Nope.
You seem to be conflating privacy and search together. I'm talking about the pure search function.
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 Appeals Antitrust Ruling, Says Apple Chose Its Search Engine 'Fair and Square'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You seem to be conflating privacy and search together. I'm talking about the pure search function.
There's always a choice. I use Duck Duck Go with Edge at work. Works plenty fine. I refuse to use Google anything.
Abazigal
Contributor
Kagi isn't entirely a bed of roses either.
nileane.fr
Niléane (@nileane@nileane.fr)
people be praising kagi in my timeline today, meanwhile I'm over here reminiscing that time when their ceo went ******* crazy on me and got his discord goons to insult me just because I called them out for working with Brave since it's ran by a notorious anti-gay activist
nileane.fr
Yup, combining them. That is what I meant, for my needs. Good search engine no good if engineer spies on me.
that's not what I was talking about. seems like you're talking about something else.
I guess it's the exchange of monies that is the issue.
Other than that, it's a pretty easy argument to make that Google Search is best in class.
Other than that, it's a pretty easy argument to make that Google Search is best in class.
CapitalIdea
Suspended
While I understand your argument, I still wonder why you had the original complaint about a paid service not being included in the list of native search engine choices. I’m no Google apologist as I think these days they are basically tools of Beezelbub, but I do think in this instance they were probably legally in the clear and technically superior.
This particular lawsuit gives me shades of the proposed one where OpenAI may sue because Genimi’s model was chosen over theirs for Siri. At the end of the day, Apple shouldn’t be forced to entertain subpar partners simply for the sake of subsiding “fairness.” Some businesses deserve to fail (including, in time, Google).
And, there’s nothing that prevents anyone from being better than Google. Come up with a vision, get some funding, put it into action. Unfortunately for those that want different, there’s no one with the funding to do so that sees a viable business in making anything better. In fact, for years before now, anyone that COULD challenge Google would simply go with Google instead of making their own.
This lack of ambition is definitely to Google’s benefit, but “they have an illegal monopoly because no one wants to TRY to beat them” is not what the legal definition of illegal monopoly used to mean in the US.
And this is what the whole App Store thing is about. No one is forced to do business with Apple, Apple shouldn’t be forced to do business with any company they don’t want to do business with. Any organization that doesn’t like the terms offered them in a business agreement should be free to reject those terms, even if the organization has a fruit for a logo.
Apple exists because their only option to exist as a company was to “be something a sufficiently profitable segment of the marketplace wants to buy.” The only way something better than Apple, Google, any other current market leading company will rise to be the next market leading company is if they have no option other than “make/be what people want”.
That's a fair point, and perhaps I was kind of making two arguments at the same time and muddying the waters. However, I see no issue with Apple allowing users to choose from any search engine, including paid ones. Why not have no default and ask the user during initial iOS setup? Why not open up the opportunity for any search engine to be selected, not just a preselected list? (this is definitely technically feasible)
Ultimately you might be right that they're in the clear legally, but I think there is something to be said about the fact that the big players are (in my opinion) not doing enough to level the playing field. Apple and Google are more than happy to be part of a duopoly as they cater to slightly different demographics and it's good for both companies that the other doesn't fail as it provides an illusion of choice between two big OS platforms. On a related topic, I think most (but not all) EU mandates have given end users more value out of their devices.
All of my tech devices are Apple, I like the stability and quality they provide and I can see myself buying more in the future. But I don't think Apple or Google are beyond reproach and we should fight for more fairness and competition in the tech world as it only benefits us as consumers ultimately.
CapitalIdea
Suspended
We’re definitely in agreement on most fronts. I’m just thinking of the fringe cases where paid search engines are available as a selectable setting, and then somebody chooses one and gets upset that they’re asked for money and start complaining and blaming Apple for that. Or even worse, trying to sue as people seem to be ready to do at the drop of a hat whenever it rains.
My other worry is that eventually anybody and their mother will set up a competing search engine because even a fragment of Apple’s massive user base may select them. Suddenly upon startup you have to select from among 30, 40, 50 maybe even 100 search engines.
