Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Deal Responsible for Google's Dominance in Search, Says Microsoft CEO
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
my only concern with Apple running their own search engine is they would flip from being paid billions to having to pay billions to make their engine good.
Doing so would inevitably pressure Apple to monetize their search as well to cover the costs. The two main ways to monetize search both ruin it (ads, paid rankings).
Doing so would inevitably pressure Apple to monetize their search as well to cover the costs. The two main ways to monetize search both ruin it (ads, paid rankings).
That’s not the same since mac and chromebooks are viable and open alternatives.
And you stated that I didn’t read the article, just the title, and the title and the article agree with each other. Im not saying I agree with either, or disagree. My original was just a turn of phrase stating that the reason could have been the inverse, considering the Google search dominance before iPhone existed.
I also stated that the title of an article should reflect the content of the article.
Google is evil, Microsoft is worse. That’s the choice we have really.
So the Microsoft head seems to've ascertained that a huge company with great resources and strong strategic partnerships that's secured a high market share has a strong competitive advantage over potential rivals. I guess they would know.
Remember Netscape (as an earlier poster mentioned), the big name browser...till Microsoft decided to enter the browser wars and gave Internet Explorer away for free? Hey, it could... And it didn't stop there. From this Wikipedia Page on United States of America vs. Microsoft Corporation:
"The U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the personal computer (PC) market, primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorerand use other programs such as Netscape and Java.[1]"
Remember Word Perfect, the word processor to beat, with Word a scrappy competitor...that got bundled with Office, and these days, a lot of people have probably never heard of Word Perfect. Or Lotus 123. Or dBase. For awhile there, it seemed like anytime someone came up for a serious niche/platform in personal computing, Microsoft determined to 'own' it - they even brought out Microsoft Money to compete with Intuit's Quicken. They tried to push into the smart phone sector, search (e.g.: Bing), console video gaming and now A.I. Thankfully they didn't get into porn, that I know of.
File under 'takes one to know one' and 'the pot calling the kettle black,' I guess Microsoft knows what it's talking about.
Ironically, one thing Google has going for it is that it's not Microsoft. I've used a number of Microsoft products, mainly Word, and I'm not anti-Microsoft, but I don't want every piece of software and computer service I deal with to be Microsoft. Or Google. It's nice to know Bing is an option, but doesn't Microsoft enjoy enough success that Bing's lackluster marketshare isn't a tragedy?
Remember Netscape (as an earlier poster mentioned), the big name browser...till Microsoft decided to enter the browser wars and gave Internet Explorer away for free? Hey, it could... And it didn't stop there. From this Wikipedia Page on United States of America vs. Microsoft Corporation:
"The U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the personal computer (PC) market, primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorerand use other programs such as Netscape and Java.[1]"
Remember Word Perfect, the word processor to beat, with Word a scrappy competitor...that got bundled with Office, and these days, a lot of people have probably never heard of Word Perfect. Or Lotus 123. Or dBase. For awhile there, it seemed like anytime someone came up for a serious niche/platform in personal computing, Microsoft determined to 'own' it - they even brought out Microsoft Money to compete with Intuit's Quicken. They tried to push into the smart phone sector, search (e.g.: Bing), console video gaming and now A.I. Thankfully they didn't get into porn, that I know of.
File under 'takes one to know one' and 'the pot calling the kettle black,' I guess Microsoft knows what it's talking about.
Ironically, one thing Google has going for it is that it's not Microsoft. I've used a number of Microsoft products, mainly Word, and I'm not anti-Microsoft, but I don't want every piece of software and computer service I deal with to be Microsoft. Or Google. It's nice to know Bing is an option, but doesn't Microsoft enjoy enough success that Bing's lackluster marketshare isn't a tragedy?
If Bing stops shoving every political ads in my face in the search unrelated to what I search and interested.
I used a metaphor, homie! 🤣 Nice try.
To your counter-metaphor, though: compelling! I don't think it's as accurate as mine, but I like the comparison.
If management during Internet Explorer days did right by their users then Chrome would never have been the dominant browser.
Thank goodness for other options, because, if I had to use teH Google search, I'd have to give up my individuality and become someone that uses "literally" and "way" in every spoken and written sentence.
I wouldn't go that far ( 'zero' ) .
"... And as bad, Apple was using Microsoft to “bid up the price” it receives from Google to be the default search engine on the iPhone. “Do you think Google would continue to pay Apple if there was no search competition?” he asked rhetorically. “Why would they do that?” ... "
Satya Nadella Testifies in U.S. v. Google and Admits to AI Search Failure
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella revealed that he overestimated the impact that OpenAI's ChapGPT-based AI capabilities would have on Bing.
www.thurrott.com
Fact is that Apple is profiting to a hefty sum with this arrangement too ; not just Google. Those two swapping money between themselves leaves Microsoft enough 'crumbs' to be used in contexts like this to say there is some competition, but not enough free revenue flow to do much. ( well besides getting innovative and doing 'more' with less capital costs. Like smarter search results as opposed to composed 'fiction writer' results. )
Apple bidding up the price only makes Google work to suck more money out of the system to pay Apple off. Apple claims they are 'big privacy' but take all that money that leverages it. By bidding the price 'sky high' Apple puts Microsoft into a context where they can't really do both ( pay Apple's prices and also pay to make the search result infrastructure significantly better. )
Boo Hoo, cry me a river Microsoft CEO. Google was founded as an internet search company and had the best tech at its IPO and still does and now Mr. Softee don't likey. Meanwhile, Mr. Softee was the king of the computer tech hill for 30 years with their dominance in OS, MS Office, and Wintel machines (90% market shares), and Mr Softee put hundreds of competitors out of business by offering the same type of software for free with there buggy OS. But then the Web and Mobile changed everything and they are no longer king. Too bad so sad.
DuckDuckGo largely sources its search results from Bing. So if you like DuckDuckGo’s search engine, you would possibly (not guaranteed, but possibly) like using Bing‘s search engine directly.
Last edited:
It’s hard to convince people to use something different (even if that something different is better) when an entrenched incumbent is paying billions of dollars to ensure its search engine is the default option on more than a billion active iPhones.
(And that’s not even considering what’s happening with the Android side of things.)
Not even talking about Microsoft specifically. Just in general. If there was a genuinely really good startup search engine, but Google is paying billions to Apple to make it harder for Apple users to even know that search engine exists… how do you compete with that? Well, you don’t. Not really. There is a reason why Google is paying Apple billions of dollars. And that reason is: because it’s working. If Microsoft (a company with a $2.39 trillion market capitalization) can only manage 3% or so market share in search, what chance does any startup have?
Maybe you can eke out a fraction of a percent market share as the niche search engine for privacy-concerned users (talking about DuckDuckGo). However, without some government intervention to prevent unfair competitive practices, that less than one percent market share is probably the best any startup can expect. Unless, of course, that startup’s product is so obviously-superior (not just simply “better” ) that it is impossible to ignore… in which case Google itself probably wouldn’t ignore it... and would likely attempt to acquire that company before that company’s search engine technology could threaten its core business, lol.
The obvious exception being something like Baidu in China. But that’s a very different situation.
Last edited:
People don't like DuckDuckGo b/c they're great at search. They're "ok". But they like being able to brag that their searches are more private than those using Google while still being "ok".
