I don't get why we should care. It is, I would guess, a mutually beneficial partnership. Good for them! Google would've been the default engine anyway. This time, I don't think Apple's explanation is unauthentic. Is anyone going to protest that Google is the best at what it does? Especially if your primary language isn't English, there is no alternative. I'm sure that even if they're forced to show you other options on setup, the overwhelming majority of people will still pick Google. The ones who know anything else than it and prefer it have already set it from Settings. Apple picking sensible defaults for users has always been part of them as a business and a big reason why customers prefer the UX they provide. It's only a problem when they get paid apparently 🤷🏻♂ It's not like they're limiting you to Google. That would've been a whole different story. All the rest that's coming for them makes sense and they deserve it, but not this, I don't see it.
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 Gets 36% of Google's Safari Search Revenue
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What I do not understand is that Apple has a responsibility to provide financial information important to investors. If this ruling goes against Apple and tens of billions of pure profit is stricken from their financials... it could have a meaningul negative impact, and yet investors need a trial to find this out ??? I think at the last quarterly some investors tried to find out where the $18B was line itemed, and Tim&Co. never really answered the questions (likely because Services would look pretty bad without it).
Well the reason u originally got an excellent search service and tooth brush is a competitive market 🙄
Your personal preference is anecdotal and subjective. Windows has a significantly larger user-base than MacOS and creates a far larger revenue stream than MacOS, so from those point of view the resources investment from Microsoft makes a lot of sense.
Furthermore, even though investing more resources does not always guarantees a better product, it stands to reason that it increases the chances of achieving ambitious goals.
Apple was not a mobile phone company either and we know how it went for them in that field. If Apple wants to become a search company they have all the means to become one.
It exists to ensure that a reasonable level of competition exists. If companies don't enter the market to compete, anti-trust is perfectly capable of lowering barriers-to-entry or even breaking-up the existing monopoly into separate entities.
Ads are not into question: targeted ads that work by building individualized profiles through the collection of personal information are.
Last edited:
Well, then you and Apple beg to differ. Apple has openly criticized Google's targeted ads concept and it's Apple's stance which is relevant in the context of what was being discussed. They have a deal with Google, not you.
You are entitled your opinion on that and if you were to take a share of revenue from Google originating from targeted ads, that would be consistent with your stated opinion.
On the other side, Apple's opinion on targeted ads is very critical but their deal to drive searches to Google in exchange of a share of the revenue is not consistent with their stated opinion.
This works in the short-term, but without competition products tend to stagnate. Said that, monopolies per-se are not illegal, but unfairly stifling competition to establish or protect one is.
Google can be a monopoly in the search market without issue as long as they don't unfairly stifle competition. Whether this deal with Apple cross that boundary will be a matter to be decided by the courts.
This is horse ———. Why the heck should Apple get a cut of ad-revenue from a search engine in a web-browser that’s based on WebKit?!
I guarantee you that no one else is receiving any sort of money from ads presented in a web browser unless they’re the Ad network.
This wreaks of greed and corruption and a clearly closed and unfair system.
Example: this clearly makes it more difficult for other search engines to compete and disincentivizes the development of alternatives on the platform.
No. Across the board without question this wreaks and is wrong. These are NOT inapp purchases. They are transactions WELL OUTSIDE of the AppStore and the precedent for such an arrangement is non-existent.
It does frankly look and smell like bribery.
Indeed. This arrangement makes me sick.
I’m genuinely tired of Apple’s attitude and approach to business.
Apple and other public companies do have a responsibility to provide various types of financial information but that doesn't mean certain deals or aspects of deals can't be confidential.
The Google payment obviously helps but services would still look fairly good even without it. Keep in mind that the $18 billion (assuming that is the correct number) is for the year, not the quarter. Even without the Google payment (assuming it is divided and posted quarterly), Apple would've still shown around $17.8 billion in services revenue and $85 billion in total revenue last quarter. $4.5 billion (one quarter of $18 billion) represented around 5% of Apple's total revenue for the quarter.
Last edited:
What are you talking about? Google has paid other browsers to be the default search engine. Firefox, for example. There's nothing strange about this arrangement other than the magnitude.
If this were true - nobody would use WhatsUp. Everyone would buy an iPhone and use FaceTime or iMessage.
Isn't this what Apple is saying: we couldn't do a better search?
Last edited:
It worked ok for me on general searches, but anything local (stores, shopping, etc) Google is just much, much better and more accurate.
Pretty sure the $18B is almost pure profit (4.5/qtr). Let's assume Services is $9B in profit for the quarter (50% of $18B). So if nearly 50% of Services profit is the shady Google deal that very well might be legally discontinued by the court, and services is hearlded by Tim&Co. as a growth biz, then I think there is a fiduciary responsibility involved. Of course Tim&Co. do not, and no one is likely to press the issue legally, so investors soldier on. I mean, they wont even let investors know where the $18B is recorded for Gosh's Sake.
