.com/duckduckgo-revenue-model/
Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
Well, Analysts are doing their job; they did also say Apple should get Twitter as well. As with twitter, I don't see much merit with this argument; Which goes like "If Apple decides to give away it's revenue stream from X, decides to go with Y which provides inferior service, if Y decides to shut its shop, So Apple should buy Z which doesn't generate as much revenue as X or Y"!
freediver 6y ago
I am actually doing an experiment of using DuckDuckGo as my exclusive search engine across all my devices for the last two weeks. The experience has been suboptimal and much of it is on the UX side followed by the lack of search engine features. As a part of this experiment, I also used Bing for two weeks before this and after a few days I could not notice that much of a difference to Google (one thing that annoyed me was Youtube videos playing inline on Bing). But DDG is simply painful to use as much as I want to like it. I can not imagine it meeting Apple's product standards or having an Apple logo on what is the current DDG product. I also can not think of any IP that DDG has that would be interesting for Apple to own.
sah2ed 6y ago
The whole article is bereft of any reasonable logic as to why it makes sense for Apple to buy DDG. The article does mention an important detail that the so-called analyst fails to properly account for: from Google’s perspective, its opportunity cost—the amount of revenue it stands to lose if the deal were to be renegotiated adversely—is at least $25B. Google therefore has every incentive to maintain the status quo, or at least be allowed to offer to pay more than $8B to remain the default option on iOS.
xaerise 6y ago
If Apple buys DDG, I think it will die.

58 points by asimpletune 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

I think Apple doesn’t just want to direct users to some search engine, they want it to be the best search engine. The current deal, where Google pays billions for that usage, is a pretty good partnership. Every other search engine probably would be worse at making money off that traffic and thus couldn’t afford to pay as much for it, and also would give a less premium user experience. Why would Apple rock the boat?

jfoster 6y ago
They didn't take that approach with maps. Might not have been as lucrative, but could've been cheaper than developing their own, inferior maps solution.
- 1cvmask 6y ago
  They did Apple because Google orpahned their maps app on the iPhone by giving turn-by-turn navigation capabilities first to their Android app. Classic strategy tax that backfired as the most used maps app on Apple is the default app and Google has a fraction of the users on the iPhone.
  - cma 6y ago
    Given the effect on early Android adoption, it might not have backfired.
    - azinman2 6y ago
      You think a strong percentage of people switched to Android simply for maps?
      - ajzinsbwbs 6y ago
        A big factor in my switching from Android to iOS was Google Maps support coming to CarPlay. So I wouldn’t write it off.
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    Google also required user location data which Apple was not prepared to give. And Apple of course didn’t want to be in a second place position (apart from navigation there were also the better looking vector maps being reserved for Android etc).
- frequentnapper 6y ago
  Might've been a way to hedge their bets. Maybe they don't want their users' fundamental tools to all be reliant upon Google.
  - jfoster 6y ago
    Maps is no different than search. Google lose plenty if they don't get iOS users.

croissantswan 6y ago

I don't know how Apple can think they will remain competitive with Siri without building a search engine. However, Apple are really bad at executing on cloud services of any kind. With any amount of resources there are certain things that company just cannot get right, and search is definitely one of them. I would love to know what it is organizationally that makes them so terrible at web apps and cloud services.

lucasmullens 6y ago
Apple doesn't have to own a search engine to use one in Siri. They could pay Google/Bing/DuckDuckGo to provide an API. Companies don't need to merge into one big monopoly to have synergy with each other.
- yellow_postit 6y ago
  This is what they do already to power the web results in Siri except the search companies pay Apple.
martinald 6y ago
I think apple has quite a strong reliance on using their own tools and frameworks, which is fine for macOS and iOS as they are both mature, but on web they don't really have anything. The app store still seems to be running on webobjects (at least from URL structure), which hasn't been updated much in the past 10 years.
fatboy 6y ago
Their developer-facing web stuff is a daily tax on my mental health. I can't imagine how useless an Apple search engine would be.
yellow_postit 6y ago
Speech Recognition is something I would be more concerned about. Amazon and Google with a decidedly more “liberal” stance on data collection have more raw material to train and validate models on.

