16 ms·

”The complaint claims that the means used to effectuate the non-compete agreement included; (1) Google would share it's search profits with Apple; (2) Apple wou

by dpark 5y ago

”The complaint claims that the means used to effectuate the non-compete agreement included; (1) Google would share it's search profits with Apple; (2) Apple would give preferential treatment to Google for all Apple devices; (3) regular secret meetings between the executives of both companies; (4) annual multi-billion-dollar payments by Google to Apple not to compete in the search business; (5) suppression of the competition of smaller competitors and foreclosing competitors from the search market; (6) acquiring actual and potential competitors.” Except for #6, this is literally “Google pays Apple to be the default search provider.” The alternative option seems to be that Apple is for some reason required to use their position to enter the search market.

raverbashing 5y ago
It's been a while since I've seen a paragraph that badly written (I mean, the quoted part) It's a Press Release from a law firm but I'm not sure I would take a law firm that writes like this seriously.
littlecranky67 5y ago
> "Google pays Apple to be the default search provider" If that is the case they might not act anti-competetive but, rumours are [0] Apple received up to $20Bn per year in this deal. It is hard to believe that this payment is just for being the default search engine. I strongly suspect that Apple also agrees to not build their own search engine as long as this deal is on - and if that is the case, there will be a strong foundation for an anti-competetive lawsuit.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  > $20B. It is hard to believe that this payment is just for being the default search engine. Well ask yourself what the value of this placement is? Google earns about $200 per user, mostly in ad revenue. If Google search wasn't default, they'd probably lose half the users. There are 1 billion iPhone users. At $200 each, Google stands to loose $200b. So a price tag of $20b to keep that...
  - sfe22 5y ago
    Are you sure that 200 usd is worldwide? Seems like US only
    - londons_explore 5y ago
      The number is higher in the US and lower in the rest of the world. But iPhones are more heavily skewed to US users. I picked $200 as a good ballpark.
      - littlecranky67 5y ago
        True, and iPhones are also more common in wealthier people. Worked on a Project once where our target audience was medical doctors in Germany, and we had >50% iOS users on based our user-agent metrics.
        ChuckNorris89 5y ago
        Curious how you accurately got that figure knowing how draconic Germans are on protecting their privacy, I highly doubt they're cool with knowing that as doctors they're being tracked for some app targeting. But yeah, anecdotally, just from visiting their practices, I also noticed most doctors in Austria tend to be in the Apple ecosystem for private use, but their practices and the clinics tend to be Windows.
        jaywalk 5y ago
        Collecting the user agent string is one of the most basic forms of web analytics. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "targeting" or violating privacy in any way, so it's strange that you brought it up in such a way.
    - pdpi 5y ago
      At 10 cents per ad print, that’s only 2000 impressions, around 6 per day. Certainly sounds in the higher side of feasible. If the deal is for $20B, break even is a tenth that though, so there’s a lot of margin for error while still claiming enormous financial benefits.
- JimDabell 5y ago
  > It is hard to believe that this payment is just for being the default search engine. I strongly suspect that Apple also agrees to not build their own search engine as long as this deal is on In practical terms, if Apple launched a search engine that wasn’t the default, would it see much uptake? It seems to me that Google don’t need an agreement for that.
  - pdpi 5y ago
    This is Apple we’re talking about. That search engine would be a skunkworks project for several years and rapidly become the default soon after release. Presumably, what Google gets out of this is the assurance that no such skunkworks project exists.
    - littlecranky67 5y ago
      I'm assuming the agreement would not cover skunkworks projects as this would be clearly deemed anti-competitive (collusion) if that deal ever saw the light of day. Even a deal of not launching a product might be deemed as such. But I assume you can't really launch a search engine without a couple of years of user feedback, i.e. tracking what links get clicked and which not, to influence the ranking. And that would require an official launch from Apple, which would probably result in Google to terminate the agreement immediately on launch (even if it is not made the default search engine). So even without written/verbal agreement in that field, Apple knows that the minute they publicly launch a search engine, the deal is off. I think such a deal would fall into the tacit collusion category [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion
