Apple as a company is coming out to be more and more pathetic with every passing day. So much money and they are still penny pinching loyal customers with base storage and ram sizes.
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 Paid Apple $20 Billion in 2022 to Be Default Safari Search Engine
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Interesting that your expectation is that the search engine itself gives you the answer as opposed to links to relevant websites.
I’d expect something like Wikipedia to be the top of the results as it’s probably the most relevant link for that search term.
Last edited:
Google was paying 36 percent of the total revenue that it earns from searches conducted on Safari, and now it turns out that equates to $20 billion
The fact that 20 billion is only 36 percent of those earnings is just wild to me with something that seems as basic as a search
The fact that 20 billion is only 36 percent of those earnings is just wild to me with something that seems as basic as a search
Just imagine Apple looses this 20 billion cash cow. Stockholders will begin to understand that there ist no next iPhone (and never will be) and most of Apples revenue is made by highway robbery (taking 30% from app developers) and other strange business like that one with google.
That's gotta be the most amount of money paid to a company, for the least amount of work they needed to put in.
The trouble is, if you remove one revenue stream from Apple, you force them to try and make money elsewhere instead. And as a consumer, what will you prefer?
You should ask apple for a discount on the iPhone. Is that possible? 🤔 You should ask apple for a rebate on a Spotify subscription. $2 sounds fair.I wanna get paid for being a product of Google. Is that possible?
I’m a firm believer that Google should be paying us consumers for our data that they use to generate so much profit.
Right now all Google gives us is a few free services; I think we should be getting those free services and cash (judging by the profit margin). For me, a few free services is not enough value for my personal data, which is why I don't use Google products.
Many people undervalue how valuable their personal data is to surveillance capitalists such as a Google, which is why Google is such a profitable company with human capital as their primary resource.
In most business, the human capital that generates the profit (the workers) get paid relatively handsomely for their contributions. Not so much with Google or Facebook; us consumers get paid hardly anything for what they take from us.
Right. And Googles Investment has a return on it.
I wonder how much Google makes with the Apple user data if they have to pay $ 20.000.000.000 to get it.
Tim? Are you there? Can you please check if we all agree on those terms (the smallprint in the small box nobody reads but has the biggest impact...)
I just cannot get used to this kind of cynicism.
Is it also a basic human right to trade that privacy for something they find more valuable, as free serces or "personalization"?
I think people should be entitled to trade their privacy for something they find more valuable, but what’s alarming is how little people think their privacy is worth (and how valuable it is to Facebook and Google).
This is the current problem with trading privacy.
You have been getting paid for it since ever through the service.
Why should Google provide you with one of the most essential services for free? What a strange expectation! Can I expect you to do somehing for me for free?
I tried several times Bing, DuckDuckGo and the rest, but I never could find the information that I wanted quickly, or at all.
Google has been for years one of the few companies improving our private and business lives. All other companies' products such as Apple's, Samsung's or others' could be replaced from day one they were released with other products, but not Google's. Do you think when iPhones were released they were anything worth without Google search, YouTube or Google Maps, and that they would have had any chance against Android devices with Google Services?
I have to use Windows for work and Microsoft does everything it can to force you to use its products. Just a couple of months ago it circumvented my (organisation set) default browser settings and started opening all Outlook links in Edge instead. It was unnecessarily difficult to disable that.
No sympathy, bro.
Google isn’t an essential service; it’s easily replaceable (as evidenced by the fact i don't use them!).
What we are arguing for is better value from Google. Access to free services and a cash payment are what I’d deem fair value for a users personal data.
Wikipedia as a relevant or correct source? Really? And honestly if I search for something, I want to know the answer not the company that can sell me the most ads. (I know there are no ads on Wikipedia, but still)
I'd rather see a system where the Search engine pays the publisher of a website that gives the short answer instead of needlessly forcing the user to go to a third party website.
I'm a little surprised Google would pay this amount. It's not like there's a market alternative that 99.9% of Apple product users would flock to.
That sounds like you’d be handing huge amounts of power to Google to decide what the relevant/correct answer is to save you the bother of looking into it further yourself. Case in point above, Google has interpreted the word ‘camera’ to mean one thing and it has given an answer based on its own interpretation, not necessarily your interpretation as the consumer. So it may still not be the right answer, depending on your own interpretation.
The whole point of a search engine is to give you the most relevant links to find what you are looking for and do that research yourself.
A quick/easy answer isn’t better than a right answer.
I wish Steve Jobs were still alive so he could have sued Google for copying iOS. Tim Cook canceling the plan to sue Google was one of his many awful (i.e., un-Jobs-like) decisions. Cook also fired Apple's most Jobs-like visionary, Scott Forstall, which is precisely why we are stuck with the sterile and bland-looking user-unfriendly flat design of today's iOS and macOS.
You don’t have to wonder, the $20 billion is 36% of Google’s iPhone ad revenue, so $35.55 billion is Google’s cut.
Would it have made more sense for Apple to have bought Bing or DuckDuckGo, made it their own to improve results especially with AI than all that money spent on making a car?
A car was never going to appeal to as many people as a search engine, which is already accessible through Apple’s existing products, and Apple may have generated a lot of its own income from it, rather than a payout from Google. Whilst Maps didn’t start out well, it did get a lot better, the same could have happened with a search engine
A car was never going to appeal to as many people as a search engine, which is already accessible through Apple’s existing products, and Apple may have generated a lot of its own income from it, rather than a payout from Google. Whilst Maps didn’t start out well, it did get a lot better, the same could have happened with a search engine
100% - people celebrate government interference in private business knowing full well that they’d lose their minds if the government suddenly forced Apple or Google to take away their favourite feature, or to infringe their privacy.
I consider the whole thing pretty murky to be honest. If you or I interfered with Apple in a way that quietly removed $20bn from their books it would be market interference, but government doing it is just fine. When these products inevitably get worse as a result, I hope shareholders lose a tonne of money and sue the US government for their losses.
(FWIW I don’t even use Google search - it’s a trash product these days - but a free market is a free market)
As far as essential goes: I probably stretched it a bit. For the poster however it seems to be the only option otherwise he would haven't complained.
For me it is factually essential because using any other search engine would mean to be less effective to me.