Google and Apple's Search Engine Deal Violates Antitrust Law

[I7guy]

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.

I’ll bet if the default was bing people would quickly figure out how to change the default to google.

 

[mrochester]

I’ll bet if the default was bing people would quickly figure out how to change the default to google.

Most people wouldn’t bother as they’d probably see no difference.

 

[webkit]

That's why this is so good for google and bad for apple.

It's bad for Google because they no longer get to be the coveted pre-set search default and "block" competitors. It's bad for Apple for financial reasons.

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.

Possibly, but it will depend on the court remedies. The court could make it illegal for "dominant" or "monopoly" search companies like Google but still ok for others with far less market power/control like Bing.

Also, since this is a U.S. case, whatever is decided may only apply to the U.S. market. Google may still be allowed to pay to be the pre-set default in some countries outside the U.S.

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.

The case wasn't just about Google and Apple. It also included other companies that had financial search default agreements with Google e.g., Mozilla and Samsung.

 

[mrochester]

It's bad for Google because they no longer get to be the coveted pre-set search default and "block" competitors. It's bad for Apple for financial reasons.




Possibly, but it will depend on the court remedies. The court could make it illegal for "dominant" or "monopoly" search companies like Google but still ok for others with far less market power/control like Bing.

Also, since this is a U.S. case, whatever is decided may only apply to the U.S. market. Google may still be allowed to pay to be the pre-set default in some countries outside the U.S.




The case wasn't just about Google and Apple. It also included other companies that had financial search default agreements with Google e.g., Mozilla and Samsung.

And only Google is the defendant, so any remedy would impact Google only.

Apple, Microsoft, DDG, Mozilla and Samsung would still be free to enter revenue share agreements with each other.

 

[webkit]

Most people wouldn’t bother as they’d probably see no difference.

Which is one of the reasons why being the pre-set search default is so important and Google was willing to pay significant money for it.

 

[mrochester]

Which is one of the reasons why being the pre-set search default is so important and Google was willing to pay significant money for it.

Exactly. Which is fine when you are a small player that doesn’t monopolise the market. But as we see time and time again, the rules are different when you are a big player like Google.

 

[Graphate]

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.

Then you’re right if you separate a single Google search from the rest of Google, then Google receives very little information about you. I suppose at best from that position they’d be limited to aggregating against other similar located IPs and searches.

But I am not convinced we live in that world. I think in the world we live… when you search, your search is aggregated with your own data already collected from other searches you’ve done, other services you use, and other websites Google has seen you visit. That’s how they target ads so well, and that might be why people think Google is listening to their conversations.

 

[hieranonymous]

Google isn't paying for all traffic from "Apple devices", it's paying specifically for traffic from Safari. Safari only has around 18% to 20% share of the global browser market.

Google also pays Apple a cut of Chrome revenue on iOS.

 

[MacBH928]

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.

I see your point, but my point is I think Microsoft is no longer interested in the search business. Thats why they won't be bidding on it. I think they gave it up just as much as they gave up on the Windows phone. I think the only reason they remain because there are other search engines that pays them to use their index of which:

DDG, Qwant, Ecosia, Yahoo

Google was the best. But is Google still the best because it paid to eliminate rivals or because it innovated?

I can confirm that Google is still the best when it comes to finding things online. I use multiple search engine and there is no need to use any other service. Everyone will have to go back to Google at some point.

As for features, appearance, and privacy, there are better options out there.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It's clear the goal of governments is to get rid of technology companies

No - they're merely increasingly taking action (and enacting legislation) against monopolies of big tech companies.

Major difference.

 

[Abazigal]

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.

Which doesn’t make sense.

Apple loves money, but they are not blind to what makes them that money in the first place - the user experience.

Can you imagine the uproar if Apple were to make Bing or even Yahoo search the default search engine in safari, knowing that it is immensely inferior and less popular to google search? And any other search engine may be made default except for google search?

I suspect this is chiefly why we haven’t really heard any blowback to this deal. People don’t hate google search, and Apple isn’t really forcing anything on them that they don’t want.

They don’t hate the deal. They just salivate at the prospect of Apple getting $20 billion less a year, thinking it adds another notch to their “Apple is doomed” cap. That’s really all there is to it.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple loves money, but they are not blind to what makes them that money in the first place - the user experience.
(...)

I suspect this is chiefly why we haven’t really heard any blowback to this deal. People don’t hate google search, and Apple isn’t really forcing anything on them that they don’t want.

If Google is so great and (most) people would only want to use them anyway, why are they paying Apple many billions every year to be the default?

It doesn't make sense.

 

[webkit]

Google also pays Apple a cut of Chrome revenue on iOS.

That was in a report but was it proven to be accurate? Is that why there were redactions?

Besides, it only references iOS, there’s also macOS with various browsers beside Safari, etc. You stated that 60% of Google traffic comes from Apple devices. What is the data that supports that?

 

[Undo]

Is Bing still the default search engine for ChatGPT?…

“ChatGPT is, in theory, using Bing to search the web, but when I tested it, the top sites actually seemed to be from the first page of Google and not Bing.”—Zapier.

