Apple Explains Why It Doesn't Plan to Create a Search Engine

[Allen_Wentz]

How’s that 10 year investment on VisionPro going?

Looks good to me. How does it look to you?

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Who cares why Google pays for it. Google Search is by far the best search engine in the world. If Apple would have banned Google Search from the iPhone, they will loose a lot of customers.

And Google has no access to the user data on the iPhone. It's shielded.

Apple knows how to make smartphones.

You really think Apple is going to ban FaceBook and YouTube from the iPhone too? Customers will dump the iPhone and buy an Android phone instead.

I have used DuckDuckGo not Google search on the Mac for many years. My Mac search world did not end.

 

[Harry Haller]

RAG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrieval-augmented_generation

Thanks!

 

[vantelimus]

"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.

If you've been practicing law for 20 years, then you should know that what you just said is entirely political. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[audiophilosophy]

Under Cook, Apple wasted money and energy buying Beats for billions (instead of just making their own in-house competition), wasted billions on a fruitless car project, and a VR headset that nobody asked for or is interested in. Instead they should have made home security cameras that would have been wildly popular (instead of letting Amazon/Ring clean up on the market) and they should have been working on a search engine. They also should have been working on a 5g modem years earlier than they started.

 

[raghu8912]

I laughed at this part:

“If the agreement can no longer continue, Cue said “it would hamstring Apple's ability to continue delivering products that best serve its users' needs."

I think Apple will survive without it lol

Apple can survive by giving one free iPhone to every customer for few years, they have enough cash on hand.
they should give away free phones ?

 

[raghu8912]

I've never understood why they can't just mollify any of these anti-trust lawsuits by just asking the user what search engine they want on initial device setup. Just have a randomly ordered list of the top search engines that are generally used.

Bing
Brave
Ecosia
Google
Mojeek
Presearch
Yandex

customers have the option to change search engine, lazy people shouldn't complain.

 

[raghu8912]

It’s because a majority of the times users pick Google when they have other options. They claim Google monopoly is why it’s a better product most people gravitate to. In the Eu users actually have to make a choice and Google is still what’s used the most.

if people are lazy to change search engine then they shouldn't complain.

 

[raghu8912]

At least on iOS safari let us choose our own search engine, been enjoying search.brave.com more than DuckDuckGo recently and sick there is no real option on safari

what are you talking about, iOS, iPadOS, MacOS all have options to change search engine.

 

[raghu8912]

Under Cook, Apple wasted money and energy buying Beats for billions (instead of just making their own in-house competition), wasted billions on a fruitless car project, and a VR headset that nobody asked for or is interested in. Instead they should have made home security cameras that would have been wildly popular (instead of letting Amazon/Ring clean up on the market) and they should have been working on a search engine. They also should have been working on a 5g modem years earlier than they started.

and worked on iPhone that no one asked for.
developed A/M Series chips that no one asked for.

 

[raghu8912]

And what if we do an anonymous search with Google on Safari, without signing in into Google account? Do Google still get access to users then?

don't have to sing into google to use google search in safari.

 

[raghu8912]

If most users want to use Google search, why google is paying that amount of money?

But that was not my point. The thing is that Apple is trying to market themselves as “privacy friendly” company and by default they exposing all their customers to one of the worst company in terms of privacy. I don’t know but for me looks incongruent.

People who don't have 1 minute to change their default search engine shouldn't complain about anything.

 

[raghu8912]

Good. Then we are very lucky that competing browser will have an opportunity to shine on iOS, at least in the EU.

competing with google search engine as default ?
even better you should use Chrome browser

 

[smulji]

and worked on iPhone that no one asked for.
developed A/M Series chips that no one asked for.

What do you mean? When Steve Jobs passed away in 2011 & Tim Cook became CEO, everyone at that time was asking for an iPhone.

 

[OnePieceIsReal]

what are you talking about, iOS, iPadOS, MacOS all have options to change search engine.

