That happened in a former employer when we moved into large new premises, they showed up fairly quickly on Apple Maps but took a lot of time to get integrated into Google. I was tasked with communicating to Google - what a hassle.
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 Explains Why It Doesn't Plan to Create a Search Engine
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No it wouldn’t. Worst case scenario is users get a splash during set up asking them pick a default search engine. Most people will pick Google even then.
Apple just wants to keep its $20 billion pay cheque.
It is perfect for a sitcom episode...
... Imagine the older grandpa lying about his past, memories of huge wars, and in between that buzz-marketing-pr sentence...
... so funny!
You still need a web crawlers and database so you will still need companies to maintain that infrastructure.
Its also pretty obvious why they don't want to do search. If someone is paying you $20 billion a year to not do something, and it would cost you tens of billions to do the thing you're being paid to not do, why would you possibly do it?
Apple has tried and failed to get into the ad space, which is where the money from being a search engine comes from. Losing $20 billion a year plus the costs to develop your own product, on top of limited possibilities for revenue generation is a non starter for any business
Search engines will just transition to AI....if they show (and link) the source, each and every time.
I really hope the worthless "natural language" bloviation that is the current thing doesn't become the only option. Just show me what I ask for without the additional useless chatter, by default.
Last edited:
As a corporation, they could, but many would lose their jobs.
Are you paying attention to what you're typing? That's $20 billion worth of business! That's far beyond any trifle!
Why are you differentiating AI and search engine ? AI is a basket where a search engine is still needed
I do: 20 billion dollars. Apple’s first and foremost interest (as any other company) is revenue. This is liquid cash for them, it costs them no maintenance, development or anything.
Yes. An account is a convenient identifier - but far from the only user identifier.
Apple is too busy making door bells to worry about a search engine!
Here's a Forbes article about what's commonly known as digital fingerprinting. TL;DR, Google is expanding the data they use to track users beyond accounts, cookies, and IP addresses.
Search engine? If Siri (or Apple Intelligence) ever supports retrieval-augmented generating, they won't even need a search engine. 👀
Every law is a completion of the political process. Every. Single. One.
By your reasoning, any time there is a legal issue discussed, it must be tossed into the politics section.
The completion of a political process and the start of a completely new one.
Laws are interpreted by courts and enforced by the DOJ through the current political lens of every single authority and citizen. Roe v. Wade was settled law for 50 years, then it was overturned by a court with a different political view. The same constitution, different politics applying it, radically different outcomes. The same holds true for anti-trust cases. The coming Trump administration is expected to alter course on many of the anti-trust cases being currently pursued, including dialing back any requests to break up Alphabet. That is ALL politics.
I think that would be a wise thing to do. The world isn't tidy and politics doesn't go away merely because you think it should.
No. Apple's emphasis on privacy and on building products rather than scraping users' personal data for profit means Apple doing it's own search is a nonstarter. Just like Cue said.
"The same constitution, different politics applying it, radically different outcomes."
This is comically absurd. I've been practicing law for more than 20 years and I understand this Court well.
The only political operatives are those on the left.
If you want proof, look at every decision from every term in the past, oh, 7 or 8 years, and look at who was in the majority and who was in the minority.
What you will see is the leftward justices all vote as a block--not always, but close enough to be a sure thing you would be comfortable betting real money on it.
The "conservatives" on the other hand, can be seen siding with the left far more than vice-versa.
It's how you got John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch to write opinions that drive political conservatives insane.
But when you follow what the Constitution actually says, you don't vote in blocks, because the outcome is not important.
The process of how you got there is what drives the so called "Conservative" justices.
It's why you saw Scalia side with the political left far more often than is reported, authoring ground breaking "liberal" opinions on issues like the First Amendment and a particularly famous Confrontation Clause case.
Any search engine from sicko [but very smart] Musk needs to be challenged hard. The verbiage found at the link is clearly nonsense, typical lies from the right wing: motherhood and apple pie with zero discussion of how the search engine pays for itself and makes more $billions for Musk [and also Trump of course, who will suspend law to allow such a new venture to grow without legal boundaries]. No doubt data gets sold, perhaps even to nation states.