3 ms·
On (1), everyone in this case, even Microsoft, says yes Google is much better; they just say Google is better for unfair reasons. On (2), I think what the case
by elicash 3y ago
On (1), everyone in this case, even Microsoft, says yes Google is much better; they just say Google is better for unfair reasons.
On (2), I think what the case said is that Microsoft would have had to pay more because it's smaller? But I'm not as sure here.
- mgreg 3y agoAgreed on 1; people in the court case are saying Google is better. Given that, why wouldn't Google negotiate a lower rev share? Consider this from Apple's Eddie Cue: "Cue implied that Bing’s technology was inferior to Google’s, saying that he doesn’t 'know what we would have done” if negotiations with Google ever fell apart.' " [1] If I were sitting across from Cue at the negotiating table and knew he felt that way I certainly would be looking at a lower rev share and saving some billions of profit for Google... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-28/microsoft-discussed-selling-bing-to-apple-as-google-replacement?leadSource=uverify%20wall https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-28/microsoft...
- elicash 3y agoGoogle did negotiate exactly that, a lower rev share than Microsoft would have to pay, according to Microsoft. Via https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-considered-investing-billions-apple-152400397.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-considered-investin... > Because Bing was far smaller than Google, Microsoft would have had to offer Apple a far larger percentage of the revenue than Google and would have lost money on the deal, at least initially, Tinter said.