3 ms·
There’s plenty of money in it. Even if the ads were minimally personalized (ie use location so that when I search for a plumber I see local plumbers) just the k
by criddell 2y ago
There’s plenty of money in it. Even if the ads were minimally personalized (ie use location so that when I search for a plumber I see local plumbers) just the keyword-based ads would probably be enough to cover the costs. Apple users are exactly who advertisers want to reach.
Apple has shown in the past that if something is considered a key technology, they would rather own it than hand that power to a key competitor. They made their own CPUs, they made Maps, and they could make search.
- notaustinpowers 2y agoThey can do it, but is it going to make them money? Google's $20b/year payment made up 20% of their income in 2023. 20% of their income was just free money, and their dev team doesn't have to do anything for them to get it. Would Apple or their shareholders accept a minimum 20% loss in income, plus whatever the expenses would be to build a Search and Ad platform, plus the continued expenses of maintaining and updating it?
- criddell 2y agoGoogle is paying Apple $20 billion for $60 billion worth of traffic. Apple said it would cost $6 billion per year to build and run a search engine. I don't think it would take much of an ad platform to pull in enough money to make it work for Apple and their shareholders. It all comes down to whether or not Apple sees search as a key part of their phones and so far they haven't. FWIW, I think they're right - it's not a key part the same way Maps is, for example.
- happyopossum 2y ago$100B was Apple's net income, not gross. Revenue was ~$400B, so we're talking about 5%, not 20.
- notaustinpowers 2y agoStill, 20% of their net income is guaranteed free money. I doubt there are minimal (if any) expenses on Apple's side to maintain the status quo of Google being the default search engine.