Again Google payed a percentage of they money they were making. They didn't upfront write a 20 billion check.
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.
Google and Apple's Search Engine Deal Violates Antitrust Law
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can you help me understand what you mean by that? Were Apple paying a share of all the advertising revenue they were making from Apple users and that it was a fixed percentage and it just steadily flowed into Apple's accounts?
Or was it a yearly fee of $20 billion?
Also I don't understand what the relevance of it is in this instance.
Not so many "DoJ has no clue about the tech industry" in this thread. DoJ must, according to MR members, be much more competent than EU regarding these matters. /S
Google can tell what search traffic came from iOS. Of all the revenue generated from that activity, they pay a share of it to Apple.
So it’s easy to see how Apple could have a similar arrangement with Bing, or DDG.
Its explained online. Google was paying apple a percentage of the revenue they were making.
There was no fixed fee, the 20 billion number was confirmed in a trial(that's why its mentioned left and right), so there are years when Google payed more and years when it payed less, based of how big their revenue was.
Its relevant because you act like Google had a deal to pay apple 20 billion dollars. Paying a percentage of the money you make is not the same as paying upfront a fixed sum.
$20 Billion straight off the bottom profit line (as Apple doesn't have to research, develop or sell any product or service for the revenue) is going to be felt, even at Apple. It certainly will be felt on the share price if this revenue is intimately blocked!
AI (well its not AI, its Machine Learning, but different issue), uses Search Engines.
I think Google will have a easier time defending itself than Apple as Google has been open source for most of its offering, it hasn't tried to block competition or actively tried to close its ecosystems like Apple has. It's merely been better than the competition, Google had heavy competition early on from the likes of Yahoo, AOL and then Microsoft efforts like Bing. It was just, and is, better.
I can see within a few years, when you first start up an iPhone or iPad, you will be asked what search engine and web browser will be your default.
I agree, this will be mandatory for ALL mobile phones. But it was also ask what Payment Provider you want (Apple Pay, Google Pay etc.), what AI provider (ChatGPT etc) and what app store (this will follow a little later)
I was thinking about this yesterday. At his level it's both insider trading and market manipulation. Kind of hard not to do both. He is clearly well connected and obviously heard this coming. Even without foreknowledge, selling that much Apple stock has an effect on the market all by itself. As people pointed out then, simply selling it off causes its price to drop and he can then just buy back at a lower price. I'm no economist but that sounds like essentially free money at everyone else's expense.
Don't worry, Microsoft has already figured a way around this. Sure, bombard the user with lots of choice up front, even for the competitor's products. No problem.
Microsoft will just bug the **** out of you to switch for every single day afterward, every single time you try to get something done.
Also they will confront the user with a full screen takeover to consent to consuming all the data from Google Chrome. On by default of course, worded in such a way that it strongly implies that you will lose your "data" if you don't agree.
This is the problem with these governmental regulatory decisions. They fine the companies and pat themselves on the back and walk away. They don't address the real, systemic problems.
Its 20B a year or 5B a quarter, but I mixed a couple things up, but it is about 20% of their service revenue.
Its not a monopoly I agree, however it is Gatekeeping to enforce users to stay within a tech ecosystem, which Apple is definitely guilty of compared to Google and Samsung.
Obviously there are no icloud apps, apple watch apps, etc for Samsung/Android (you can use Google Drive and Samsung/Google watches on ios no problem, Google and Sumsung provide ios apps for their consumers), but Apple not developing a iOS parental control app for Android IS criminal in my view. Child safety comes before profit Apple
So........Google is being deemed monopolistic bc they have 90% market share in search and are paying apple to be the default search engine in ordered to have/keep that 90% market share.....
Since bing has less than 10% market share in search, can Microsoft now come in and pay apple $20 billion dollars a year to be the default????
Since bing has less than 10% market share in search, can Microsoft now come in and pay apple $20 billion dollars a year to be the default????
I suspect that’s exactly what would happen if Google can no longer bid to be the default.
We’re not really talking about an upfront user choice, we’re talking about what is set as the default.
Anyone financially savvy know where the $20B shows up in Apple's financial report? In the "Other Income" line?
Yes, theoretically anyone could step in but Bing's overall revenue model is much more like Google's (compared to DDG, for example) and would be Apple's preferred choice from a money making standpoint. As such, I don't think Microsoft would feel the need to pay at the level (dollars/percentage of search revenue) that Google was since no other company would realistically be in the running.
A lot of this will depend on how the court rules regarding remedies, how any appeals play out, etc.
That will depend on how the court rules regarding remedies, how appeals play out, etc. However, I don't think Microsoft/Bing would feel the need to pay at the level that Google was since no other company would realistically be in the running to "bid" against them. Bing, because of its similar search revenue model to Google, would be the much preferred choice for Apple from a money-making standpoint but the money presumably still wouldn’t be as high as it was with Google.
Unless Microsoft is sitting there right now, licking their chops with a legitimate chance to seriously take some market share from google..... Assuming it's just google that's barred from making this sort of payment to apple that is.
There has long been speculation that the agreement was about more than just being the default search. For example, was part of the payment so Apple wouldn't create its own search engine to compete with Google? Was part of it so Apple wouldn't offer Safari on Windows and Android to compete with Chrome on those platforms?
None of this has been proven, however.