Not to custom ones you only have few options , how about learn it

 

[Varmann]

Under Cook, Apple wasted money and energy buying Beats for billions (instead of just making their own in-house competition), wasted billions on a fruitless car project, and a VR headset that nobody asked for or is interested in. Instead they should have made home security cameras that would have been wildly popular (instead of letting Amazon/Ring clean up on the market) and they should have been working on a search engine. They also should have been working on a 5g modem years earlier than they started.

Most big companies have a similar strings of wasted resources. Google, Microsoft, Tesla .....
Hindsight gives tunnelvision.

 

[swm]

The search business is "rapidly evolving" due to artificial intelligence

oh, he misspelled "deteriorating"

 

[audiophilosophy]

and worked on iPhone that no one asked for.
developed A/M Series chips that no one asked for.

Steve Jobs died the day before the iPhone 4s was introduced. The first Apple silicon product was the iPhone 4 (with an A4 processor) that Steve Jobs introduces on stage himself. Keep grasping at straws though. Continuing the obvious logical progression of a good idea isn’t the mark of outstanding leadership.

 

[surferfb]

Steve Jobs died the day before the iPhone 4s was introduced. The first Apple silicon product was the iPhone 4 (with an A4 processor) that Steve Jobs introduces on stage himself. Keep grasping at straws though. Continuing the obvious logical progression of a good idea isn’t the mark of outstanding leadership.

Unpopular opinion, but Tim Cook is one the most outstanding CEOs in the history of corporations and Apple is extremely lucky to have him.

 

[montuori]

Under Cook, Apple wasted money and energy buying Beats for billions (instead of just making their own in-house competition), wasted billions on a fruitless car project, and a VR headset that nobody asked for or is interested in.

This line of thinking plays into the fallacy that research is only valuable if it proves the hypothesis. Apple may have spent time and money working on a car and it is indeed true that there's no car to show for it but without insider knowledge of what was learned along the way, we cannot judge the experiment to be either wasted or fruitless. I would venture to guess (and it's only a guess) that all that R&D led to some serious advances in on-device ML. It should be obvious that the VR work has led to a new product line, even if it's not yet packaged for the masses.

But seriously, who cares? Shareholders might but it seems they keep valuing the stock highly. As consumers why should we care about the minutia of Apple's R&D program? Products continue to be improved and produced: either they meet our needs or they don't and we buy -- or not -- accordingly.

 

[decafjava]

This line of thinking plays into the fallacy that research is only valuable if it proves the hypothesis. Apple may have spent time and money working on a car and it is indeed true that there's no car to show for it but without insider knowledge of what was learned along the way, we cannot judge the experiment to be either wasted or fruitless. I would venture to guess (and it's only a guess) that all that R&D led to some serious advances in on-device ML. It should be obvious that the VR work has led to a new product line, even if it's not yet packaged for the masses.

But seriously, who cares? Shareholders might but it seems they keep valuing the stock highly. As consumers why should we care about the minutia of Apple's R&D program? Products continue to be improved and produced: either they meet our needs or they don't and we buy -- or not -- accordingly.

Stop making sense

 

[I7guy]

Unpopular opinion, but Tim Cook is one the most outstanding CEOs in the history of corporations and Apple is extremely lucky to have him.

It’s not an unpopular opinion, despite the same individuals downvoting those posts with “haha” (frankly they should be suspended for trolling) The board has kept him on all these years. Apple has not tanked. Etc.

Only on MR, where posters get to play CEO of a trillion dollar company have all of this negativity.

 

[andreagrandi]

Not to knock Kagi (I renewed my annual subscription this week without a second thought) but they are serving up 500k hits a day to 35,000 subscribers. It's not hard to imagine that Apple device users perform that many requests each minute. The infrastructure -- hardware, software, staffing -- is at an entirely different scale, orders of magnitude larger.

For reference, Google serves 8 billion searches a day, just under 100k/second, or 43 years of Kagi searches.

Your math makes sense but it’s missing one point: developing is different from running costs.

Of course running costs to serve millions of people are bigger than serving 35k customers, but the revenue would compensate the costs.

The development would still be the same (same product, no matter if only 35k people or millions use it)