If so, and if Apple still plans on incorporating ChatGPT into Apple Intelligence, would this end Google’s deal with Apple anyway?

 

[macfacts]

This seems a clear-cut case to me.

Google Search is CLEARLY a monopoly, unlike Apple. And Google paying providers to default their browser is easy to see as anticompetitive.

Google is a problem. I've really become aware of how they are stealing website content from the sites they scrape. Those first page results that Google posts now when you do a search is pure theft of content from web sites and content creators. That's radically anticompetitive, and I'm surprise more people aren't up in arms about this.

It's called "fair use", and isn't illegal.

 

[Abazigal]

If Google is so great and (most) people would only want to use them anyway, why are they paying Apple many billions every year to be the default?

It doesn't make sense.

My personal theory is that back when Apple removed Google maps from the iPhone in iOS 6 and replaced it with their own maps app, Google never really recovered from the fallout. Every Maps user is somebody who isn’t using Google maps (and earning Google that much less money).

Perhaps the experience was so traumatic that Google decided henceforth that they would rather acquiesce to whatever terms Apple demanded, than risk “screwing around and finding out”.

Perhaps it’s the fear of the unknown more than anything else driving Google’s actions here.

 

[Graphate]

[…]
I can confirm that Google is still the best when it comes to finding things online. I use multiple search engine and there is no need to use any other service. Everyone will have to go back to Google at some point.
[…]

Exactly, but the question was “why” are they still the best? Looks like the above case is the answer.

I am eager to see if this ruling means there is air to breathe for potential rivals, and we can get a good search engine.

 

[mrochester]

Which doesn’t make sense.

Apple loves money, but they are not blind to what makes them that money in the first place - the user experience.

Can you imagine the uproar if Apple were to make Bing or even Yahoo search the default search engine in safari, knowing that it is immensely inferior and less popular to google search? And any other search engine may be made default except for google search?

I suspect this is chiefly why we haven’t really heard any blowback to this deal. People don’t hate google search, and Apple isn’t really forcing anything on them that they don’t want.

They don’t hate the deal. They just salivate at the prospect of Apple getting $20 billion less a year, thinking it adds another notch to their “Apple is doomed” cap. That’s really all there is to it.

I don’t think most people would even notice if the default search engine changed to Bing.

 

[Abazigal]

I don’t think most people would even notice if the default search engine changed to Bing.

I would. I default to DDG, but there are times when I do revert back to Google search when I can’t locate a particular search result.

 

[mrochester]

I would. I default to DDG, but there are times when I do revert back to Google search when I can’t locate a particular search result.

I wasn’t talking about you I was talking about most people.

 

[adib]

How is renouncing the majority of the market evidence of a monopoly?

Because many iOS apps' network storage locations are locked to iCloud Drive; it's more difficult to use iCloud Drive from other platforms.

Unlike, say for example, iCloud e-mail.

 

[mrochester]

Because many iOS apps' network storage locations are locked to iCloud Drive; it's more difficult to use iCloud Drive from other platforms.

Unlike, say for example, iCloud e-mail.

Do the app developers not have control over the network storage location?

 

[MacBH928]

If Google is so great and (most) people would only want to use them anyway, why are they paying Apple many billions every year to be the default?

It doesn't make sense.

Google feeds on the user base data, if they are gone they will lose big time and Google doesn't want to let them know there are other options. I once saw someone call Android tablet "Windows" . The average public will not know the difference.

It's called "fair use", and isn't illegal.

I disagree. When someone works hard to put a site together and Google slaps the required information on the front page avoiding the source altogether it hurts the original creator financially (if he makes money from it) and his creative rights.

albeit I have to confess, I love AI answers!

Exactly, but the question was “why” are they still the best? Looks like the above case is the answer.

I am eager to see if this ruling means there is air to breathe for potential rivals, and we can get a good search engine.

Once a guy who works in the search business told me to have a search engine on par of Google you need something like $300 million. No one is willing to put that much to rival Google especially when they have no way to monetize it except via ads which will not give anyone any reason to switch from Google.

If you didn't know, there is about only 6 real search engines on the internet:

1-Yandex (supbar but usable)
2-Brave (supbar but usable)
3-Mojeek (bad)
4-Google
5-Bing
6-Yep (work in progress as it seems)
7-stract (not usable)

everyone else is middle man for one or mix of these services.

 

[macfacts]

Google never really recovered from the fallout. Every Maps user is somebody who isn’t using Google maps (and earning Google that much less money).

Hint: google doesn't get paid when people view ads, they get paid when companies pay google to show ads.

 

[Abazigal]

Hint: google doesn't get paid when people view ads, they get paid when companies pay google to show ads.

And the prices that Google commands for ads is surely contingent on the assumption that people actually view and interact with them. Otherwise, what's the point of paying so much if advertisers are not getting the desired ROI on them?

This is why I feel that it was ultimately a strategic error on Google's part to try and withhold maps data from Apple in a bid to give Android an advantage. They should have agreed to whatever terms Apple wanted in order to remain the preinstalled default on all iOS devices, rather than be forced to compete with Apple's own mapping solution (which as the advantage of being the preinstalled default).