      - treis 5y ago
        The FAANGs did obviously illegal collision on hiring before. Don't see why they wouldn't do so on other stuff. Probably have learned their lesson to not E-mail about it too.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    Apple has a search engine. It powers Safari Suggestions, Siri etc and it is enabled by default. I imagine close to ~95% of all iOS/OSX searches would likely be hitting those services if you look at the way the UI is implemented.
- ksec 5y ago
  Where is that [0] reference? Because it is not $20B, but $10 / $12B. The range was partly confirmed during a trial where Google mentioned their percentage of profits paying to Apple as being default search engine.
  - littlecranky67 5y ago
    Sorry, my bad I forgot to add the [0] reference: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/27/google-could-pay-apple-15-billion-default-search/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/27/google-could-pay-apple-... (repeating that this is an analyst estimate/rumour so take it with a grain of salt).
    - ksec 5y ago
      Thanks to analyst and Macrumors continue to pump out and report BS the internet has never educated people on any issues. Although I dont doubt this could be the usual Apple PR play when they intend to negotiate a new deal with Google. As they have done so in the past 5-10 years with Qualcomm, Broadcom, Google, Intel etc. To add some useful information to HN readers, Google has been paying roughly $10 per user to Apple for the past 8 years. So the growth of Google Default Search Engine placement has been growing steadily with Apple's active user. This exclude regions which does not use Google as Default Search Engine. Unless there are dramatic changes in Google traffic accusation cost in their Quarterly report or going to make a change in 2022 ( Which I am not aware of ), that rumour is completely baseless.
      - littlecranky67 5y ago
        Well the $12-10Bn are confirmed due to court documents, so assuming it grew in 2022 is not that wrong. What are a couple of billions here and there anyway :)
  - xadhominemx 5y ago
    It’s proportional to Google ad revenue, which has grown a lot since 2020
- zuminator 5y ago
  I think it's very possible that the payment is just for being the default search engine. Because one alternative is that Apple picks another company to be the default search engine. And suddenly Google has lost the most affluent group of consumers and has gained a major competitor. They would pay almost any amount to prevent that from happening. I don't think Apple would want to make itself the default. That would just invite all kinds of regulatory scrutiny, and would conflict with their pro privacy image. Why bother when they can squeeze Google and get paid billions with no work?
  - judge2020 5y ago
    To add, I can see them arguing in court "Hey, if someone offers us say $21 billion, we'll start an auction between them and Google to see who offers us more. Obviously being the default search on iOS is worth billions."
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    > I don't think Apple would want to make itself the default. That would just invite all kinds of regulatory scrutiny Doesn't seem to have stopped Google with Android. > would conflict with their pro privacy image. How so? I'd argue that it would enhance it, because they could advertise that the default AppleSearch protects your privacy better than Google.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
    > I don't think Apple would want to make itself the default. That would just invite all kinds of regulatory scrutiny, and would conflict with their pro privacy image. They did it for other markets where they do compete - maps most notably.
    - ascagnel_ 5y ago
      Maps was different, I believe. Google wanted substantial concessions from Apple for them to continue using Google Maps (and to build out new features like turn-by-turn navigation), Apple balked, and Apple Maps was born.
- Someone 5y ago
  https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/how-does-google-make-money-advertising-business-breakdown-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/how-does-google-make-money-a...: “Search is Google’s most lucrative unit. In 2020, the company generated $104 billion in “search and other” revenues” iOS users reportedly are bringing in above average ad revenues. So, I do not rule out they’re worth $30 billion of that. If so, “up to $20 billion” could be a reasonable deal for Google. It still brings in loads of memory and deprives the competition (e.g. Microsoft) from those valuable ad targets. If that really is $20 billion, it also seems Google is willing to give Apple a cut of over (or at least about) 30% of the revenues they make on iOS, though. Would that make an argument for Apple in their disputes over their 30% cut on app revenues?
Lio 5y ago
#5 is the key point to my mind. For example, you can’t just add new search engines to iOS Safari with just a URL. There are a few alternatives to Google but there’s no easy way for a new entrant to get in there. EDIT: Interesting. I’m picking up downvotes for this, is there some way to achieve this (other than jailbreaking) I’ve missed?
