Sidebar Sidebar
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

someone else has already been mentioning it, but don't you think that up to $20B seems way too much for a service that can very easily be bypassed by anyone and on top of that, Apple is claiming to successfully block or hamstring most of their tracking capabilities?
i mean, "just" $2B would already be too much for a deal like that, but why happily pay $20B for basically next to nothing in return?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: iPay
webkit said:
Not one bit? If PETA held a convention and gave a cheesesteak restaurant the most prominent booth in the vendor food section, would you not find that incongruous for an organization like PETA?
Click to expand...
It depends if the meat in the cheese steak was treated humanly.
webkit said:
How is what Apple is doing regarding default search that much different especially given how much Cook/Apple have spoken out against Google's data collection and privacy policies?
Click to expand...
How does it change the way the internet operates? People will still use google from apple devices no matter what. In spite of the hubris, in my subjective opinion, google is still the best search engine. Do you want apple to code their devices such that google is not available because Tim Cook does not like the data collection policies?
 
lordofthereef said:
I wonder what the data is on how many people only use google because it is the default. On all of my devices (namely looking at you, windows), I actively choose Google over anything else. If the default was set to something like Bing, what percentage of iPhone users would stop using Google as their search engine?
Click to expand...
I think google provides the results most aligned with what I want in most searches. If Bing, for example, was the default search engine, I would navigate to google to get my searches completed and I believe people aren't that stupid or lazy. Those who want google will download the app, chrome or navigate to google on safari.
 
farmboy said:
No default: So users can't use the best engine every time, they have to select it each time. Yeah, that's user friendly.

Unrestricted ability to switch engines: Already present.

The EU coalition are morons.
Click to expand...
it's "no preset default". Once you pick up a default engine, it stays as default. No morans stuff here.
 
mrochester said:
And if everyone picks Google, then what?
Click to expand...
Then nothing, it's not a beef against Google. Everyone is free to chose their preferred engine, but must be given a fair choice. This is to be implemented by EU in 2024 under Digital Markets Act (DMA), aiming for level playing field in digital markets (their words). Given the amounts at stake, there's no chance it spreads farther than Europe.

edit: doing quick math, $20B is like half Apple annual salary mass (= 200,000 x $100k). Not bad for a preset option!
 
Last edited:
unrigestered said:
then it's by their own choice?
Click to expand...
But then we still have the same problem of Google being too dominant. The whole point of any sort of regulation is to allow competition to flourish; if regulations don’t achieve that, they’ve failed and need reworking.
 
mrochester said:
But then we still have the same problem of Google being too dominant. The whole point of any sort of regulation is to allow competition to flourish; if regulations don’t achieve that, they’ve failed and need reworking.
Click to expand...
of course, this is the complete wrong approach, as this alone would not breach into Google's deeply nested web services that basically run the web now and actually allow them to track everything and everyone to the most minute detail
 
unrigestered said:
someone else has already been mentioning it, but don't you think that up to $20B seems way too much for a service that can very easily be bypassed by anyone and on top of that, Apple is claiming to successfully block or hamstring most of their tracking capabilities?
i mean, "just" $2B would already be too much for a deal like that, but why happily pay $20B for basically next to nothing in return?!
Click to expand...
Someone said that Google annual search ad revenue is around $160B, and $10B is like 6% of that. It's a big investment, but how many people go to iPhone settings and chose a different engine? Google presumably wants to keep Microsoft away: while being teased by Apple, DuckDuckGo with its ~$100m revenue doesn't seem to be in the race. Sounds like the old tender trick: "Well, you know, Mr Google, we've been talking a lot with Ms DuckDuckGo lately, they have a very interesting offer, what do you think?"
 
Last edited:
dmylrea said:
$99 x how many developers? Make it $199 (still very affordable). How much $$$ is that?

If developers stopped developing for iOS, wonder how fast Apple would change their mind? No apps, and users stop buying iPhones. It seems you want to treat your developers better.

It works both ways.
Click to expand...
So you think Meta should pay the same fee as an independent developer. Makes zero sense.

Why should Apple take less money than it currently can? That's how demand and supply works. Apps are made because the developer decided that it's worth the cost and they are able and willing to pay for it.
 
dmylrea said:
$99 x how many developers? Make it $199 (still very affordable). How much $$$ is that?

If developers stopped developing for iOS, wonder how fast Apple would change their mind? No apps, and users stop buying iPhones. It seems you want to treat your developers better.

It works both ways.
Click to expand...

