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.
UK Regulators Call Google's Search Engine Deal With Apple a 'Significant Barrier' for Competitors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Funny, that was exactly what I was going to post. The problem is that there is no real competitor for the space. I use DuckDuckGo, but only people who know and care about privacy would even consider them.
True. Microsoft's problem then was they had onerous OEM agreements that forced OEMs to pre-install Windows (where Microsoft had a legal monopoly; this wasn't a problem [sort of]) and then forcibly bundled Internet Explorer on that pre-installed OS, in an effort to gain a monopoly in the newly-created "web browser market" (this is a problem; Sherman anti-trust act says you can't do that; using monopoly in one market to gain monopoly in another).
They integrated Internet Explorer, and made it the OS default, in such a fashion that you couldn't remove Internet Explorer. Attempting to do so broke the Explorer shell interface, and so Internet Explorer was "forced" onto the OS *and* made the default out of the box. This created the barrier-to-entry for other browsers (yeah, hard to imagine 22 years later that this was "a thing" back then; but there was no Opera, no Chrome, no Firefox, no Safari, and no Google!). The only other browser was Netscape Navigator (the Grandpa to Firefox; Mozilla was the daddy to Firefox). Attempting to do install a different browser (Netscape Navigator) was met with an impossible barrier.
There was no Google. Internet Explorer was the OS default *AND* the default home page was "www.msn.com", which is Microsoft's "portal" page (news, links to Hotmail, and their own then-crappy search engine, before Bing). Yahoo.com was the only other big search engine (but the nerds and savvy folks knew to use Altavista at the time; altavista.digital.com, run by DEC). So MSN+IE+Windows was a double monopoly against Netscape for the browser, and Yahoo for the search. There was next-to-no way for your mom to know how to find another browser when she got her new PC from Dell/Gateway/IBM. It came with Windows, and Internet Explorer, and it "got her on the Internet" with AOL or Mindspring or Earthlink.
This anti-trust case literally went around the world for 10 years. US DOJ, US FTC, and EU. I think Japan got in on some part of it, too. It still stands as a major case-study alongside Standard Oil (Exxon) and AT&T [the old AT&T, not this new AT&T]. All three are fascinating cases if you're a nerd of any law, or history, or tech.
So yeah, anyone born after 1995 has *no idea* what the Microsoft case was about and how close things came to be very different. It's ok; I have *no idea* what life was like in the Standard Oil days either.
Funny side effect: Us IT nerds (Linux evangelists) at the time were thrilled at the DOJ's "10 year consent decree" against Microsoft. We thought *for sure* this would be the chance for Linux to take hold on the desktop and free the world! Never happened. Linux distro factions warred with each other like petulant children (I know, I was in some of it). Meanwhile, a small computer everyone knew but had written off had an event to unveil the world's smallest portable music player with a revolutionary click-wheel interface and can hold 5,000 songs in your pocket! It was sure to be a dud product, CmdrTaco at Slashdot even said it was lame.
In the Microsoft consent decree was a clause: Microsoft had to open up the descriptions of their Office file types. This meant other platforms and had apps to be able to read Word docs, Excel spreadsheets, and PowerPoints docs. This meant platforms like the Mac could now read and write "Microsoft-compatible" documents for the first time. This clause was one of the most crucial elements that created the vacuum that allowed Apple and the Mac to rise to the prominence it is today. It wasn't Linux that rose from this ash-heap. It was Apple, the Mac, and eventually the iPhone.
Without that DOJ case and consent decree, Apple wouldn't be where it is today. We likely wouldn't even have the iPhone. Hard to imagine.
Also true. I use DDG about 25% of the time. Results just aren’t as good yet to use them all the time. I’d be happy if apple bought them, though, and started some actual competition in the space.
Nah that's too rare. Every time the user types something in the address part with the intent to use a search engine (ie. anything that isn't a URL).
>User types macrumors.com
>iPhone opens macrumors.com
>User types macrumors
>iPhone prompts user to select from a list of search engines, with Google at the bottom because Google paid them.
Myself and quite a lot of people I know definitely prefer duck duck go. I only use google when duck duck go fails me, which is very rare these days.
Have any of these "competitors" made Google an offer to be the default search engine on Android? If the authorities are not asking this question, they are just tools....
Google pays Apple to be the default search engine on Apple's Safari web browser on iPhones and Macs, which causes a "significant barrier to entry and expansion" for rivals in the search engine market, said the UK Competition and Markets Authority in a report released today (via Reuters).
The relationship between Apple and Google impacts Microsoft's Bing, Verizon's Yahoo, and independent search engine DuckDuckGo. Apple allows users to set these search engines as their default in the Safari settings, a privilege the search engines pay for, but Google Search remains the default on a new device.