x32n23nr 6y ago

The article has a few weak assumptions: > Sacconaghi estimates that Alphabet (ticker: GOOGL) pays Apple (AAPL) between $7 billion and $8 billion a year for Google to be the default search engine for iOS ... The real figure is probably $12 billion - https://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-engine/* https://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-en... > Google pays that large sum to Apple in part out of concern about what Microsoft (MSFT) might be willing to pay Apple to supplant Google with Bing* Unlikely. Apple does not have search, and they simply need the best search available for their devices to stay true to being "premium". > Sacconaghi thinks Apple should consider acquiring the No. 4 search engine (after Google, Bing, and Yahoo)—privately held DuckDuckGo. He thinks Apple could likely buy it for under $1 billion, “ This is completely off. DDG is highly unlikely to be worth that much. As discussed in this other thread - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23458202 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23458202, DDG is dependent on Bing both for search and ads. > And he also writes that “If Apple attempts to acquire DuckDuckGo but is blocked by regulators, it would arguably put Apple in a worse position than ever, given that Google and Microsoft would then know Apple has no alternatives.” This does not make much sense to me. It's not the kind of thing I see regulators going after. Happy to be schooled though.

greenknight 6y ago
> Unlikely. Apple does not have search, and they simply need the best search available for their devices to stay true to being "premium". That being said, how did Apple Maps turn out vs Google Maps?
- arcticbull 6y ago
  > That being said, how did Apple Maps turn out vs Google Maps? Best is subjective, and Apple Maps UI is leagues ahead of Google Maps in my experience. Accuracy is improving over time.
- awinder 6y ago
  Apple Maps really has improved, and they just rolled out a huge map tile quality improvement to get denser displays (the “closer to google” argument). With recent quality improvements I take Apple Maps over google maps grand majority of time (well in pre-lockdown life). It took a while but I think its finally working out genuinely well now.

bonestormii_ 6y ago

Government should investigate Apple for anti-trust violations, future analyst says.

mehrdada 6y ago

Let’s unpack this somewhat misguided commentary: First, Apple is building a search engine, in a non traditional sense, by providing a first level of results directly via Safari suggestions and Spotlight/Siri on client devices. That layer gives them enough ability to capture specific verticals should they find them profitable. Second, and more subtle question, would be whether to become a full-fledged player in this space. Apple, of all tech companies, seems to care the most about the bottom line and does not go about reckless dick-measuring contests. Building search is hard, and it is questionable that Apple in the medium term would be able to profit more than it already does from Google search. At very least this would be a can of worms they open with unknown profitability. Note that to make money off of search you have to also build the ad side of things and then try to compete with Google who owns the rest of the ecosystem and has levers to undercut you. It’s even possible that the current arrangement is more favorable to Apple, as Google indirectly benefits by preserving their monopoly and may be willing to pay even more than that particular transaction should be valued independently. Where owning the search space matters to Apple most is the option value, and Apple so far has a cheap way to do it (Microsoft had been paying the costs). In addition, Apple has been minimally boosting DuckDuckGo by giving it some free exposure for the just-in-case scenario. My take is Tim Cook is going to watchfully wait and let this play for as long as possible while ensuring they have enough leverage to keep Google paying up, instead of pulling another Apple Maps. Right now the focus is to take some Android marketshare mid-market and sell some services there. Once they own quite a big chunk of client devices, perhaps it will make sense to give the middle finger to Google. P.S. all of this is especially true now that Pixel has failed to capture any meaningful share of the high end iOS market to be a real threat for Apple.

dionian 6y ago
I agree, Apple is not an advertising company, and free search engines business model seems to be ad related
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  They already tried and gaatjes ( iAd )
- 6y ago