By this theory, Google ought to have Apple by the balls because Google could in theory hold Apple ransom by withholding their services from iOS. Yet it’s the other way around, with Google paying Apple a princely sum every year for something which seemed like it should be the default behaviour.

This was the painful lesson learnt when Google tried to withhold their mapping data from the iPhone in 2011. Users would rather stick with an objectively worse default maps app than give up their iPhone.

The reality is that Apple is in the dominant position by virtue of them owning the customer and being able to go directly to them. Facebook, Google, even Spotify, they are, for all their size, just apps on my phone. If any of these services were to disappear, I would sooner give them up then move over to android, because I am first and foremost an Apple customer, and I have no loyalty to Google or Netflix or Spotify.

The same logic extends to developers. Perhaps they may still have held some sway in 2008, but today, there are so many developers and so many apps in the App Store that the issue is one of over abundance, rather than scarcity. Half the developers could quit overnight and I probably have no issues finding alternatives for the apps that I do use.

Only a few household names have the reach to make users sign up outside of the App Store (like Spotify). For everyone else, they need the App Store more than the App Store needs them, because that’s where the money is, and the money is there because of the hard work Apple put in in making great products that users willingly pay a premium for.

That’s why I feel Apple demanding a cut of all transactions is not unjustified. They built the user base, why should they be expected to just give it up for nothing?
 
unrigestered said:
someone else has already been mentioning it, but don't you think that up to $20B seems way too much for a service that can very easily be bypassed by anyone and on top of that, Apple is claiming to successfully block or hamstring most of their tracking capabilities?
i mean, "just" $2B would already be too much for a deal like that, but why happily pay $20B for basically next to nothing in return?!
Click to expand...
My guess is that the 20 billion is for a couple of things.

1) The reality is that most people don't change their defaults, and google search really is that good.

2) It's also to discourage Apple from developing their own search engine, or doing something else that might remove Google as the preinstalled default. The less you pay Apple, the less they have to lose.

Google has likely done the sums and decided that they would rather part with $20 billion than face whatever alternative Apple has in store.
 
unrigestered said:
someone else has already been mentioning it, but don't you think that up to $20B seems way too much for a service that can very easily be bypassed by anyone and on top of that, Apple is claiming to successfully block or hamstring most of their tracking capabilities?
i mean, "just" $2B would already be too much for a deal like that, but why happily pay $20B for basically next to nothing in return?!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's next to nothing however, it does raise questions about what else might be part of the agreement e.g., is Google also paying Apple to stay out of the search engine business as has been alleged?
 
I7guy said:
It depends if the meat in the cheese steak was treated humanly.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:



I7guy said:
How does it change the way the internet operates? People will still use google from apple devices no matter what. In spite of the hubris, in my subjective opinion, google is still the best search engine. Do you want apple to code their devices such that google is not available because Tim Cook does not like the data collection policies?
Click to expand...

When you take a stance on privacy and data collection as Apple has, giving a company like Google a prominent position (default search) on the browser is incongruous with that position. For you to say it's "not one bit" is absurd.
 
webkit said:
:rolleyes:





When you take a stance on privacy and data collection as Apple has, giving a company like Google a prominent position (default search) on the browser is incongruous with that position. For you to say it's "not one bit" is absurd.
Click to expand...
:( Thats the throw the baby out with the bath water mentality. Along the lines of the thinking shown above, google is critical of apple sue to message interoperability issues…should google not pay apple for default selection?
 
I7guy said:
:( Thats the throw the baby out with the bath water mentality. Along the lines of the thinking shown above, google is critical of apple sue to message interoperability issues…should google not pay apple for default selection?
Click to expand...

Once again, Apple giving Google a prominent position on its browser is incongruous with its claimed position on privacy. To think otherwise is absurd. If Apple is going to have a pre-set default search engine for Safari, they should choose one that more closely matches their often touted stance regarding privacy, data collection, etc.
 
webkit said:
Once again, Apple giving Google a prominent position on its browser is incongruous with its claimed position on privacy.
Click to expand...
We disagree on that. What are the facts is the google is the most popular browser and imo the best. Two apple may be critical of goggle and google critical of apple, yet amazingly they do business together in spite of some MR posters not liking it.
webkit said:
To think otherwise is absurd. If Apple is going to have a pre-set default search engine for Safari, they should choose one that more closely matches their often touted stance regarding privacy, data collection, etc.
Click to expand...
The above is your opinion. My opinion is apple is getting fees for making the best search engine the default. Any other thinking is laughable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back