I'd go farther and say the App Store is pretty useless unless you already know the app you want.
It's filled with ads, game scams, and just plain fraudulent apps. 99% of people probably just download the same big 10 apps
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 Pays Apple $18B to $20B a Year to Be Default iOS Search Engine
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd go farther and say the App Store is pretty useless unless you already know the app you want.
It's filled with ads, game scams, and just plain fraudulent apps. 99% of people probably just download the same big 10 apps
I myself use DuckDuckGo as the default search engine on my iPhone and iPad. But then, I have a specific Google app installed so if I have to do a Google search, I can do it there.
To generate traffic so they can show ads.
I have never understood how going anonymously to a website is a privacy issue.
The thing is that, while Apple reportedly gets 75% of the ad revenue Google generates from iPhones search, an increase from the 70% deal they made originally many years ago, Google surely could do better than 25% if this deal ended I'm thinking?
Even if Cooks long standing reasoning for this deal is to change, that being that he wants "the best search experience " for the iPhone so this is why they got in bed with Google, and as a result they instead are forced to pick an inferior product for default search status it stands to reason that at least 25% would download Google Search anyways, if not more imo. I'm thinking that Google could still easily replace the 25% they're now making if only because other search engines may not suffice for many iPhone users. That said, Apple could go on a huge anti-Google search campaign and promote whomever else they choose, and in doing so we could theoretically, see Google get less as an independent search engine on iPhones, or so at least Google thinks. This is the only reason I can think of as to why Google hasn't walked away from this deal years ago.
Apple's reason for not walking away is far more straightforward. Other privacy based search engines simply won't replace the 15-20 billion Apple currently makes from iPhones search queries via their deal with Google, and that is a significant amount of profit, even for Apple, easy profit that they currently don't have to lift a finger to acquire, all while distancing themselves from the unsavory practice of data harvesting by having Google do it for them. Great deal for Apple, no doubt!
It should be interesting to see how it all plays out. As a consumer who puts competition first I'd personally like to see a different search engine as default on the iPhone. Who knows, maybe they're better than we have been led to believe. In any case stronger competition in search can only be a good thing from the end users perspective imo.
it's reasonable because companies and developers are willing to name Apple their commissioner and are paying the commission.
Apple considered ditching Google for DuckDuckGo in Safari’s private mode
But Apple exec argued DuckDuckGo wasn’t as private as believed.
arstechnica.com
It's interesting to hear an Apple exec outright claim that DDG is nowhere as private as one might believe because it is still tapping on Bing.
No doubt 15 billion is a lot of money and can probably paper over any concerns Apple may have had with Google, but it also seems that another reason was that Apple simply didn't think that the other alternatives were compelling enough to consider switching over or supporting. So ultimately, it seemed like a win-win for Apple. Free money is free money, and the alternatives simply weren't all that compelling compared to Google Search, and even something like Neeva ultimately shuttered because as it turned out, many people talk big about privacy, but evidently aren't willing to actually pay for it.
Neeva, the would-be Google competitor, is shutting down its search engine
Neeva was ahead of Google on a lot of things in search — but still couldn’t make users switch
www.theverge.com
End of the day, seems like monetising search is hard, and Google has been able to do so precisely because of their dominance in ads. There is no free lunch in this world.
$20 billion will make you do about anything. Plus, it's not like users can't easily change it.
So, the growth of the services-division is just Google sending bigger trucks with more cash?
That said, the iPhone is probably generating enough income also for Google's customers (those that buy the ad-spots) that the whole thing makes even this ridiculously large amount of money seem halfway justified.
That said, the iPhone is probably generating enough income also for Google's customers (those that buy the ad-spots) that the whole thing makes even this ridiculously large amount of money seem halfway justified.
The smartphone is a mature product. How much would you expect new phones to have? They could do a bigger update once every 3 years, but they are facing pressures from investors to have growth every single year along with the competition also releasing yearly updates (also with very minimal improvements I would add). I feel it is unfair for anyone to expect more drastic changes year-to-year than we have already. Also Apple is doing plenty of good things, especially in the silicon areas right now. I suspect they also are doing a lot of R&D on things we have no knowledge of at this point.
Anecdotally, when I initially tried out the Fantastical app, I downloaded it through the App Store, created a new account via Sign in with Apple, then subscribed directly using iTunes. What Apple did was remove a lot of the friction involved (eg: I didn't need to part with my personal email address or go through the hassle of account creation, which may otherwise have deterred many other potential users).
Facebook warns 1 million users whose logins were stolen by scam mobile apps
402 malicious apps plagued Apple and Google’s stores.
www.theverge.com
The incidence of piracy is also way less because you can't sideload apps.
Guess who bought more copies of Monument Valley: iOS or Android gamers?
London-based developer Ustwo has revealed all on Monument Valley's sales and budget, in a fancy infographic. We now know that the game shifted 2.4 million copies, though the game was downloaded onto more than 10 million devices due to downloads onto multiple d...
I think that's really the benefit of the App Store. The App Store isn't just "free money", and I feel that Apple does put in a lot of work behind the scenes to provide a (relatively) safe and secure environment with which to transact in. I don't think there will ever be a consensus on what a "reasonable" cut entails (I still feel that 30% is not unreasonable, but who knows, my stance might change over time as well), but I guess my point is that it is not unreasonable for Apple to deserve something for the role they play in facilitating a transaction between the app developer and the end user. A transaction that otherwise might not have taken place.
People think I am somehow trying to insult people who are less well off, or that I somehow look down on them just because (I am not). I am simply pointing out that because iOS users tend to have more disposable income and a higher propensity to spend overall, it does result in more revenue for iOS developers compared to Android, which in turn incentivises developers to release apps for iOS first or exclusively, and this is backed up by figures.
I'm sure Apple will eventually make their own search engine, probably integrated to their next-generation AI assistant.
Yes it does because they make money by the info that is being shared thus no pivacy
Reminds me of this old ad for Chrome. Not much has changed in terms of average internet users capability:
No it’s not minor. If it’s 18 billion for NO r&d, no packaging, no shipping, no manufacturing… that’s a huge sum of money for NOT doing something. *I’m not saying it’s unrealistic or wrong.
Would they go under? No. But don’t minimize something that would be more money than most companies would ever see in their entire lives.
Edit: Source - in the article
Estimated “14-16 percent of Apple's annual operating profits."
That’s a big deal.
Last edited:
Explain in detail how user privacy is compromised in this situation. Be specific.
That gives me about 18-20 billion reasons to use a different search engine. Google wouldn't pay that much if it didn't make so much more off our data.
Reports have Apple taking 75% of the money made from harvesting iPhone search data. So if it's 18 billion going Apple's way then Google is making 6 billion.
Please tell me where I can find a service that let’s me host terabytes of information downloaded by billions of devices very quickly for free?
Oh, and will provide credit card processing for free from billions of users willing to provide their CC Info to the processing company and pay any credit card fees.
Last edited:
Google pays Apple boatloads of money...and Businesses pay Google to put their links at the top of the search results. I refuse to be a part of this charade any longer!!! 