Google Allegedly Pays Apple Portion of Chrome Search Revenue as Part of Secretive Non-Compete Deal

[MacRumors]

Google allegedly pays Apple a portion of all search revenue from Chrome for iOS in what appears to be a non-compete deal, The Register reports.

According to a source said to be familiar with the matter who spoke to The Register, Google has been paying Apple a portion of search revenue generated by Chrome users on iOS in return for being the default search provider in Safari and other commercial benefits. The relationship between Apple and Google is an ongoing area of scrutiny for the U.S. Justice Department and the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which are apparently looking into the secretive search revenue sharing deal.

Google pays Apple around $15 billion annually to ensure that its search engine is the default option on Apple devices, but the latest news that Google is purportedly paying Apple for searches in Chrome for iOS as part of a search revenue sharing deal is a new development. The revenue sharing agreement is said to be known about in detail by only a small number of people. The amount Google is paying Apple and the wider terms of the deal have been redacted from CMA reports.

Apple does not provide any obvious value to users seeking to use Google Search within Google Chrome for iOS. As a result, the CMA is concerned that the payments are designed to discourage Apple from competing with Google with its own search engine, which would have major ramifications for Google's business model.

The arrangement was first alluded to publicly in an antitrust lawsuit filed on December 27, 2021 in San Francisco. In an amended PDF from March 2022 related to the lawsuit, the complaint alleges that Apple has been paid for the profits it would have made if it had competed with Google, minus the challenges and costs of actually doing so:

20. Because more than half of Google's search business was conducted through Apple devices, Apple was a major potential threat to Google, and that threat was designated by Google as "Code Red."
21. Google paid billions of dollars to Apple and agreed to share its profits with Apple to eliminate the threat and fear of Apple as a competitor.
22. Google viewed the aspect of Apple as a potential competitor to be "Code Red."
23. If Apple became a competitor in the search business, Google would have lost half of its business.

Apple and Google are seeking a dismissal for the case on account of lack of evidence of a horizontal agreement between the two companies, but the CMA's investigation now seems to suggest that such an agreement does exist.

This may explain why Apple has been reluctant to launch a rival search engine or develop Safari to the point of becoming a credible challenger to Chrome on macOS, according to The Register. Likewise, Google would be disincentivized from pushing Apple to allow a non-WebKit version of Chrome for iOS.

The result is a situation where Apple and Google see substantial benefits in maintaining each others' dominance. This division of the market is said to be "per se illegal" under U.S. antitrust laws and is likely to come under fire as more information emerges.

Article Link: Google Allegedly Pays Apple Portion of Chrome Search Revenue as Part of Secretive Non-Compete Deal

 

[supremedesigner]

I have been using duckduckgo for my personal devices and bing for my work computer.

I only will use Google for stackoverflow and css/html news.

 

[madmin]

if all long term Apple or Google users are paid a million each in compensation we can call it evens

 

[GMShadow]

The CMA’s behavior in the Microsoft-Activision purchase has shown them to be utter morons for sale to the highest bidder, so the question remains: who’s paying them to investigate this?

 

[icanhazmac]

Changing from Google to DuckDuckGo is one of the first things I do with any new device.

 

[reden]

Meanwhile Apple be acting like they care about your privacy while they take a payout from one of the most notorious privacy-invading companies 💅

 

[somnolentsurfer]

Chrome is a credible challenger to Safari on macOS?

 

[bradman83]

This may explain why Apple has been reluctant to launch a rival search engine or develop Safari to the point of becoming a credible challenger to Chrome on macOS

Safari is a credible challenger to Chrome though. I'm hard pressed to find features missing from Safari that are available in Chrome save for a larger extension ecosystem. I suspect most people use Chrome for its familiarity or because they want to more readily sync bookmarks/favorites/passwords with an existing Google account (or because they simply prefer it, much like why I use Firefox).

 

[sniffies]

This may explain why Apple has been reluctant to launch a rival search engine or develop Safari to the point of becoming a credible challenger to Chrome on macOS

Are you telling me Safari could've been even snappier??