- tut-urut-utut 5y ago
  I don't know why you get downvotes, this is true, at least for iOS. There's no way a user can add a new search engine, they can only choose one of the five choices.
  - hetspookjee 5y ago
    I'm so happy that Apple keeps me safe of dangerous search engines. /s I don't get this logic, honestly. What is the point of not being able to add any and all search engines to Apple?
    - cornel_io 5y ago
      Apple hates any sort of technical customization in their mass-market products. They always have, and keep stripping them down to the most dumbed-down settings screens they can figure out while still allowing the bare necessities (which they apparently don't consider adding an alternative search engine to be). I don't like this approach, but it is very consistent in their products, features tend to disappear over time and new ones only pop up if they're very sexy and can be announced on-stage.
      - nikanj 5y ago
        Every customization option means more complaints from some customer who managed to mess up that setting. “My search no longer works!” “Sir you have the search registry key set to ‘turkey bake time’” “Well that’s what I was searching for, and then the search stopped working completely. iPhones are the worst, I’m gonna tell all my friends”
headmelted 5y ago
This. I always sort of hoped that Apple would either enter the market at some point or acquire DuckDuckGo and try to build out to a larger user base. I realise this is pretty unrealistic, as I'm sure there are far more people out there who would much prefer DDG to remain independent of a megacorp. I assumed the reason Apple haven't entered the market is that there's likely no way to make money at it without becoming Google, so it would cause them to have two diametrically opposed privacy stances in their business (and because they'd have a long road to build a worthy competitor).
- mgh2 5y ago
  Is there a way to run a profitable search engine without relying on advertising? Ex: Cloud search - https://aws.amazon.com/cloudsearch/ https://aws.amazon.com/cloudsearch/
  - matkoniecz 5y ago
    https://kagi.com/ https://kagi.com/ has plans for subscriptions, I hope that they will have product worth paying for. I spend enough time and effort searching that paying 50$/month[0] would make sense if it would get me clearly superior tool. [0] for reference, I pay 250$/month for place where I live (in Poland).
    - eitland 5y ago
      With the usual disclaimer about my Google experience not being anyone elses Google experience: For my work Kagi is already beating Google. In fact there is is almost no competition, it is almost as if they are in completely different leagues: In one month I have once gone back to find something in Google that Kagi couldn't find. For every other query the results have been so good that I haven't even bothered to check. For comparison, if I use Google I always find myself tweaking my queries or trying with DDG or even marginalia in weird cases, and the same with DDG.
      - utopcell 5y ago
onion2k 5y ago
The alternative option seems to be that Apple is for some reason required to use their position to enter the search market. Why is that the alternative? No one is saying Apple have to provide their own search engine; people are suggesting Mac products should give the user a clear choice. A much more obvious alternative is that Apple (or any OS provider for that matter) shouldn't be able to sell the default search engine option on their products to the highest bidder without making it easy to change. When Microsoft lost their IE law suit they added a simple set of options to Windows as part of setup to pick a browser. Apple could do the same for search engines. You could read the current situation as Apple using their position as the only provider of Mac OS software to make $20bn/year by refusing to give users a choice of search provider. It doesn't really matter that the search is a separate company - the issue is lack of choice that distorts the market in favor of two companies (Apple and Google) rather than consumers. That's bait for anti-trust lawyers.
- bni 5y ago
  It is easy to change, it a dropdown in Safari settings, very easy to find. I agree though that Google pays Apple billions to be the default stinks. Even though in this case Apple greed aligns perfectly with user expectation.
  - amelius 5y ago
    It still makes me wonder: if Apple had their own search engine, would they be allowed to not have the option to change it?
    - onion2k 5y ago
      That would be a very clear anti-trust violation where they would be abusing position in the OS market to influence their position in the search market.
      - amelius 5y ago
        Ok, wouldn't there be the same problem with app stores then?
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