A fascinating difference that EU have to USA
EUs legal perspective comes from the ordoliberal school of thought and the U.S. perspective with the economic theory of the Chicago School.
The essential facilities doctrine is applied differently in the USA and the EU. The essential facilities doctrine requires a monopolist or a dominant firm to provide access to a facility that it controls and that is deemed necessary for effective competition.
Resale price maintenance (RPM) is considered a hardcore restriction of competition by object in EU.
The refusals to deal are considered to be a form of abuse of a dominant position and is prohibited per se, regardless of its effects on competition or consumers. The burden of proof is on the defendant to show that its conduct is objectively necessary or produces substantial efficiencies that outweigh the anti-competitive effects.
You're missing the point here by quoting top line revenue. Services like say Apple TV have huge operating budgets to produce TV shows, movies, host and maintain servers, advertising etc. Total revenue minus expenses equals profit. Google's payment to Apple is almost pure profit. I'm not sure what it costs to run Apple TV, Apple Music etc but I'm sure it's a lot. Looking at profit (which is what really matters) and Google's payment becomes a much bigger part of the pie. I wouldn't be surprised to find out most of the profits from services comes from Google.
It has been reported that Apple's gross profit margin on services is around 71%. Even without the Google payment, the revenue and profit numbers for services is still fairly good. That was my point.
How is this corrupt? Its a completely legal contract. Sounds like google is getting a bad deal and now they wanna whine about it... Typical Google.
It's not necessarily a "completely legal" contract (hence being part of the trial) as it can be an antitrust violation for a dominant or monopoly company to pay another company to stay out of an industry/market. An agreement that helps a dominant or monopoly company maintain their dominance may also be an antitrust violation. All of this will presumably be determined and decided in this trial, through potential appeals, etc.
Google isn't whining about it, they want to be able to keep the agreement. If Google wanted to end it, they would. It's the DOJ that is looking to potentially end the contract for legal/antitrust reasons.
Because Google agreed to it.
Why would the underlying technology matter in the least to this business decision?
Incidentally: I guarantee you Google pays Firefox, among others, to make Google the default.
Last edited:
Yep people don’t understand this and why every website has cookie banners now. So frustrating.
"Apple Gets 36% of Google's Safari Search Revenue"
Doesn't Apple get ALL of Google's SAFARI search revenue?I think you meant to say:
"
Apple's Safari Gets 36% of Google's Search Revenue
"No, Apple doesn't get ALL of Google's Safari search revenue. If Apple got all of it, there would be no point in Google making the deal with Apple (at least from a Safari default search standpoint).
The fact that Google is the one paying Apple tells you who has more to lose were this business arrangement ever to dissolve.
Does anyone remember when Apple dropped Google maps? Yes, their own maps service sucked at first, but the important thing is that the majors of iOS users stuck with it (not least because it offered turn by turn). Google maps may be superior, but that’s irrelevant when Apple Maps is considered good enough for the majority of their users and aren’t going to bother with downloading another app, however superior the alternative may be.
In the long run, I dare say that Google lost out more compared to if it had simply capitulated to Apple and made whatever concessions it needed to keep Google maps as the default maps app on the iPhone, rather than attempt to fight with Apple for control over their ecosystem on Apple’s own turf.
What Google fears, more than anything else, is the loss of access to the most lucrative user base on the market, were Apple to suddenly decide to prop up another competitor like DDG or announce their own search engine.
The moral of the story here is that while superior product quality matters, defaults matter as well. It’s never one or the other.
Nothing wrong with Google attempting to cement their advantage by both being the best search engine for most users, while also being the default choice on the iPhone. After all, it’s not as if iOS users are locked into using Google search and unable to change the search engine (I am on DDG, by the way).
Antitrust means that Apple is blocking competition. For example, by not allowing users to choose (setting) other search engines. The bruha is, that Google is the default, even if changed easily, because users are too lazy to change it (i.e. are idiots) the DoJ implies.
It does not mean, that Apple is obliged to provide a search service. That would be like Ford is required to refine Oil and sell gasoline.
and the Microsoft deal with Qualcomm to only use and support Snapdragon for Windows- that’s a totally different kind of payment. This is the reason that Windows license until recently was not legal on M1; and for the same reason Fusion only supports M Series now.
It does not mean, that Apple is obliged to provide a search service. That would be like Ford is required to refine Oil and sell gasoline.
Qualcomm is no gatekeeper? They charge for the modem chip, and they charge a per-device-fee. But that’s different, because Apple can just buy the modem from Intel… oh, wait
and the Microsoft deal with Qualcomm to only use and support Snapdragon for Windows- that’s a totally different kind of payment. This is the reason that Windows license until recently was not legal on M1; and for the same reason Fusion only supports M Series now.
Last edited: