6 ms·

> "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

> "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.
    - Volker_W 5y ago
      > 10 cents per ad print Source?
      - pdpi 5y ago
        It's a number that I thought should be in about the right ballpark. The point wasn't to be on the mark, it was to be explicit enough about the estimate that would be easy for somebody to correct me if it was wrong. Which, it turns out, I was: looking around some more, it's closer to 1c per impression. That said, it's still easily in the ballpark of what would be a net positive.
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?

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.
  - Volker_W 5y ago
    > 10 cents per ad print Source?
    - pdpi 5y ago
      It's a number that I thought should be in about the right ballpark. The point wasn't to be on the mark, it was to be explicit enough about the estimate that would be easy for somebody to correct me if it was wrong. Which, it turns out, I was: looking around some more, it's closer to 1c per impression. That said, it's still easily in the ballpark of what would be a net positive.

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?