that "effectuate the non-compete agreement" is doing some work, it would be one thing if Google said to Apple, we want your guarantee that you will not be entering the search engine market and in return we will give you this - then it is a non-compete agreement - but as it is it is a default search engine agreement. No idea what (3) regular secret meetings between the executives of both companies; means - but it sure sounds realllly bad and nefarious!
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "would be one thing if Google said to Apple, we want your guarantee that you will not be entering the search engine market" Which executive is going to be dumb enough to put a crime in writing? It's clear to anyone with half a brain that if Apple enters the search market, the deal is off.
postingawayonhn 5y ago
In a competitive market where they are not allowed to accept these sorts of payments from Google it would seem natural for them to enter the search market. They may choose not to and that's fine, users would be no worse off then they are now.
netcan 5y ago
They're not required to enter the search market. But, the revenue Apple get from the deal/trust with Google is better than MSFT or Yahoo ever got by competing with them. It's also easy, risk free and pure profit. So, the deal essentially ensures that Apple will not compete. Apple now also have an interest in maintaining their (alleged) trust. It's now in both parties interest to maintain Google's dominance of the space. It's also in both their interest to have a large ad market. Competition is not necessarily head-2-head. If Apple couldn't make money by funneling user to Google, they might prefer to just suppress ads. I'm sure if they asked users, users would want that. "Phone with fewer ads, ad-related tracking, etc.) is a potential selling point. IANAL, and more to the point, I dislike both legal framework around antitrust and the intellectual framework implied by much of it. There's just a lot more to monopoly than either take into account. Such deals are, IMO, evidence that monopoly^ in general is to the detriment of competition, innovation, churn and other such positive market outcomes. I also think more monopoly is concerning on "free culture" grounds, it perculates to politics/government, etc. Lets leave those aside though. Apple & Google themselves were only able to innovate and prosper because monopolies did not yet control the microcomputer or the web. App stores, OTOH... *Meant broadly. Read, Trust, cartel oligopoly, monopsony, bigness...
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > If Apple couldn't make money by funneling user to Google, they might prefer to just suppress ads. Apple did implement content blockers to block ads. I do not see ads when I use Safari in iOS or macOS.
  - mholm 5y ago
    Google is not concerned much with the ability to block ads, but whether it is default. The vast majority of users do not install content blockers.
    - dontblink 5y ago
      I'd imagine at some point depriving sites of revenue will lead to adversarial outcomes where many if not all will simply refuse to load. So if ad blockers become mainstream it will be interesting change to the web.
coliveira 5y ago
The issue is not that Apple should be required to do anything, but that the monopoly (Google) is paying other companies to stay out of their business.
hugh-avherald 5y ago
Apple is not obliged to enter the search market. But Google can't engage in illegal anti-competitive conduct.
- sigzero 5y ago
  Which they are not on iOS.
snarf21 5y ago
I've always found this fight for search choice on iOS to be bad for Apple. If they had to give a choice for search engine on setup or make it easy to switch the default, 99.99% of people would still choose Google and Apple would lose $BB. I agree that Google results have gotten worse over the last 5 years or so but we have to remember that they aren't optimizing for usefulness, they are optimizing for profit.
jrochkind1 5y ago
> The alternative option seems to be that Apple is for some reason required to use their position to enter the search market. Well, another alternative option is that Apple is forbidden from charging for being included in the list of search providers (as default or otherwise), they can't be pay-to-play, they can pick whatever providers they want they just can't charge for it, so they have to make decisions based on something other than who pays them the most. Which, now that I think about it, doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world actually... but I really don't think US law requires it.
gigatexal 5y ago
Yeah I thought the Google paying Apple 10-20B a year for being default search is exactly this. I thought this was known?
phkahler 5y ago
>> Except for #6, this is literally “Google pays Apple to be the default search provider.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola
- sigzero 5y ago
  Did you even read that link? It does not apply.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
adam0c 5y ago
all that says is: Google have the money and power to buy people out. Thats business 101, nothing new. Yeah it sucks but if you don't agree with it stop using google and apple products.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by dpark 5y ago

