Americans don’t have access to affordable healthcare, but here’s 18 billion for the ability to search for pron…
Yay, capitalism.
Yay, capitalism.
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
They do business together but that doesn't mean they have to go against their claimed user/data privacy views and give a company like Google such a prominent position on Safari. This is clearly incongruous to Apple's claimed position on privacy and it’s illogical to think otherwise. I'm sure even Apple realizes this but is choosing money over doing something more aligned with their views.
What's laughable is a company (Apple) that touts user/data privacy giving a company like Google a prominent position on its Safari browser. Again, Apple no doubt realizes this and is choosing money over doing something more aligned with their views.
They way they do business is the way they do business. As long as it’s legal and moral. I’m okay with it.
No it’s not. What would be k line with apples thinking is to block ogle assets from apple assets. Why isn’t apple doing that? Why isnt google blocking sms from apple?
Apple may not believe that it’s all or nothing.
Unless apple blocks google it’s a reasonable business arrangement.
Nothing is all or nothing in this world.
The issue here was not necessarily whether it was legal, although it may be ruled illegal depending on the outcome of the DOJ case, it was whether or not it's incongruous to Apple's claimed position on privacy. It clearly is.
A variety of typos in parts of your post so I won’t bother to address any other comments other than to say again that it is indeed incongruous to Apple's claimed position on privacy for them to choose Google as the default search on Safari. Apple chose money over its privacy beliefs when it chose Google for such a prominent position.
There is no issue in wanting your competitors to raise the bar and still do business with them. It’s not all or nothing in life or business.
The point I want to reiterate is that it is not an all or nothing proposition and it’s not useful to throw the baby away with the bath water. One thing I’m glad apple can do what it wants in spite of opinions to the contrary by fellow MR members.
Tell that to the BRICS countries that Germany is screwing over.
But I imagine you don’t want to talk about that, because you believe whatever the Guardian tells you is true, and you’re so naive you believe that anyone who has even the slightest criticism of the EU is some far right agitator.
There is little point in me listing all the facts where the EU does screw over its citizens. You’ve been brainwashed like the farmyard animals in Animal Farm.
But if you want to stand and die on a hill where you preach how EU “politicians” aren’t like every other politician the world over, you go right ahead, as THAT is super funny.
The govt meddles in too many affairs as it is. A lot of dominant companies get that way and stay there because of govt meddling and crony capitalism. There are VERY few instances where I’d say the gov’t needs to step in and this is not one of them.
During COVID, for example, many states shut down small businesses while allowing multi billion dollar companies like Target and Walmart to operate. Many internet companies became dominant because the govt decided they didn’t have to pay taxes, while physical stores deteriorated and lost the financial wherewithal to compete.
So the notion that govt actually cares about competition and protecting users is pure nonsense. It’s always about what’s best for the govt.
It's not meddling here. Allowing wealthy, powerful, dominant companies like Apple and Google to have agreements that help one or the other maintain or increase their dominance can be an antitrust violation and these types of activities need to be investigated, litigated, etc. by officials.
I am curious as to just what you think Apple's stance on privacy is.
Apple is very clear about their stance on privacy. For Apple, privacy means letting users know what is being done with their data and giving them the option of saying no (hence features like ATT). It's also about stopping the intermingling of data from different sources. It was never about completely blocking Google's ability to collect data from their users on iOS devices (because if users are fine with it, then why not?).
In this regard, there is nothing hypocritical about Apple installing google search as default in safari because customers know they are using google search and if they are not fine with the option, they can always change it in settings. I just feel that people need to evaluate Apple based on how Apple has defined privacy, and not their own arbitrary definition. Else, we are all just going to keep arguing over one another.
Businesses are allowed to increase their market share legally. And unless you can point to some antitrust ruling this is legal.
At least part of Apple’s written legal stance on privacy is outlined here:
Legal - Apple Privacy Policy - Apple
www.apple.com
Apple has been very critical about Google's "activities" regarding privacy and data collection and for Apple to give Google search such a prominent position on Safari is incongruous with its public/vocal stance in those areas.
Have you not been following the DOJ investigation and case against Google at all? One of the things being alleged is that the Google/Apple default search agreement is in fact illegal as it involves two dominant companies having an agreement that helps one or the other maintain a dominant or monopoly position in a market (an antitrust violation).