 

[icanhazmac]

Meanwhile Apple be acting like they care about your privacy while they take a payout from one of the most notorious privacy-invading companies 💅

So what? Apple can't babysit every idiot that doesn't do the bare minimum to protect their privacy.

Let Google give them billions and people that care about privacy will change the default.

 

[FriendlyMackle]

Safari is a credible challenger to Chrome though. I'm hard pressed to find features missing from Safari that are available in Chrome save for a larger extension ecosystem. I suspect most people use Chrome for its familiarity or because they want to more readily sync bookmarks/favorites/passwords with an existing Google account (or because they simply prefer it, much like why I use Firefox).

I use Chrome on MacOS because of a browser extension which allows me to create multiple categories of web pages, name the category, and then save bookmarks with images to those categories. So, for instance, I have a work-category, where I keep all of my regularly-used work sites grouped, another for personal ‘serious’ like banking, health insurance; another for first-tier news; health; medical; research; etc. It’s really extremely useful.

I’m about to upgrade my mac, but on the old system I’m on (10.13) Safari doesn’t have any similar capabilities—has it improved?

 

[haemolysis]

These antitrust cases never have teeth. Watch them get a fine of thousands whilst the profits in question is $15 billion annually.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Another stupid waste of time. Breaking news. Two businesses have a business deal that benefits both.

 

[vegetassj4]

Goopple? Gapple? Alphapple? Applebet?

GappleGate!

 

[breather]

I hope Apple creates a search engine and become a serious competitor with Google in the search space.
Google almost has a monopoly, that's not good.

Sure, google is a pretty good search engine and I use it frequently but they need serious competition. Competition fosters inovation and we the users will only gain from that.

Also, there's this whole thing with privacy and I don't trust Google in that area.

 

[cateye]

I always enjoy the virtue signaling in threads like this, like anyone cares what search engine or browser you use. Non-story about two trillion dollar companies putting themselves ahead of their users. Quelle surprise.

Corporations are not your friend, no matter what their maudlin marketing tells you. At least Google doesn’t pretend to be something it isn’t.

 

[DeLaSoul]

Apple should build a search AI and call it DalAI Lama

 

[DarelRex]

"23. If Apple became a competitor in the search business, Google would have lost half of its business."

That would be true only if Apple cut off the Google search engine and forced all Apple users to use Apple's search engine instead. Can't see Apple ever doing that, even if it made its own search engine to compete with Google's.

 

[Doomtomb]

Switching to these guys on iOS today

 

[FlyingDutch]

Changing from Google to DuckDuckGo is one of the first things I do with any new device.

I’d like to do that, but it’s just not on the same level of precision in every search

 

[Doomtomb]

"23. If Apple became a competitor in the search business, Google would have lost half of its business."

That would be true only if Apple cut off the Google search engine and forced all Apple users to use Apple's search engine instead. Can't see Apple ever doing that, even if it made its own search engine to compete with Google's.

Are you kidding me? Of course Safari would default to Apple's own search engine. This is APPLE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

 

[FlyingDutch]

"23. If Apple became a competitor in the search business, Google would have lost half of its business."

That would be true only if Apple cut off the Google search engine and forced all Apple users to use Apple's search engine instead. Can't see Apple ever doing that, even if it made its own search engine to compete with Google's.

Apple doesn’t need to “force” anyone. Just give me an Apple alternative to Google and I will switch immediately

 

[webkit]

By Apple having made Google the default search on Safari, they've been essentially endorsing use of Google, helping them maintain heir search dominance and making a lot of money off of Google's tracking activities which Apple has claimed to largely be opposed to.

Apple could've made a very bold statement against Google's privacy and tracking activities by going with a more privacy-friendly search engine (like DuckDuckGo) as the default.

 

[ddtmm]

Google is essentially paying Apple $15B to not develop their own search engine. Given the performance of Siri I'm not sure I would be using an Apple search engine anytime soon, at least not for a lot of years to come. Not exactly their strongest development skill.

 

[bluecoast]

View attachment 2160082
Switching to these guys on iOS today

I did that a few years ago. It's not quite as good as Google, but it's very good.

Best of all, it's more like the Google of 5-10 years ago, where it just tried to find you pages relevant to your search rather than all of the other crap that Google puts on the search result pages now.