raverbashing 5y ago

It's been a while since I've seen a paragraph that badly written (I mean, the quoted part) It's a Press Release from a law firm but I'm not sure I would take a law firm that writes like this seriously.

littlecranky67 5y ago

> "Google pays Apple to be the default search provider" If that is the case they might not act anti-competetive but, rumours are [0] Apple received up to $20Bn per year in this deal. It is hard to believe that this payment is just for being the default search engine. I strongly suspect that Apple also agrees to not build their own search engine as long as this deal is on - and if that is the case, there will be a strong foundation for an anti-competetive lawsuit.

londons_explore 5y ago
> $20B. It is hard to believe that this payment is just for being the default search engine. Well ask yourself what the value of this placement is? Google earns about $200 per user, mostly in ad revenue. If Google search wasn't default, they'd probably lose half the users. There are 1 billion iPhone users. At $200 each, Google stands to loose $200b. So a price tag of $20b to keep that...
- sfe22 5y ago
  Are you sure that 200 usd is worldwide? Seems like US only
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    The number is higher in the US and lower in the rest of the world. But iPhones are more heavily skewed to US users. I picked $200 as a good ballpark.
    - littlecranky67 5y ago
      True, and iPhones are also more common in wealthier people. Worked on a Project once where our target audience was medical doctors in Germany, and we had >50% iOS users on based our user-agent metrics.
      - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
        Curious how you accurately got that figure knowing how draconic Germans are on protecting their privacy, I highly doubt they're cool with knowing that as doctors they're being tracked for some app targeting. But yeah, anecdotally, just from visiting their practices, I also noticed most doctors in Austria tend to be in the Apple ecosystem for private use, but their practices and the clinics tend to be Windows.
        jaywalk 5y ago
        Collecting the user agent string is one of the most basic forms of web analytics. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "targeting" or violating privacy in any way, so it's strange that you brought it up in such a way.
  - pdpi 5y ago
    At 10 cents per ad print, that’s only 2000 impressions, around 6 per day. Certainly sounds in the higher side of feasible. If the deal is for $20B, break even is a tenth that though, so there’s a lot of margin for error while still claiming enormous financial benefits.
JimDabell 5y ago
> It is hard to believe that this payment is just for being the default search engine. I strongly suspect that Apple also agrees to not build their own search engine as long as this deal is on In practical terms, if Apple launched a search engine that wasn’t the default, would it see much uptake? It seems to me that Google don’t need an agreement for that.
- pdpi 5y ago
  This is Apple we’re talking about. That search engine would be a skunkworks project for several years and rapidly become the default soon after release. Presumably, what Google gets out of this is the assurance that no such skunkworks project exists.
  - littlecranky67 5y ago
    I'm assuming the agreement would not cover skunkworks projects as this would be clearly deemed anti-competitive (collusion) if that deal ever saw the light of day. Even a deal of not launching a product might be deemed as such. But I assume you can't really launch a search engine without a couple of years of user feedback, i.e. tracking what links get clicked and which not, to influence the ranking. And that would require an official launch from Apple, which would probably result in Google to terminate the agreement immediately on launch (even if it is not made the default search engine). So even without written/verbal agreement in that field, Apple knows that the minute they publicly launch a search engine, the deal is off. I think such a deal would fall into the tacit collusion category [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion
    - treis 5y ago
      The FAANGs did obviously illegal collision on hiring before. Don't see why they wouldn't do so on other stuff. Probably have learned their lesson to not E-mail about it too.
- threeseed 5y ago
