Not sure where you’d get that from?
They’re merely prohibiting Google from paying Apple to cement their near-monopoly.
I haven’t read anything that would mean Apple needs to develop their own search engine (other them possibly wanting to).
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.
With the Google Antitrust Ruling, Will Apple Build a Search Engine?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They’re merely prohibiting Google from paying Apple to cement their near-monopoly.
I haven’t read anything that would mean Apple needs to develop their own search engine (other them possibly wanting to).
It's something I have been trying to understand on my end as well.
The one explanation I can think of, which I mentioned above, is that defaults do ultimately matter to some extent (which also speaks of Apple's power as a platform owner who controls distribution, and has the power to make or break Google's dominance on their platform). I recall when Apple released their own Maps app in 2012. While it stank at first, it also displaced google map's status as the preinstalled default on iOS devices, and to date, Google has regained only a reported 40% of mobile traffic on iOS.
Google Lost Map Traffic With Apple Maps Switch on iPhones, Executive Says
Two years after Apple Inc. dropped Google Maps as its default service on iPhones in favor of its own app, Google had regained only 40% of the mobile traffic it used to have on its mapping service, a Google executive testified in the antitrust trial against the Alphabet Inc. company.
www.bloomberg.com
It's likely true that given a choice, most users would simply just opt for google search by default, yet at the same time, Google may have felt that paying $20 billion a year was preferable to "risking" it by allowing consumers to actually make that choice, or worse, give Apple an incentive to release their own competing search engine. Many people laugh at this idea, but as the whole Maps debacle has shown, any search engine alternative from Apple doesn't have to be the best or even all that great; it just needs to be "good enough" that users are willing to stick with it as the default and not bother looking elsewhere.
It's a totally rational decision in my opinion (the money is chump change even for Google), in that by throwing money at the problem, Google effectively removed all uncertainty from the equation, though it also undeniably reduced competition in the space. I agree with you that it's the government job to fix this (how though, remains to be seen), but I don't blame Google for doing what they did in their situation either.
The court remedies have not been determined/announced yet. However, what's most likely to happen (pending appeals) is that the court says Google, a monopoly in search, can't be or at least can't pay to be the pre-set default and not just with Apple but also Samsung, Mozilla, etc.
Apple does not necessarily have to create its own search engine as they could still potentially (depending on remedies) select another search engines like Bing, DDG, Ecosia, etc. to be the pre-set default.
Also, the ruling may only apply to the U.S. market.
I am sorry that you and a few others view it this way. I’ve put quite a bit of effort into reflecting on my statement to see how it might trigger someone into thinking that I was making a political statement, but I just can’t see it. I can assure you it was never meant to be that way.
I still stand by my point that in-general, I do not think that our government should play a heavy-handed role in business. Obviously some degree of basics must be governed, and I do realize the level of control is what seems to be in question here, whether you are for it or against it…and I guess that seems to be the point of discussion that has evolved here. And that discussion is good, it is healthy actually…but my intent was not and is not meant to make a one-way political statement.
Good forum etiquette is to leave politics and religion out of discussions and I could not agree more so I’ll head back to reading more about the rumors for the upcoming iPhone 16s…we are only a month away…good stuff!
Wait, hold up. So the reason behind the ruling was that Apple isn't motivated to make their own search engine because they're fine with taking money from Google and letting them be the default? Like, was it Apple who brought up this case? Did they ask Apple if they even want to build their own search engine? That's like telling my plumber they're not allowed to take my money to fix my toilet cuz it lowers my motivation to learn how to fix my own toilet. Guess what?! I don't wanna fix my toilet! I want to pay someone else to do it.
No. The "reason behind the ruling" was Google's monopoly in search and anticompetitive behavior. The anticompetitive behavior was their significant payments to Apple, Mozilla, Samsung, etc. for the coveted pre-set default search positions which created increased barriers in the market by unfairly limiting the visibility of competitors, allowed Google to maintain its monopoly, etc.
Court remedies have not been determined/announced yet but it's possible that Apple could still select another (non-monopoly) search engine like Bing, DDG, Ecosia, etc. to be the pre-set default and therefore would not have to create their own search engine.
I doubt this is something that would fly well with consumers, but it will be interesting to see Apple’s reaction now that they are no longer getting money from Google.
The article literally has a comment that “Apple have the money and resources to develop their own search engine”, but don’t due to Google payments.
Why wouldn't it fly well with consumers? Google could still potentially be on the optional default list, just wouldn't be the pre-set default.
There are lots of search engines but the only ones with their own index are just a few:
1. Google
2. Bing
3. Yandex
4. Mojeek
5. Brave
6. Right Dao
7. Yep
8. Common Crawl (non-profit)
9. Togoda
* Gigablast is no longer operational since early 2023.
Other search engines not mentioned here are mostly proxies/front ends for Bing, Google or meta search engines.
Apple should definitely provide these options in safari settings.
1. Google
2. Bing
3. Yandex
4. Mojeek
5. Brave
6. Right Dao
7. Yep
8. Common Crawl (non-profit)
9. Togoda
* Gigablast is no longer operational since early 2023.
Other search engines not mentioned here are mostly proxies/front ends for Bing, Google or meta search engines.
Apple should definitely provide these options in safari settings.
As I explained before, I believe the chief reason why Apple was even on board with the deal in the first place is because Google is the best, and most people do use Google Search, so it wasn't really requiring them to do anything their user base wouldn't have done anyways.
I don't think the majority of iOS users would take well to having their choice of default search engine shift away from google search overnight. Most would be confused, many would be puzzled as to why their search results seem different or even objectively worse, and you can't make the argument that users don't switch away from defaults, while also expecting disgruntled iOS users to readily change back to Google Search on their own.
I seriously doubt there is any amount Bing or DDG or any other search engine can pay Apple to switch defaults, simply because they aren't Google Search. I am personally on DDG myself, but I also acknowledge I am the minority here.
I don't think it was about Google being the so-called best. I think Apple wanted to get as much money from a pre-set default agreement as possible and that meant Google. They also likely recognized that the agreement could potentially be viewed as anticompetitive behavior, given Google's dominance in search, and they tried to play down the selection of Google by suggesting they would've picked Google anyway (because they are the "best") and therefore "competition" elements didn't play a factor. I don't buy it.
Regardless, I don't think most consumers would be that bothered by another search engine being the pre-set default as long as Google is still an option for diehard Google users.
Now? No longer a free market system? Antitrust laws have existed since the late 1800s. This ruling is applying antitrust laws regarding a monopoly company (in this case, Google) engaging in anticompetitive behavior (in this case, paying significant money to Apple, Mozilla, Samsung, etc. for the coveted pre-set default search positions which created increased barriers in the market by unfairly limiting the visibility of competitors allowing Google to maintain its monopoly, etc.). Dealing with monopolies means governments have to address and potentially control what companies can or can't do.
Apple should feel lucky they were paid as much as they were for as long as they were. The Google agreement should have been blocked years ago.
Will the EU be going after supermarkets next?
I mean suppliers pay for best positioning on supermarkets shelves... eye height, easy reach.
Sounds very much like Google paying to be the search engine you see by default doesnt it?
Very anticompetitive to those brands relegated to the top, or worse, bottom shelf who dont, wont or cant afford to pay.
If a product was a monopoly and paid significant money to several supermarkets to block all competitors from having the equivalent of a coveted pre-set default position year after year, I suppose it could potentially raise antitrust issues. However, I wouldn't say a certain eye level, easy reach position has the same "competition blocking power” as being the only pre-set default on a browser.
Paying billions to a potential competitor and/or large platform operator as a 90% market share operator already is not “competing”. It’s about preventing and suppressing competition.
Contrary to some misconceptions (and a few fundamentalist economists), the absence of government intervention alone does not make free a market.
They aren’t telling them what to do.
They’re just (selectively) prohibiting them from doing certain things,
How else are you going to prevent a monopoly, if not by telling companies what they can and can’t do?
PS: in this case, Google has been determined as having a monopoly already.
That market’s value is 100% in how much it can be monetized, though. The leader in that market is the company that figures out the best monetization scheme… one that rewards those that uses it’s rules (SEO) and makes it a business requirement to ensure a company’s data is represented as fully as possible. They have a structure that makes users build their index for them at scale!
The type of intrusive data capture and tracking that kind of method requires to be wildly profitable would be against Apple’s current direction (they’ve decreased the quality of Siri results because users were leaking data about themselves in their requests). Without that, there’s no way that the infrastructure and power requirements and worker hours required to run it nwould ever receive enough revenue to sustain it. It would be a new market that would sink their profits with no ROI.
And, you can even set one search engine when doing normal searches and another when you’re doing search in private mode. What wonderful news!
Very well put and sadly today's reality.
I didn't know that about Siri but it sounds like something that would happen :/... On the other hand, having an incomplete ecosystem isn't something that matches Apple direction. I hope that they will be able to expand into that market without compromising their principles. Maybe we will see a complete revolution; Search for the rest of us!!
I don't like the idea of it but it could be subscription based 😅🫠
One example is that you used to be able to ask Siri what planes are flying overhead. It would give you a detailed map with direction, angles, distance, and call letters of any flight that would be reasonably visible from where you were standing. In order to get that information to you, it had to share your location with some external service. Many services like this realized the value in capturing information about the user requests and as a result, Siri now provides a link to the web where users can individually and explicitly make the choice to share their information directly with the service provider if they so desire.
Building something to take a network the size of Google’s with just the limited revenues of subscriptions is probably a non-starter. and that’s before thinking about how Apple‘s own limitation on their usage of other peoples data up would limit their ability to create cross references and cross links between relevant data stores.
The only way anyone can beat Google at Google‘s game is if they played by Google‘s rules. Anyone with the goal of trying to maintain anonymity would be like Google from years and years ago, when it was essentially a Yellow Pages. If you know exactly what you’re looking for you can find it, but if you don’t, it can’t help you by cross referencing what you’ve been searching for recently.
Wow, that's a cool feature, sad that it's gone
Yes.
Maybe I just naively hope that Apple will pick up a flamethrower and incinerate the playing-feild crowning themselves victorious...