The devil is always in the details and the execution. Imagine there is a list of say, 35 distinct search engines, but there’s a section of a top five or six that people tend to go with as major defaults. In that scenario, people can conveniently choose what they wish but they don’t have to navigate through a yellow pages of nonsense to get to it. However, then you’ll have people complaining that they are not featured because they are not big enough to be in this top list even though that list is a set of contenders that earned their spots through providing what people liked. So what’s the solution? Make it more of an inconvenience for the user for the sake of “fairness“ or open the door to yet another lawsuit?
Remember Elon Musk had already tried to complain because Grok is not successful enough, and Apple isn’t trying to go out of the way to provide him traction by falsely placing his app in a list of top downloads. If a man like that can claim to be a poor downtrodden underdog, where does it really end?
In short, the whole thing is a mess.
For sure! Thanks for the measured response, I appreciate hearing your perspective. My thinking was that another way it could work is similar to how you can install Safari add-ons from the App Store. Keep a couple of the most popular options built-in (as they are now), but allow tech-savvy users to add new options...
One other point that springs to mind is that with the advent of AI chat-bots, (anecdotally) many people seem to be switching to using them as a general "knowledge base" and aren't even bothering to open Google up anymore. Wouldn't be surprised if search engines become a more niche technology in the future, which doesn't feel right to me but certainly seems like what Google would prefer we all do... Given their recent redesign of the search bar and pushing AI overview...
CapitalIdea
Suspended
100% that would be nice but as you mention, this transition period may make the entire debate moot as it does appear that search engines are destined to be a more niche mechanism. Naturally, someone will complain during the process of people moving away from legacy portals to the chatbots if they aren’t chosen, even if they have every advantage, simply due to this misplaced (and frankly maladjusted) belief that they are destined to have success.
Part of me wants a lot of these mega firms to simply implode, similar to the 90s bubble that allowed actual companies with a plan and product to pick up the useful wreckage and build something aside from a circular purchasing club. It would be ugly, but I wouldn’t mind a few more mindful characters take over rather than the gross Sam Altman and Sergei Brin creatures.
My biggest fear in this was if the DOJ forced Google not to be the default search engine for Apple products, then the big loser will be Apple. But I'm glad that didn't happen.
Exclusivity is wrong, but default is okay.
On any new Apple product, I immediately switch to DDG. It maybe not as good as Google for search but I don't want Google to have my search history.
At work on PCs I use Google or Bing. Whatever is forced down my throat. But it is not personal data so I don't care.
Exclusivity is wrong, but default is okay.
On any new Apple product, I immediately switch to DDG. It maybe not as good as Google for search but I don't want Google to have my search history.
At work on PCs I use Google or Bing. Whatever is forced down my throat. But it is not personal data so I don't care.
AppliedMicro
macrumors 68040
A coupon is a rebate.
Not paying someone to eat the burger you’re offering for free.
Your analogy falls flat.
Exactly. Which is why - considering they’re offering it for free and the largest market share by fair - they don’t need to pay Apple billions to make it a default. Unless they’re anticompetitively trying to shut out others and prevent them competing.
They shouldn’t be punished for offering a better product - and they aren’t.
They’re being punished from shutting down competition by paying others off.
AppliedMicro
macrumors 68040
Nuno Lopes
macrumors 65816
At the end of the day, Apple shouldn’t be forced to entertain weaker companies purely in the name of “fairness.” Markets are competitive by nature, and some companies fail. That’s normal and even healthy.
But the discussion becomes intellectually dishonest when words like “subsidizing” and “fairness” are selectively redefined depending on who benefits.
We’re told forcing Apple to open parts of its ecosystem is “subsidizing competitors.” Fine. But then what do we call a system where some multinational corporations and their "owners" can aggressively minimize taxes, shape regulation through lobbying, and operate with a level of legal insulation unavailable to smaller businesses or ordinary citizens?
Justice Department agrees to drop any pending tax claims against Trump as part of IRS deal
The addendum comes a day after the Justice Department announced that Trump and his co-plaintiffs would drop their $10 billion suit against the IRS.
www.nbcnews.com
Who is subsidizing whom?
