They don't care enough to set the default to something else but do care enough to make iOS and macOS much more privacy-focused than the alternatives.
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 Reportedly Pays Apple $8-12 Billion Per Year to be Default iOS Search Engine
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Would think google is harvesting a lot of data both from being the default and people typing in google.com in the address bar.
You would think but many more don’t care or know how to. They’ll just use whatever the default is.
Google knows this. That’s why they pay billions.
The gov’t can‘t force apple to pick a different default as a result of this case. Apple isn’t in front of the court. About all they can do is (maybe) prevent future contracts.
If you don't already know this, there's no hope for you so I'm not wasting my time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Analytics for one.
~84% of their revenue comes from ads, which are targeted carefully: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266471/distribution-of-googles-revenues-by-source/
Then why is Google paying up towards $8B to be the default?! Also it is said that majority of Bing users are those who turn on windows and start searching not knowing if its Google or Bing, they just care to search.
That's what the article is talking about: anti-competition.
- iOS Safari has the most browsing usage, despite not having the top marketshare according to Mixpanel. If Safari switched to DuckDuckGo, even if 95% users switch back to default Google manually, that 5% of iOS users could help DuckDuckGo grow into a bigger search engine.
- Apple has already shown they're able to survive without Google as shown with Apple Maps. Today, Apple Maps is used by many third party app developers which cost Google a lot of revenue from selling their Google Maps service. So, with that in mind, Google is essentially making it worthwhile for Apple to not roll their own competing search engine since it would take a while before Apple could start earning billions from a privacy-conscious search service (which could cost Google a ton of business just like they lost from Maps).
- Minor details in the agreement likely help Google collect a lot more data than they would have without the agreement. For example, there could be a clause that dictates that Apple cannot direct the user to the app store directly from the browser search. So if a user types in "Angry Birds" in the search bar, the user is forced to perform a Google search which then shows Google results to the App Store. This allows Google to collect information on what people are looking for on the App Store which is extremely valuable data. If it were up to Apple, they would likely return App Store results at the top first before showing search engine results (like they already do with spotlight search). Just one of many clauses so that Google can continue collecting valuable data.
That's because even if you change the default search engine in your browser, there are other places in Windows that search Bing by default. Go ahead and type stuff in the start menu, you'd be greeted with Bing results. AFAIK you can't change this without installing a third party tool.
Last edited:
well..its crazy, but if we assume that most people have a smartphone extension to their hands and half of them are on iOS, not to mention tablet users...it makes sense little bit.
Maybe Desktop usage is dying.
true, but sometimes I like to think they might pay it for exposure not to lose their status. If they don't pay it up, suddenly people will see "BING" or "DDG" as another option and start using that, its a little bit like brainwashing "There is Google, and only Google"
Steve Job's Apple...its known that Apple under Steve Jobs was not aiming for maximum profit. They were aiming to sell high grade products that improve people's lives. If All they wanted was just money they would have abandoned OS 7, and starting building Wintel machines like Dell and HP because thats where 95% of the computer market was.
Jobs said no, he came back and made the iMac which he believes a better pc than the competitors, Mac OS 9/X which he believes is better than the competitors. There was talks to license OS 8 to 3rd parties like Windows and he said no. They had standards and values.
That being said, other companies do exist when you think of Ferrari, they could do a ton more money if they released consumer cars on the level of BMW and Mercedes but they stick to the extremely high rare models. Porsche on the other hand chose to release cars for the higher middle class.
That is a meme, which by definition is not true. The iphone 1 was released at what? $699, $799, the price was then dropped. Proof positive that Apple under Steve Jobs aimed for maximum profit.
I agree with the design led culture, but selling high-grade products at the highest of prices as well.
I agree Jobs wanted to build a better mousetrap. 100%. The car analogies in this case doesn't follow.
As the price of the Porsche 918 is in the stratosphere as well.