1f60c 6y ago

Apple has already been crawling the web in some capacity for its Siri Website Suggestion feature. There are obviously some hurdles to take, so there's nothing that says they couldn't create their own search engine.

m-p-3 6y ago

Then they'd make it integrated exclusively in Apple products, like Dark Sky. I prefer one more search engine available to everyone, not one less.

tcbasche 6y ago

> Sacconaghi thinks Apple should consider acquiring the No. 4 search engine (after Google, Bing, and Yahoo)—privately held DuckDuckGo Oh please, literally nobody outside of tech has heard of DDG, let alone would want to use it on their iPhone

bdcravens 6y ago
The question is, how many would care if when they searched on their phone the results went to search.apple.com? Again, we're talking about people outside of tech.
- austhrow743 6y ago
  No it’s not. No reason to buy duck duck go if you’re not going to use the name. If they want Apple branded Bing search they could just work something out with Microsoft directly.
  - bdcravens 6y ago
    I would agree, except for DDG's privacy stance, and the advantages Apple would have if they wanted to make that a marketing point as opposed to integrating with a third party.
mbreese 6y ago
I actually saw a DDG ad on the highway in my town recently (in the Midwest). I was a pretty surprised seeing this. Unfortunately, it wasn't as clear as it could have been about what it was. (My wife had no clue from the billboard what it was). So, at least they are trying to get more users (via billboard ads).
- blendergeek 6y ago
  DuckDuckGo recently launched a major billboard campaign. I first saw a billboard in the wild then saw their announcement when it was on Hacker News. https://duckduckgo.com/billboards/ https://duckduckgo.com/billboards/

utopcell 6y ago

The article suggests that Apple should buy DuckDuckGo, a much smaller player than the top-3 (Google, Bing, Yahoo) for fear of being "uncomfortably dependent on Bing". First, if Apple wanted a search engine, they could have acquired Yahoo for ~4BN a few years back when it went up for sale. Second, as has been mentioned multiple times, DDG's organic search results come from Bing.

randomstring 6y ago
Yahoo isn't a search engine and hasn't been for years. Just check the "Powered by Bing™" at the bottom of every search result. That leaves just two search engines, Google and Bing. Not counting non-US search engines that may have significant market share in their respective countries.
- utopcell 6y ago
  In the years before the acquisition by Verizon, while Marissa Mayer was still CEO, Yahoo had rebooted its own search engine, an effort that was abandoned shortly before the sale. At that time, Apple could have very well acquired a formidable search engine if they wanted to.
  - evgen 6y ago
    Nothing coming out of Yahoo has been “formidable” in over two decades.

elf25 6y ago

Dummest thing I've ever heard.

pier25 6y ago

Even if Apple did buy DDG, it would probably become another mediocre hobby product much like Siri.

subsubzero 6y ago
It could be, but apple maps and its 1B dollar update may prove otherwise, I feel like this was one update that really was worth it for Apple, the new maps update is excellent and I no longer use google maps. Siri on the other hand...
- pier25 6y ago
  Are you in the US? I live in Mexico and even hardcore Apple fans don't use it here. It's either Waze or Google Maps.

ponker 6y ago

The qualifications for being an "analyst" are about one-millionth of those required to decide whether Apple should buy a search engine. This commentary is like me telling Lebron James what strategies to use in the upcoming basketball season.

smabie 6y ago
Are you saying that corporate development is harder than being an equity analyst? Not that it means all that much, but an equity analyst is considered to be a more prestigious (and harder to land) position than a corporate development job.

subsubzero 6y ago

I feel like every year an analyst says Apple should buy something: - Apple should by netflix and get into the streaming game(considering how much appleTV stinks this may be a good idea!) - Apple should buy Disney, there is the synergy of two trusted brands in the entertainment/media space(Steve Jobs did own Pixar which Disney now owns) - Apple should buy twitter, they can expand their news and reach a large connected audience. Things I think Apple should do: Buy a large email provider, they had a yearly $100 a year email subscription service but that was a flop, make it free and make it iOS exclusive(as an alternative to gmail). Buy Spotify, given they have iTunes getting spotify would make sense, perhaps antitrust issues with this one.