  Apple has a search engine. It powers Safari Suggestions, Siri etc and it is enabled by default. I imagine close to ~95% of all iOS/OSX searches would likely be hitting those services if you look at the way the UI is implemented.
ksec 5y ago
Where is that [0] reference? Because it is not $20B, but $10 / $12B. The range was partly confirmed during a trial where Google mentioned their percentage of profits paying to Apple as being default search engine.
- littlecranky67 5y ago
  Sorry, my bad I forgot to add the [0] reference: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/27/google-could-pay-apple-15-billion-default-search/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/27/google-could-pay-apple-... (repeating that this is an analyst estimate/rumour so take it with a grain of salt).
  - ksec 5y ago
    Thanks to analyst and Macrumors continue to pump out and report BS the internet has never educated people on any issues. Although I dont doubt this could be the usual Apple PR play when they intend to negotiate a new deal with Google. As they have done so in the past 5-10 years with Qualcomm, Broadcom, Google, Intel etc. To add some useful information to HN readers, Google has been paying roughly $10 per user to Apple for the past 8 years. So the growth of Google Default Search Engine placement has been growing steadily with Apple's active user. This exclude regions which does not use Google as Default Search Engine. Unless there are dramatic changes in Google traffic accusation cost in their Quarterly report or going to make a change in 2022 ( Which I am not aware of ), that rumour is completely baseless.
    - littlecranky67 5y ago
      Well the $12-10Bn are confirmed due to court documents, so assuming it grew in 2022 is not that wrong. What are a couple of billions here and there anyway :)
- xadhominemx 5y ago
  It’s proportional to Google ad revenue, which has grown a lot since 2020
zuminator 5y ago
I think it's very possible that the payment is just for being the default search engine. Because one alternative is that Apple picks another company to be the default search engine. And suddenly Google has lost the most affluent group of consumers and has gained a major competitor. They would pay almost any amount to prevent that from happening. I don't think Apple would want to make itself the default. That would just invite all kinds of regulatory scrutiny, and would conflict with their pro privacy image. Why bother when they can squeeze Google and get paid billions with no work?
- judge2020 5y ago
  To add, I can see them arguing in court "Hey, if someone offers us say $21 billion, we'll start an auction between them and Google to see who offers us more. Obviously being the default search on iOS is worth billions."
- jaywalk 5y ago
  > I don't think Apple would want to make itself the default. That would just invite all kinds of regulatory scrutiny Doesn't seem to have stopped Google with Android. > would conflict with their pro privacy image. How so? I'd argue that it would enhance it, because they could advertise that the default AppleSearch protects your privacy better than Google.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  > I don't think Apple would want to make itself the default. That would just invite all kinds of regulatory scrutiny, and would conflict with their pro privacy image. They did it for other markets where they do compete - maps most notably.
  - ascagnel_ 5y ago
    Maps was different, I believe. Google wanted substantial concessions from Apple for them to continue using Google Maps (and to build out new features like turn-by-turn navigation), Apple balked, and Apple Maps was born.
Someone 5y ago
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/how-does-google-make-money-advertising-business-breakdown-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/how-does-google-make-money-a...: “Search is Google’s most lucrative unit. In 2020, the company generated $104 billion in “search and other” revenues” iOS users reportedly are bringing in above average ad revenues. So, I do not rule out they’re worth $30 billion of that. If so, “up to $20 billion” could be a reasonable deal for Google. It still brings in loads of memory and deprives the competition (e.g. Microsoft) from those valuable ad targets. If that really is $20 billion, it also seems Google is willing to give Apple a cut of over (or at least about) 30% of the revenues they make on iOS, though. Would that make an argument for Apple in their disputes over their 30% cut on app revenues?

Lio 5y ago

#5 is the key point to my mind. For example, you can’t just add new search engines to iOS Safari with just a URL. There are a few alternatives to Google but there’s no easy way for a new entrant to get in there. EDIT: Interesting. I’m picking up downvotes for this, is there some way to achieve this (other than jailbreaking) I’ve missed?

tut-urut-utut 5y ago
I don't know why you get downvotes, this is true, at least for iOS. There's no way a user can add a new search engine, they can only choose one of the five choices.
- hetspookjee 5y ago
  I'm so happy that Apple keeps me safe of dangerous search engines. /s I don't get this logic, honestly. What is the point of not being able to add any and all search engines to Apple?
  - cornel_io 5y ago
    Apple hates any sort of technical customization in their mass-market products. They always have, and keep stripping them down to the most dumbed-down settings screens they can figure out while still allowing the bare necessities (which they apparently don't consider adding an alternative search engine to be). I don't like this approach, but it is very consistent in their products, features tend to disappear over time and new ones only pop up if they're very sexy and can be announced on-stage.
    - nikanj 5y ago
      Every customization option means more complaints from some customer who managed to mess up that setting. “My search no longer works!” “Sir you have the search registry key set to ‘turkey bake time’” “Well that’s what I was searching for, and then the search stopped working completely. iPhones are the worst, I’m gonna tell all my friends”

headmelted 5y ago

This. I always sort of hoped that Apple would either enter the market at some point or acquire DuckDuckGo and try to build out to a larger user base. I realise this is pretty unrealistic, as I'm sure there are far more people out there who would much prefer DDG to remain independent of a megacorp. I assumed the reason Apple haven't entered the market is that there's likely no way to make money at it without becoming Google, so it would cause them to have two diametrically opposed privacy stances in their business (and because they'd have a long road to build a worthy competitor).

mgh2 5y ago
Is there a way to run a profitable search engine without relying on advertising? Ex: Cloud search - https://aws.amazon.com/cloudsearch/ https://aws.amazon.com/cloudsearch/
- matkoniecz 5y ago
  https://kagi.com/ https://kagi.com/ has plans for subscriptions, I hope that they will have product worth paying for. I spend enough time and effort searching that paying 50$/month[0] would make sense if it would get me clearly superior tool. [0] for reference, I pay 250$/month for place where I live (in Poland).
  - eitland 5y ago
    With the usual disclaimer about my Google experience not being anyone elses Google experience: For my work Kagi is already beating Google. In fact there is is almost no competition, it is almost as if they are in completely different leagues: In one month I have once gone back to find something in Google that Kagi couldn't find. For every other query the results have been so good that I haven't even bothered to check. For comparison, if I use Google I always find myself tweaking my queries or trying with DDG or even marginalia in weird cases, and the same with DDG.
    - utopcell 5y ago

onion2k 5y ago

The alternative option seems to be that Apple is for some reason required to use their position to enter the search market. Why is that the alternative? No one is saying Apple have to provide their own search engine; people are suggesting Mac products should give the user a clear choice. A much more obvious alternative is that Apple (or any OS provider for that matter) shouldn't be able to sell the default search engine option on their products to the highest bidder without making it easy to change. When Microsoft lost their IE law suit they added a simple set of options to Windows as part of setup to pick a browser. Apple could do the same for search engines. You could read the current situation as Apple using their position as the only provider of Mac OS software to make $20bn/year by refusing to give users a choice of search provider. It doesn't really matter that the search is a separate company - the issue is lack of choice that distorts the market in favor of two companies (Apple and Google) rather than consumers. That's bait for anti-trust lawyers.

bni 5y ago
It is easy to change, it a dropdown in Safari settings, very easy to find. I agree though that Google pays Apple billions to be the default stinks. Even though in this case Apple greed aligns perfectly with user expectation.
- amelius 5y ago
  It still makes me wonder: if Apple had their own search engine, would they be allowed to not have the option to change it?
  - onion2k 5y ago
    That would be a very clear anti-trust violation where they would be abusing position in the OS market to influence their position in the search market.
    - amelius 5y ago
      Ok, wouldn't there be the same problem with app stores then?

