7 ms·
I am doubtful this is to take on Google directly, and I am sincerely doubtful that they'd be able to pull it off if it was. Microsoft funneled billions in to co
by mmanfrin 12y ago
I am doubtful this is to take on Google directly, and I am sincerely doubtful that they'd be able to pull it off if it was. Microsoft funneled billions in to competing, and it has mostly fizzled. Google has had too much of a head start to be competed with head-on.
- abalone 12y agoApple has two things Bing & Google don't: 1) an ad-free business model 2) control of Siri & Spotlight, the native search functions on a huge swath of devices I'd say they have a fighting chance.
- robotresearcher 12y agoA fighting chance of what? Unless they monetize search, it's just a cost. What ad-free business model can monetize search? Unless they are paying Google a fortune to be the current engine, and rolling their own is cheaper. This seems unlikely.
- abalone 12y ago> What ad-free business model can monetize search? The one where you make craptons of profits selling high-margin devices that come bundled with services that offer ad-free user experiences and maximum privacy. And it's Google that pays Apple a fortune to be the current engine, not the other way around. Just to give you an idea of who holds the cards here.
- bobajeff 12y agoThere is no way they would make enough from iPhones/iPads to pay for the costs of building and running a competitive web search engine. (At least not one built like Google and Bing are) There is a reason they take a cut of profits from App developers; it's to help pay for the cost of running the App store.
- redler 12y agoThey're generating profits at a rate of $200 Million per day [sic]. It's fair to say they make enough to pay for the costs of almost anything, including this. You've identified the one requirement they can in fact satisfy; the hard part is... everything else. Edit: Clarity
- bobajeff 12y agoYou may be right. Assuming you're right about their profits, that's 18B per quarter. Operating cost have been said to be around 5B per quarter for Google and 1.25B per quarter for Bing.
- abalone 12y agoSource please? Bear in mind they're already running their own competitive map service for exactly the same reasons I say they want to run their own web search. And that's probably not cheap either.
- Thimothy 12y agoThey started running their map service because google was about to start charging for Google Maps. iMaps already had a rollout that felt improvised and pretty crappy, if the Apple people were suicidal enough to get in a huge business they have absolutely no idea about, such as Web Search, I wouldn't expect a barely usable product in years.
- redler 12y agoI don't remember anything about a fee, but I do specifically recall something about Google withholding from the iOS version two greatly desired features that had already been deployed on Android: vector tiles and turn-by-turn directions. The lack of the latter, at least, was beginning to rise to the level of consumer awareness as an iOS weakness.
- bobajeff 12y ago
- Steko 12y agoI don't think ad free or privacy is a big winner for sales or user experience. However the future of the platform involves more and more search like actions and iOS's current answer of 100 different services spaghetti'd together under Siri (or use Google in Safari) is kludgey and half-baked today and certainly not a long term solution. Apple likes to control all the parts of the user experience and search is going to get bigger every year.
- dataminded 12y agoWhy does Apple need to make money on search?
- robotresearcher 12y agoWhy would they do search if it didn't make them money directly or otherwise?
- coldtea 12y agoThe question didn't include "otherwise" (e.g from selling more iphones and macs due to better search services available only for them). He just asked "why would they have to make money", i.e. directly from search. If you don't mean that by "otherwise", then we can also ask: "Why would they do Maps if it didn't make them money directly or otherwise?" Why would they do
- Steko 12y agoYou forgot 3) not banned in China
- wodenokoto 12y agoMS had a much bigger advantage on PC in this regard when they started out with search.
- coldtea 12y agoAnd tons of cache to spare. They make more in a month than Google does all year around.
- dr_ 12y agoIf its built in as the default search on iOS, they can make significant strides. It may take some time, but I wouldn't bet against it.
- mathattack 12y agoThey could capture the high end of the market doing this, if not the whole market.
- _deh 12y agoThat could make for an interesting filter bubble
- mmanfrin 12y agoThey've done that with Bing already, and Bing hasn't shown a huge spike in usage: http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/10/apple-slips-default-bing-integration-on-ios-7/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/10/apple-slips-default-bing-in...
- BobMarz 12y agoBing is just on Siri and Spotlight in Yosemite. All versions of Safari still default to Google. In fact that default deal will end soon, and Bing and Yahoo want to replace Google as the default.
- SteveCoast 12y agoThis isn't a rational decision, this is war. Google screwing with phones, Apple will screw with search. Apple isn't running out of money or smart people, so they probably have a shot if they want it.
- jp555 12y agoRational decisions are the only way to win a war. Apple operates as though they do not have competitors, they only care about making the best possible devices they can, which is why they are so profitable. Chasing Google is the opposite of The Apple Way. Apple has a very hard time attracting and keeping the best people, just like Google, Facebook, and everyone else. By definition the best people are always going to be scarce. Not everyone can be above average, and only a few can be the best.
- iamdave 12y ago>Rational decisions are the only way to win a war. There's a lot of military history that disagrees with you.
- elwell 12y agoYes, I foresee a repeat of the Apple Maps vs. Google Maps debacle.