hellotomyrars 6y ago
They are an email provider. And it's already exclusive. You need a Mac/iOS device to get an icloud email address. iTunes/Apple Music is incredibly healthy and the only reason to buy Spotify is to extinguish the biggest competition they have. There is no other benefit to them and it's a bad look aside from any potential legal issues. Things I think Apple should do: Something that other people aren't doing. Extensively and seriously overhaul or eliminate their traditional computing business. (They are poised to do this and may very well in the coming years with their ARM on Mac strategy). I realize that the new Mac Pro is marketed to a very specific set of people but my latest iPhone cost significantly less than the wheels they will sell you for the Mac Pro. It makes no sense.
hombre_fatal 6y ago
Kinda reminds me of the circlejerk I'd get into with my friends about games when I was a kid. "You know what they should make? They should make Halo but it's one big open world and you can gain levels and loot. That would be sooo cool. Oh, and you can build a space ship and fly to other planets where wars are going on. Wouldn't that be sick? I don't understand why they aren't working on this." That's the level of analysis I see in these articles.
skinnymuch 6y ago
Netflix makes the most sense. Definitely made the most sense in hindsight or bullish on Netflix. Buying it for $100B or so would’ve been great. Apple would’ve been in an insanely strong position right now with whatever combined thing they’d come out with. For the sake of a competitive market, I’m happy it didn’t happen. I much prefer Netflix not being owned by a bigger company. I don’t get Spotify. Spotify would cost $40B+ to buy after the premium they’d have to offer. Apple Music keeps growing its user base. Not sure if it would be allowed by regulators. There’s still Rhapsody in the west for music. Beyond that I don’t think any streaming service survived. Again for the sake of competitiveness I wouldn’t want this to happen. I still miss Rdio’s design. Along with other things I don’t think Spotify or Apple Music really improved on since the Rdio, MOG, Zune music (forgot the name now) days, early Spotify, Rhapsody/Napster days.

kube-system 6y ago

Gotta love it when Wall Street comments on the strategy of companies they only partially understand. In order to stop paying a third-party for search results, Apple should buy a company that mostly pays third parties for search results? > Apple could likely buy it for under $1 billion > a deal would be fairly easy to digest given DuckDuckGo’s small size, with fewer than 100 employees. Exactly what kind of tech does this author think DDG has that Apple couldn't build better than DDG with 1,000 employees making a $500,000 salary for 2 years? I love DDG, but I don't think this person really knows what it is.

TAForObvReasons 6y ago
Cynical part of me expects to hear about DDG raising another round in the near future. This is the type of article I'd want out there if I were looking to raise money, giving a seemingly plausible exit strategy with a valuation

jedberg 6y ago

In the last week I've heard multiple ads for DDG during podcasts about business and startups, saw an article today on HN about how DDG is better than Google on privacy, the same article again with a different title about mobile choice, and now this article about an analyst who thinks Apple should buy DDG. If I didn't know better, I would think DDG is trying to get bought...

minikites 6y ago
Or they know how to read the room and press on their main competitive advantage.

foobar_ 6y ago

It already has a trillion dollars, it doesn't have to worry about trivial bullshit like cost-cutting. Wall street types don't really understand product building ... the math is more like, if you increase water in cola, you can increase profits by 20%.

mdasen 6y ago

The issue with suggesting buying Duck Duck Go is that they’re reliant on Microsoft/Bing for results. That would mean Apple coming to a deal with Microsoft for search access where Apple runA the ads business. If you think you can make $20B on ads and Microsoft charges you $15B for search access on that scale, why not just let Google pay you $7B and make more money? It’s possible that Microsoft would charge less or that Apple could make more, but buying DDG doesn’t get them unlimited access to Bing’s results for one low price. I’m not implying that DDG doesn’t have any technology, but they are reliant on Microsoft for the hardest parts and there’s no guarantee that Microsoft would grant Apple as favorable terms when it’s not just a niche project, but a major competitor’s new foray.