If taxpayers absorb the burden while ultra rich and mega corps optimize around it, that’s also a form of subsidy, just one we’ve normalized.
The real issue is not whether Apple is successful. It’s whether the rules are applied consistently across the spectrum in a way accessible. Because “free market fairness” loses credibility when competition and ownership is negotiable for smaller players but strict for the most powerful ones.
At some point, defending one's dividends over their own successful innovations quietly turns into defending concentrated power itself. That is what is happening in the US in my view. Resulting in a more fragile democracy and citizenship.
Food for thought.
Last edited:
You had written:
I am saying, you can’t quantify “better search than …”. You could say “In my experience with search engines, there has been no product with a search function better than Google” and I would not contest that.
I switched all my devices to DDGo last year. In my experience so far, it has been practically as good with searches as Google had been. But I have found DDGo’s privacy protection vastly superior to Google’s.
The fact that Apple does not give DDG default search engine privileges says everything about Apple’s true commitment to privacy. Google7 rewards them with $20B annually! For Apple, $$$ comes first, privacy is second. This priority also dictates the fights they pick withe EUC when it comes to complying with the GDP and DMA. And whenever I check tbe cookies planted via Safari despite my active setting “Block all Cookies”, I see yet another piece of evidence for Apple’s privacy hypocrisy.
P.S.
When it comes to the quality of the search function tested with the query “What is the best German beer?”, I do have an issue with both engines:
DuckDuckGo
Some of the best German beers include Weihenstephaner Hefeweissbier Hell, Erdinger Weissbier, and Augustiner Helles. …
The 5 Essential German Beer Styles & Top Picks
1. Hefeweizen (Wheat Beer)
• Weihenstephaner Hefeweissbier: Universally considered the gold standard of wheat beers. ….
• Schneider Weisse: Known for slightly richer, bready, and intensely aromatic wheat beers.
The best German beer without doubt is Bitburger Pils. You can get it in the US. I do know the beers Google and DDG picked … there is no comparison. I can’t quantify my finding but I had plenty of quantity to qualify it albeit subjectively. I should mention that I grew up in Gerolstein which is about a 30 minute drive away from Bitburg where the brewery is.
😊
Not a fan of Google and I do not use their search engine normally.
I do think that paying Apple to be the default is okay (SOMEONE has to be the default) as long as it is easy to change, and it is.
Google is a very strong product.
I think AI has entered the fray and everyone, even including Google, is going to have to live with it. You don’t get to throw them out just because times have changed during appeal. If you had complied in the first place (right or wrong), you would not be in this mess today. Dragging out the fight can have downsides.
I do think that paying Apple to be the default is okay (SOMEONE has to be the default) as long as it is easy to change, and it is.
Google is a very strong product.
I think AI has entered the fray and everyone, even including Google, is going to have to live with it. You don’t get to throw them out just because times have changed during appeal. If you had complied in the first place (right or wrong), you would not be in this mess today. Dragging out the fight can have downsides.
Black_Mage
Contributor
The fact that Apple allows us to change the default search engine really makes this a nothing burger. I use DuckDuckGo.
AppliedMicro
macrumors 68040
No one has to be a default. Default setting can be randomised, there can be a selection. Or a prompt to enter the URL/Name of your favourite search engine.
It’s not about you or us users being able to change the default at all. Many users do not change default settings. Even less so when the default is the external services with the highest market share already. It’s about Google cementing its monopoly - and others, users and businesses (for visibility and advertising) depending on it.
Google remains free to innovate and improve its search service (and spending those 20bn on it annually).
But with having monopoly power, they shouldn’t spend those 20bn just to discourage use/offering of competing services.
ThunderSkunk
macrumors 601
just another sleazy company running on “but we have enough money that laws & constitution shouldn’t apply to us”. Littlesnitch blocks in place since 2018.
DDG works.
DDG works.
Last edited:
P.S. search engine accuracy is objectively quantifiable https://www.researchgate.net/figure...1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19