I very much disagree. Not that Apple would've let Safari rot on the vine but without $20 billion or so in annual revenue from the default search agreement, there is not nearly the incentive or business justification to spend as much on the browser. Google gave Apple 20 billion reasons to spend more on Safari than they would've otherwise.
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
I very much disagree. Not that Apple would've let Safari rot on the vine but without $20 billion or so in annual revenue from the default search agreement, there is not nearly the incentive or business justification to spend as much on the browser. Google gave Apple 20 billion reasons to spend more on Safari than they would've otherwise.
Microsoft had reportedly tried to negotiate several times to get Bing as the default on Safari, only to be "outbid" by Google. If Google isn't going to be in the default search picture anymore, I don't see why MS wouldn't want the coveted pre-set default position on Safari for themselves especially if it can be had for a lot less than they were having/willing to pay in the past.
You’re right, Google was paying a lot of money for a reason.
And the anticompetitive portion is that Google, an already dominant engine paid to stay in that position. That kept rivals from that greater than $20/user income. It’s that Google left no air for a better rival to reach Joe Default Apple User.
Google was the best. But is Google still the best because it paid to eliminate rivals or because it innovated?
This is a net benefit for google and a net loss for apple.
It's probably true that when presented with a choice; people would choose google anyway. But that's not what they're paying for here.
Apple effectively is auctioning off the rights to be the default to whoever is the higest bidder. They're not partnering with google because apple thinks Google is the best for their users.
If MS offered 25B today; then google's going to have to think hard about ponying up some more money because apple wouldn't say no to 5B even if it believed user experience will detriment.
This lawsuit stops anyone from bidding; not just google. So google saves themselves 20B and are safe in knowing that MS can't come in and bid to be the default. And as shown by search engine statistics everywhere; when given a choice the majority still pick google
It's probably true that when presented with a choice; people would choose google anyway. But that's not what they're paying for here.
Apple effectively is auctioning off the rights to be the default to whoever is the higest bidder. They're not partnering with google because apple thinks Google is the best for their users.
If MS offered 25B today; then google's going to have to think hard about ponying up some more money because apple wouldn't say no to 5B even if it believed user experience will detriment.
This lawsuit stops anyone from bidding; not just google. So google saves themselves 20B and are safe in knowing that MS can't come in and bid to be the default. And as shown by search engine statistics everywhere; when given a choice the majority still pick google
That's why this is so good for google and bad for apple.
Google is forced to outbid MS. But if this lawsuit wins out; then MS bidding is equally illegal. Therefore people won't be presented with a default; and google gets what they get today but for free.
While this current lawsuit is specifically about apple/google. If it passes; it'd be just as applicable to anyone else. it's not an opening for bing to come onboard.
I doubt any remedy would prevent Apple and Microsoft from making a business deal. Neither are party to the lawsuit.
Exactly. Sort out the legal issues. How many are perfectly content with google as their search engine, as you indicated. Ok, bad. Pay the fine. Move on.
Why wouldn't it though? Microsoft aren't immune from the same laws that google are violating. And worse yet a precedence is being set; which'll just streamline the lawsuit.
Microsoft hasn’t been found to be a monopolist in the search engine market, that’s why. The laws apply to Google because they are a monopolist. They won’t apply to Microsoft or Apple because they are not. The remedy will apply to Google because they have been found guilty of breaking the law. The remedy wont apply to Apple or Microsoft because they haven’t even been on trial never mind found guilty of anything.
We’re talking about what is the default search engine, not what other options are available.
So is the problem that Google paid to be the default search engine, or is the problem that users are apparently too lazy to switch search engines on their own? It’s not like Apple is making it so you can only use google search and no other options are available.
The difference is that the EU made a specific regulation to go after Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook and others in these areas. The US has to rely on the Sherman Act from the 1890ties and court cases in the last 130 years.
In the US, you can't have a monopoly on your own product, except in some exceptional cases, which makes it very hard to get the relevant market to be app stores for a specific product.
The problem is specifically Google paying to be the default, because they are a monopolist. There shouldn’t be any issue with another search engine paying to be the default, because no other search engine is a monopolist.
And that’s one of the best ways to make money: legally profiting from illegal activities.