makecheck 6y ago

Frankly, much of Apple’s search technology over the years has been terrible so (assuming it’s a competency issue) they should at least consider buying something better. The App Store certainly can’t find things well...I suspect that is “by design” though. Long ago I had to replace Spotlight with Alfred to get good performance on the desktop. Apple isn’t an ad company, I can’t imagine they’d make a significant amount of money releasing a general search engine just to have one.

uniqueid 6y ago

If Apple acquires a search engine, that engine will instantly lose most of its value. People do not want to use a search engine that appears to be a side-project. What Apple should do, along with others in the industry, is jointly create and fund a new search engine, based on non-commercial principles. I'll quote an old HN comment: > I don’t understand why Google’s competitors don’t form an > independent search engine. If I were Microsoft, I’d talk to > Apple and others to see if they would help fund a spun off Bing. > > The internet badly needs a big alternative search engine that > isn’t beholden to advertisers or dependent on a single > corporate owner. > > The benefit of such a search engine (whose main incentive is to > just be a good search engine) is obvious for the public, but > would also give companies who rely on their own OS, leverage > against Google.

AnonC 6y ago

It used to be that "Apple should buy Netflix" for several years, on and off. Now this. Analysts have always misunderstood Apple, what it focuses on and what it will not do. They come up with meaningless recommendations that Apple will not even spare time for an elevator pitch. Wherever Apple sees any deficiencies, it works by secrecy, non-acceptance (or denial, like "you're holding it wrong", depending on the case) and creating its own way out of it without any or barely any acknowledgment of deficiencies (or wrong doing, as the case may be). I personally believe that, more than having a search engine, Apple would be better off with an online maps solution (including navigation) that anybody could use, regardless of their hardware and OS. It has already opened up it's iWork suite on the cloud for everyone with a browser. Would Apple consider such a move with maps (though it's a very weak competitor in most countries outside the US)? I don't think so. Also DuckDuckGo is nowhere close to Google's results for many intents and purposes (I know anecdotally many people find it extremely useful). Apple buying it would be a dead investment not just for this reason, but also because Apple doesn't really know how to manage and run certain online services well

tonyedgecombe 6y ago
that anybody could use If it isn't going to help sell some other product or service then I think that is unlikely. but also because Apple doesn't really know how to manage and run certain online services well That was certainly the case ten years ago, more recently they seem to have improved.

ryuukk_ 6y ago

tldr: - people discovered DuckDuckGo is a CIA/NSA tool - they lost ton of users - they run out of money - they try to spread fake news to sell it at high price #boycott USA/UK products!

sjwright 6y ago

I don’t agree because the cultures are too divergent. But Apple could quietly invest in them to ensure someone else can’t take them over...

merricksb 6y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20200609030352/https://baseread.com/analysts-say-apple-should-buy-duckduckgo-search-engine/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200609030352/https://baseread....

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ttul 6y ago

In truth, Apple already bought a search engine when they acquired Topsy. The engineers from Topsy now work on the search tech that powers all sorts of things at Apple. That being said, DDG would be interesting as an acquisition for Apple because it would be consistent with Apple’s privacy-first approach to service design.

matt-attack 6y ago
But isn’t DDG just proxying search requests to Bing?
- cirno 6y ago
  Pretty much. They claim there's multiple sources, but the results are strikingly similar. And on image search, identical.
  - stormdennis 6y ago
    If that's all DDG are doing it would be simple for Apple to replicate, no? Do Bing charge for this? If not could they legally enforce such charges? What aren't there more DDGs around?
    - ma2rten 6y ago
      Yes, Bing has an API which they charge for.
- cottsak 6y ago
  I don't mind if it's a proxy. I value my privacy more than whether DDG is maintaining its own entire search stack.
  - armitron 6y ago
    You value your privacy but blindly trust DuckDuckGo? They say they store all your searches in their privacy policy (but "not in a personally identifiable way" they claim). They also say they effectively rewrite your search results to insert affiliate tracking. Even if their entire stack was opensource and you had strong visibility and guarantees regarding the code they're actually running in production, adversaries could be exploiting DuckDuckGo and recording all the information you send to them "in a personally identifiable way". So, basically, don't trust DuckDuckGo. They're yet another for-profit middleman (maybe parasitic, maybe not, we don't know) that, through its centralized information accumulation, enables the sort of behavior you claim you want to avoid.

badrabbit 6y ago

Hell no!! This would be worse than oracle taking over SUN Microsystems. I would litetally protest in front of an applestore and I have never protested before. Leave ddg out of your empires. It's one of the few reliable and trustworthy services I use daily. I guarantee apple will just ruin it and help google dominate in the process. Thesr analysts don't get why people use ddg!

KarlKemp 6y ago
It's quite something to pointedly state, in these times, that there is nothing you can think off that is more worthy of protests than... some tech-biz inside baseball.
- dellinspiron 6y ago
  Privacy is not "inside baseball"
- _emacsomancer_ 6y ago
  It's also probably not as bad as Oracle taking over Sun, for that matter.
- Vinnl 6y ago
  These times prove that people do not go out to protest only the thing that is most worthy of protest, since whatever that thing is, it is not seeing significantly more protestors than other things that are also important. And that's OK. It's good if things that are important, but not quite most important, have people working to improve them as well.
mesozoic 6y ago
Seconded
cmckn 6y ago
DuckDuckGo is a Bing frontend, no? An acquisition by Apple wouldn't make sense, because they'd just be writing checks to Microsoft. In any case, I don't think the proposition is something to get upset over.

the_pwner224 6y ago

If this were to happen, it would be sad if it ended up like their recent DarkSky acquisition: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22739839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22739839 'Buy this expensive Apple Phone you cannot own / overpriced not-professional-grade MacBook Pro, or else you have no good private search engine option.' (except for Qwant which is usable but not good)

_emacsomancer_ 6y ago
Qwant and DDG seem similar in goodness to me.

ummonk 6y ago

Couldn't Apple just consume the Bing API directly instead? What would acquiring DuckDuckGo actually get them?

gundmc 6y ago
The only reason would be the goodwill/value of the brand, but I can't imagine a company with the design and marketing chops of Apple running a service named "Duck Duck Go".
- _emacsomancer_ 6y ago
  They would presumably rebrand it "Search".

philshem 6y ago

Aha! I am vindicated! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20453797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20453797

arvindamirtaa 6y ago

Given that DDG uses the Bing API, would it really be insurance enough? What it would do is give Microsoft all the leverage they need to negotiate (Give us a cheaper rate or use our API and pay us a similar rate?).

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago

An ad-tech company now owns a majority interest in Startpage. Same old story. We will take money from the ad industry to protect users from the ad industry. Brilliant! Maybe creating privacy-oriented search engines is actually a profitable venture as it seems inevitable someone on the opoposing side will eventually buy you out. These online ad investors are so aggressive I expect Pi-Hole will one day be a target.

_emacsomancer_ 6y ago
Yes, but unlike Startpage and Duck Duck Go, Pi-Hole is actually free and open software, so it could just be forked.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
  True, and that is why I mention it as an example. I believe these online ad industry people will try anything, even something that appears futile to you and I. Last I checked, Pi-Hole does own a trademark application. Presumably whomever acquired it could use this against a fork that tried to use the name.
  - _emacsomancer_ 6y ago
    Having to change the name doesn't seem like an insurmountable obstacle for a fork. (Pi Hole-Origin, Next-Hole, Ice-Weasel-Hole)
    - pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
      Does it seem like those names would not support a trademark suit? Would you have to use the word "Hole" in order to attract users?
      - 6y ago

_emacsomancer_ 6y ago

Would be the fastest way to drive the current user base away, I imagine. Of course, Apple probably wouldn't care about that.

waltherp 6y ago

Why? Just open yourself up to anti-trust issues with very little upside in earnings.

adamlett 6y ago
The article literally explains the why of it.
- detaro 6y ago
  It doesn't really explain why buying a product that's primarily backed by Bings search index (at least for western customers) is better than making a deal with Microsoft directly for Bing access.
- stirlo 6y ago
  It's a stupid why. Currently they get $8 billion for nothing. Purchase DDG (and set default) and they lose $8 billion, users complain about worse search results (just like maps) and Google just puts a banner on their homepage saying here's how to change search engine and gets the search traffic for free. Just because apple makes plenty of money doesn't mean they should buy every random startup.

carapace 6y ago

Maybe this is a stupid question but is DDG for sale?

yodon 6y ago
Every company is for sale at every moment, it's just a question of at what price.
- carapace 6y ago
  Technically correct, materially useless. My impression is that the idea of Apple buying DDG is fictive, am I hallucinating or does that seem to hold water?

stirlo 6y ago

Headline: Apple should buy X!!! Analysis: "Apple can make such acquisitions for less than $1 billion. This will be less than a week of Apple’s cash flow." Logic: None! Apple makes $1 billion a week by avoiding running a bunch of minnow services with stronger competitors. Apple should buy X is a meme that needs to die.

zaphirplane 6y ago
Or buy something I have taken a short position in
- jagannathtech 6y ago
  Apple should buy Tesla ;)

jjtheblunt 6y ago

one analyst says: not analysts say

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

galfarragem 6y ago

A bit off topic: try Qwant[0]. I was a user of DDG for a few years but I made the switch some months ago and didn't look back: search results are way better. AFAIK is a European company (if that is relevant to you). I'm not affiliated with it in any way, just an happy user. [0] https://www.qwant.com https://www.qwant.com

KKKKkkkk1 6y ago

Reviewing the DDG wiki page, it looks like it has VC funding since 2011. How is it able to stay afloat for so long without going public?

philshem 6y ago
from their blog: > DuckDuckGo has been a profitable company since 2014 without storing or sharing any personal information on people using our search engine. and > As mentioned, DuckDuckGo is profitable based mostly on keyword-based search ads, though we have always been on the search for other ways to anonymously make money so that we can reduce the dependence on advertising. https://spreadprivacy.com/duckduckgo-revenue-model/ https://spreadprivacy.com/duckduckgo-revenue-model/

Abishek_Muthian 6y ago

Well, Analysts are doing their job; they did also say Apple should get Twitter as well. As with twitter, I don't see much merit with this argument; Which goes like "If Apple decides to give away it's revenue stream from X, decides to go with Y which provides inferior service, if Y decides to shut its shop, So Apple should buy Z which doesn't generate as much revenue as X or Y"!

freediver 6y ago

I am actually doing an experiment of using DuckDuckGo as my exclusive search engine across all my devices for the last two weeks. The experience has been suboptimal and much of it is on the UX side followed by the lack of search engine features. As a part of this experiment, I also used Bing for two weeks before this and after a few days I could not notice that much of a difference to Google (one thing that annoyed me was Youtube videos playing inline on Bing). But DDG is simply painful to use as much as I want to like it. I can not imagine it meeting Apple's product standards or having an Apple logo on what is the current DDG product. I also can not think of any IP that DDG has that would be interesting for Apple to own.

sah2ed 6y ago

The whole article is bereft of any reasonable logic as to why it makes sense for Apple to buy DDG. The article does mention an important detail that the so-called analyst fails to properly account for: from Google’s perspective, its opportunity cost—the amount of revenue it stands to lose if the deal were to be renegotiated adversely—is at least $25B. Google therefore has every incentive to maintain the status quo, or at least be allowed to offer to pay more than $8B to remain the default option on iOS.

xaerise 6y ago

If Apple buys DDG, I think it will die.