Where has a ruling been issued about this particular payment. DOJ can allege anything until it wins it’s just an allegation. And while the DOJ does win a lot they don’t win 100%.
I don’t think the case will stick, if only because the option to change search engines is right there in the settings app, which can be accessed in a matter of seconds. So there really isn’t any real lock in.
The real monopoly would be if Apple didn’t even offer the option at all. That said, an argument can be made that users might not be aware of this, and at best, Apple might be required to inform their users upfront that such an option is possible.
It also doesn’t bode well for Bing and Microsoft’s recent openAI acquisition. Satya flat out admitted that openAI hasn’t really been all that useful or revolutionary in reinventing search (kinda reminiscent of how Spotify’s CEO boasted about Apple Music not being competition while at the same time levelling antitrust lawsuits against Apple).
My greater takeaway is that generative AI is another overhyped trend just waiting to go the way of smart speakers. The critics claiming that Apple is doomed because they didn’t jump on the bandwagon here are being set up to be wrong yet again.
It may not stick even if the Google/Apple agreement is illegal as the DOJ has to prove its case in court. Plenty of people and companies do illegal things but aren't prosecuted for whatever reasons or the case isn't proven in court. However, having options does not make the agreement legal.
The monopoly issue here is not about whether there are search engine options on Safari (simply having options does not negate antitrust laws) but rather about Google's "monopoly" in the search engine market and having an agreement with a company dominant in another area (Apple with iOS) that helps Google maintain or increase its "monopoly."
Google has a monopoly in ads, not search (which again, is made possible because Google has aggregated the bulk the users by virtue of them flocking to its search engine). I don't see how one can even begin to regulate a service that has majority market share by virtue of being the best there is in the market. Does the DOJ expect Google to actively make their search engine worse just so competing brands have a fighting chance?
That's the thing I realise about antitrust laws in your country. They are ill-equipped to address "monopolies" who have gotten as large as they are by virtue of controlling demand, rather than supply. It's easy to point an accusing finger at a company who controls the sole source of water to a small town and uses this to charge the people an absurd amount of money. It's harder to blame a company like Google or Apple who have grown successful by making a great product that users willingly flock towards. These companies own the end user, and use this leverage to dictate terms to suppliers.
Without new laws being written in congress to specifically address aggregators, I really don't see current US antitrust legislation making any headway, but I could be wrong.
You can't definitively say Google doesn't have a monopoly in search. That's up to regulators, courts, etc., to decide. The court in the current U.S. DOJ case could very well rule that Google has a monopoly in search, as well as search/digital advertising. If it does rule that way regarding search, a remedy would not be to have Google make its search engine "worse." Remedies would include not allowing them to engage in "anticompetitive behavior" and one of those anticompetitive activities may be the search agreement between Google and Apple.
Regardless of how a company/product may have achieved its "dominance" or "monopoly", it doesn't give it a right to engage in "anticompetitive behavior." Monopolies themselves are not necessarily illegal, it's the dominance combined with anticompetitive behavior.
Again, what anti competitive behavior with respect to this that has resulted in a finding? Companies shouldn’t engage in anticompetitive behavior and people shouldn’t speed. But both happen and not all get caught or prosecuted.
As far as the DOJ and various states are concerned, they have been investigating Google (and Apple) for antitrust violations for a while and one DOJ vs. Google case is finally in progress now. Apple cases are still pending and how those proceed will likely depend on how the Google case goes. All of this is a very slow process. One of the specific DOJ arguments against Google involves their search agreement with Apple but if you are interested in others, I suggest you read the news stories.
So to answer the question I posed, nothing. I’m not interested in other actions and that is not the thread topic.
That's what my gut says too, but it begs the question why Google is paying sums like this if there's no good reason to do so.
No, the answer to your question is investigations are ongoing and cases are in process or pending in district courts. Just because a company hasn't been found "guilty" doesn't mean they aren't or haven't been violating antitrust laws by engaging in anticompetitive behavior.
Nor does it mean they are automatically guilty because they are a fortune corporation.
Thank you Captain Obvious. At this point, we are largely talking about laws in general, types of activities Apple and/or others may be (are allegedly) doing that can be anticompetitive behavior or antitrust violations, etc.
Yes, we have been going around in the same circles at 50,000 feet and beating the dead horse for quite a while.