Apple received the "substantial majority" of the $1.5 billion (1.2 billion pounds) that Google paid to be the default search engine on various devices in the United Kingdom in 2019, according to the report.UK regulators believe that enforcement authorities should be provided with a range of options to address the arrangement between Apple and Google to provide a more level playing field for other search engines.
Apple could be required to provide "choice screens" that would let users decide which search engine to set as default during device setup, or could be restricted from monetizing default search engine positions, a move that Apple said would be "very costly."
Apple and Google have never confirmed exactly how much Google pays to be the default search engine on Apple devices in the UK, the United States, and other countries, but it's rumored to be in the billions.
Article Link: UK Regulators Call Google's Search Engine Deal With Apple a 'Significant Barrier' for Competitors
Google pays Apple to be the default search engine on Apple's Safari web browser on iPhones and Macs, which causes a "significant barrier to entry and expansion" for rivals in the search engine market, said the UK Competition and Markets Authority in a report released today (via Reuters).
The relationship between Apple and Google impacts Microsoft's Bing, Verizon's Yahoo, and independent search engine DuckDuckGo. Apple allows users to set these search engines as their default in the Safari settings, a privilege the search engines pay for, but Google Search remains the default on a new device.
Apple received the "substantial majority" of the $1.5 billion (1.2 billion pounds) that Google paid to be the default search engine on various devices in the United Kingdom in 2019, according to the report.UK regulators believe that enforcement authorities should be provided with a range of options to address the arrangement between Apple and Google to provide a more level playing field for other search engines.
Apple could be required to provide "choice screens" that would let users decide which search engine to set as default during device setup, or could be restricted from monetizing default search engine positions, a move that Apple said would be "very costly."
Apple and Google have never confirmed exactly how much Google pays to be the default search engine on Apple devices in the UK, the United States, and other countries, but it's rumored to be in the billions.
Article Link: UK Regulators Call Google's Search Engine Deal With Apple a 'Significant Barrier' for Competitors
I had to Google who those other search engines were.
But your really weren’t forced to use IE, initially yes to download Netscape, but you were not limited to it only.
Because smaller search engines can’t afford to pay Apple as much as google does, and it’s clear Apple puts google as default just because it’s being paid a lot of money to do so.
This makes no sense for a number of reasons.
What if Apple had a search engine ... would that be ok already?
MS has bing by default ...
Firefox has Google by default ....
... Peopla can install other browser ...
What if Apple was not being paid, would be already ok?
... So many ...
When something does not make sense there is dirt ...
What if Apple had a search engine ... would that be ok already?
MS has bing by default ...
Firefox has Google by default ....
... Peopla can install other browser ...
What if Apple was not being paid, would be already ok?
... So many ...
When something does not make sense there is dirt ...
Last edited:
I’m surprised you still don’t have the option to type your homepage/search engine in like on a computer browser. Why limit us to Google, Yahoo!, Bing, and DuckDuckGo?
So who says there’s no choice? Go to the prefs and change the default. Having a default option is t the same thing as not having any choice. My 83-year-old aunt did it, and without coaching. If this is their position when in reality there is a choice, what on Earth would their position be is there actually weren’t.
As I’ve said before, lawmakers + tech = foolishness enforcement.
I wouldn't put it past them for a moment. Every single site I access I now have to answer questions about cookies. That, I think, is courtesy of the EU.
I switched to DDG a few years ago. It was bad. I switched to bing. That was tolerable. I recently switched to DDG again. It's much improved. On rare occasion (< 5% of searches) I may still use google. In fact, DDG shows better results for general searches. For shopping, natural language queries, and technical things, google is still better, but not better enough for me to use it as my default even for those searches.
Safari or any browser on any platform including Chrome should ask the user what search engine to use as it’s default as well as manually entering one if not listed, this should happen on the first time the browser is launched and be changeable later if the user decide to do so.
That’s not clear at all. It’s been said many times that even if google didn’t pay, apple would likely either keep google as the default (because it works the best and its customers demand it) or would roll its own search engine.
[automerge]1593644659[/automerge]
Why should that be the case? Why are the rights of a few browser makers more important than the rights of millions of customers to not have to take the extra time if they don’t want to? After all, they can change the search engine any time they want, if they really want to. The fact that they don’t is evidence that maybe they don’t want to.
DDG has shown you can not expect to compete in the search market and offer consumer privacy. The reason Google search is so good is that their algorithms tentacle across the web and work faster than our brains. Yesterday I tried to remember the name of a low budget movie I saw 15 years ago and all I remembered was the main character drove truck and he had an genetic condition. Google got it in the top 3 results. You don't get that sort of precision by respecting people.
I’m not sure it is so much the privacy angle as it is that google is a massive corporation with tens of thousands of employees constantly working on improving search, and DDG is, what, a dozen people or something?
I don't think Google has someone assigned to me. You can't offer intentive search without some degree of context.