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence in medical journals (monthly periodicals)(I occasionally read them when at the doctors or when at the hospital) from experts in psychology that have done studies on the behavior of the human mind with regards to things that are set as default. In their conclusion many people do not change from default because they put their trust in a company that set the default option because it is the person's belief that the company would make sure that only the best is made available to it's customers. It was said a huge majority of people have a hard time understanding that a company would offer something bad to it's customers for profit.
What many in this thread and this forum fail to realize and understand is that a huge majority of the worlds population do not understand technology. They just want to use it and get on with their lives. They do not care how the technology works, they just need it to work straight out of the box.
In the context of what is being debated in this thread, the word 'Lazy' should be reserved and associated towards those who know what they are doing when it comes to technology but does nothing about it. If someone knows other browsers exist and does nothing then yes that is being lazy on their part.
I've got many family members and friends who have iphones and who have no idea the amount of things you can do with it. I work with technology so I am the one that tends to get asked a lot of questions on how to do things when something does not work. All they want to do is be able to make phone calls, text other family members and their friends, use the camera, use's app such as whatsapp, tiktok, instagram, facebook and how to listen to music and that's it. The reason they have iphones is so they can use imessage because that is what the majority of my family use to text message one another. When I and other tech savy family members tell the non-tech ones that they can do this and can do that with their iphone, change this and install that, they are not interested. They tell us techy family members to leave their iphones alone and not mess with them because they are happy with how it is (default).
There are billions of people around the world who have the same mindset and THIS is what the likes of Google and Microsoft and others want to tap into when they want to become the default of something because they know there are people out there that just like to keep things the way they are.
What many in this thread and this forum fail to realize and understand is that a huge majority of the worlds population do not understand technology. They just want to use it and get on with their lives. They do not care how the technology works, they just need it to work straight out of the box.
In the context of what is being debated in this thread, the word 'Lazy' should be reserved and associated towards those who know what they are doing when it comes to technology but does nothing about it. If someone knows other browsers exist and does nothing then yes that is being lazy on their part.
I've got many family members and friends who have iphones and who have no idea the amount of things you can do with it. I work with technology so I am the one that tends to get asked a lot of questions on how to do things when something does not work. All they want to do is be able to make phone calls, text other family members and their friends, use the camera, use's app such as whatsapp, tiktok, instagram, facebook and how to listen to music and that's it. The reason they have iphones is so they can use imessage because that is what the majority of my family use to text message one another. When I and other tech savy family members tell the non-tech ones that they can do this and can do that with their iphone, change this and install that, they are not interested. They tell us techy family members to leave their iphones alone and not mess with them because they are happy with how it is (default).
There are billions of people around the world who have the same mindset and THIS is what the likes of Google and Microsoft and others want to tap into when they want to become the default of something because they know there are people out there that just like to keep things the way they are.
Apple has never claimed Google steals user's info.
There is no info about you being shared with Google when you use search unless you put it into the search term.
All Google can get is IP address, browser type, operating system and other technical information the browser sends to the webserver.
Apple could just choose Google Search as a default without any agreement or compensation from Google.
Unless you think the judge will order Google to actively block Safari.
They could do, but if Microsoft can pay them money and Google cannot, you can bet Apple will go with Microsoft.
The court has only found Google guilty of being a monopoly in two areas. No agreement has been found to illegal yet.
The court might invalidate agreements Google has with Apple, Firefox, Samsung and other parties, but those parties are free to enter into agreements with other parties or even just have Google search as a default without any agreement.
Unless you believe the judge will force Google to actively stop Safari from using their Google Search.
Legally it doesn't matter. Even though Firefox is an enabler also, the judge can't do anything to Apple, Firefox, Microsoft, Samsung or other companies since they're not part of the case.
The court only has power over Google (Alphabet).
And the websites you visit… if they use google services. And the emails you receive if you use google services. And…
Apple was paid a percentage of the net revenue Google made from showing ads to Apple users.
Example:
Advertisers: -100%
Google: +70%
Apple: +30%
We don't know the exact percentage or all the details of the agreement.
It wasn't a fixed amount.
We're only talking about using the default search option within Safari here.
If you're using Google services (or communicating with people who use Google services) outside the default search option of Safari, of course Google can collect other information.
The search itself gives Google very little information about you as a person and it's very hard for them to connect that info to a physical person.