Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
"Cutting off payments from Google almost certainly will impose substantial -- in some cases, crippling -- downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers, which counsels against a broad payment ban," said the judge.

cripping to shareholders maybe.

Non-exclusive in what sense? Isn't there already the option to change your default search engine? Or do they mean non-exclusive in the sense that other search engines are allowed to also pay 20B/year for consideration.
 
Google will also need to share data with rival search engines. The DOJ had asked that Google be forced to provide data on how it decides what to surface based on a given search.
This data sharing part is huge if it takes force then it would go a long way to levelling the playing field in online search and shake up SEO with being less of a guessing game.
The ultimate power that Google holds is in any political bias in search results.
That can't apply to just Google though, it has to apply to all including Meta and social media.
 
Was the right decision.. Government was crazy trying to get everything they were asking for.. Government needs to stay out of tech when its not hurting the consumer and in this case it wasn't because people had an option to not use Google services. Hell on Android you can make it less Google then you could ever make an iPhone less Apple. should have tossed the whole case.
 
Was the right decision.. Government was crazy trying to get everything they were asking for.. Government needs to stay out of tech when its not hurting the consumer and in this case it wasn't because people had an option to not use Google services. Hell on Android you can make it less Google then you could ever make an iPhone less Apple. should have tossed the whole case.
This particular monopoly hurts Google competitors and, as a result, it hurts the consumers. Businesses paying more for advertising add these extra expenses to their product prices. Consumer then pays more.
 
Besides being barred from entering into exclusive search engine distribution contracts, Google will also need to share data with rival search engines. The DOJ had asked that Google be forced to provide data on how it decides what to surface based on a given search.

Google was found to have a search monopoly back in August of 2024, and the court has been deciding what action to take to break up Google's monopoly since then. The DOJ was pushing for the divestiture of Chrome and the possible divestiture of Android.

Google is appealing the ruling, likely due to the data sharing component.
This is a good win for Google. Imagine they had to give up Chrome AND Android? Wow, that would have been tough.
The data sharing appeal is kinda funny if you think about it. 🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: amartinez1660
Was the right decision.. Government was crazy trying to get everything they were asking for.. Government needs to stay out of tech when its not hurting the consumer and in this case it wasn't because people had an option to not use Google services. Hell on Android you can make it less Google then you could ever make an iPhone less Apple. should have tossed the whole case.


This is completely false. Droid IS Google. You can’t take that out of the phone. Google is all about data collection and what do you think droid does? Just turns a phone on and off then goes to sleep?…

iOS isn’t out to scrape every last bit of info on you and your family/ peers…you can use alternatives for every app iPhone has pre-installed on it…of course, except for the store and the OS itself…
 
Last edited:
Wow. Did not see that coming. Assumed
Chrome would stay with Google but this would be gone.

Now Apple, let me set Kagi as my default 🤣
 
Google hasn't had the "best" search engine in years, if, indeed they ever did. Their search results favor advertisers, and often return results that are not optimal, while also gathering personal data on the user for future marketing and manipulation.
 
cripping to shareholders maybe.

Non-exclusive in what sense? Isn't there already the option to change your default search engine? Or do they mean non-exclusive in the sense that other search engines are allowed to also pay 20B/year for consideration.
Apple could not offer alternative search engines. Just like someone who complained that Siri always defaults to google. Not anymore.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: HazeAndHahmahneez
I can’t imagine how or why the deal still exists. Seems really dumb on Googles part. They have the best search engine by a mile. If they stopped paying tomorrow, what’s Apple going to do? They’re not going to update all their customers’ default search engine to something worse.
Agreed, and it makes me think Google is getting more than just default search from Apple they must be getting something with a perceived value greater than $20B per year.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: jib2 and GioGiusi
Surely unrelated: Gemini incoming as an option as soon as possible, probably.

edit: if you want a good search engine and have an adult job and are willing to use a very small amount of that money to improve your web search experience, try Kagi.

It's like Google was in 2003 with some additional useful features and no bloat or bs.
$216/yr for searching? Okay, but no. We use Brave and google, no bloat, no ads and we party like it's 2003.
 
So... what exactly is the remedy for Google's illegal monopoly? Seems like they're set to get off with a slap on the wrist.
By the time the trial concluded, Google’s search share had been massively eroded by AI chatbots. The thing about monopolies is that while alternative vendors struggle to compete, the market responds to exploitation with obsolescence.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.