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

that "effectuate the non-compete agreement" is doing some work, it would be one thing if Google said to Apple, we want your guarantee that you will not be entering the search engine market and in return we will give you this - then it is a non-compete agreement - but as it is it is a default search engine agreement. No idea what (3) regular secret meetings between the executives of both companies; means - but it sure sounds realllly bad and nefarious!

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"would be one thing if Google said to Apple, we want your guarantee that you will not be entering the search engine market" Which executive is going to be dumb enough to put a crime in writing? It's clear to anyone with half a brain that if Apple enters the search market, the deal is off.

postingawayonhn 5y ago

In a competitive market where they are not allowed to accept these sorts of payments from Google it would seem natural for them to enter the search market. They may choose not to and that's fine, users would be no worse off then they are now.

netcan 5y ago

They're not required to enter the search market. But, the revenue Apple get from the deal/trust with Google is better than MSFT or Yahoo ever got by competing with them. It's also easy, risk free and pure profit. So, the deal essentially ensures that Apple will not compete. Apple now also have an interest in maintaining their (alleged) trust. It's now in both parties interest to maintain Google's dominance of the space. It's also in both their interest to have a large ad market. Competition is not necessarily head-2-head. If Apple couldn't make money by funneling user to Google, they might prefer to just suppress ads. I'm sure if they asked users, users would want that. "Phone with fewer ads, ad-related tracking, etc.) is a potential selling point. IANAL, and more to the point, I dislike both legal framework around antitrust and the intellectual framework implied by much of it. There's just a lot more to monopoly than either take into account. Such deals are, IMO, evidence that monopoly^ in general is to the detriment of competition, innovation, churn and other such positive market outcomes. I also think more monopoly is concerning on "free culture" grounds, it perculates to politics/government, etc. Lets leave those aside though. Apple & Google themselves were only able to innovate and prosper because monopolies did not yet control the microcomputer or the web. App stores, OTOH... *Meant broadly. Read, Trust, cartel oligopoly, monopsony, bigness...

lotsofpulp 5y ago
> If Apple couldn't make money by funneling user to Google, they might prefer to just suppress ads. Apple did implement content blockers to block ads. I do not see ads when I use Safari in iOS or macOS.
- mholm 5y ago
  Google is not concerned much with the ability to block ads, but whether it is default. The vast majority of users do not install content blockers.
  - dontblink 5y ago
    I'd imagine at some point depriving sites of revenue will lead to adversarial outcomes where many if not all will simply refuse to load. So if ad blockers become mainstream it will be interesting change to the web.

coliveira 5y ago

The issue is not that Apple should be required to do anything, but that the monopoly (Google) is paying other companies to stay out of their business.

hugh-avherald 5y ago

Apple is not obliged to enter the search market. But Google can't engage in illegal anti-competitive conduct.

sigzero 5y ago
Which they are not on iOS.

snarf21 5y ago

I've always found this fight for search choice on iOS to be bad for Apple. If they had to give a choice for search engine on setup or make it easy to switch the default, 99.99% of people would still choose Google and Apple would lose $BB. I agree that Google results have gotten worse over the last 5 years or so but we have to remember that they aren't optimizing for usefulness, they are optimizing for profit.

jrochkind1 5y ago

> The alternative option seems to be that Apple is for some reason required to use their position to enter the search market. Well, another alternative option is that Apple is forbidden from charging for being included in the list of search providers (as default or otherwise), they can't be pay-to-play, they can pick whatever providers they want they just can't charge for it, so they have to make decisions based on something other than who pays them the most. Which, now that I think about it, doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world actually... but I really don't think US law requires it.

gigatexal 5y ago

Yeah I thought the Google paying Apple 10-20B a year for being default search is exactly this. I thought this was known?

phkahler 5y ago

>> Except for #6, this is literally “Google pays Apple to be the default search provider.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola

sigzero 5y ago
Did you even read that link? It does not apply.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

adam0c 5y ago

all that says is: Google have the money and power to buy people out. Thats business 101, nothing new. Yeah it sucks but if you don't agree with it stop using google and apple products.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]