Why would you not pull in human data. After all we give it freely with tracking ads, search request, tracking web sites, and the worst offender, Google. How do think we learn, pulling in human data.
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
Why are you ignoring the link to American Heart Association In the answer? I assume it goes with the inane satiric misspellings popular today.
It gave a link to the American Heart Association. And asked if more information needed. Pretty good results, really. I got 100% accurate results and better information than you did.
My philosophy is that no one should ever legislate to compensate for consumer ignorance or laziness. As long as it’s possible to switch search engines, whatever Google is doing with regards to paying Apple should be fine. Just because people don’t change it isn’t a good reason to level monopoly charges at someone. I despise Google and Google search, but I’m not eager to deem them a monopoly. I use DuckDuckGo, myself.
I’ll caveat this with actual physical harm. If somebody can get killed or seriously injured due to lack of knowledge or laziness, that’s where I draw the line.
From an interview given on June 18th.
Vestager: The changes that the DMA is demanding, they are changes that will touch the business model.
Amaro: Breakups even?
VESTAGER: Well, it remains to be seen. But if you have to carry a second app store, that will make a dent in your own app store. If you cannot promote your own services, but need to give room for competitors, rightfully, legitimately so, of course that will potentially, sort of, take away some of your own profits.
Vestager is basing whether or not the DMA is successful on how much it affects the profits of those companies. That’s her bottom line. If it were to come to a point where developers are happy, consumers are happy, the companies are happy but Apple’s still pulling in similar profits, Vestager would continue as “sort of taking away their profits” is her goal. And reading that really helped to understand why everything related to the DMA is so piecemeal, they’re trying to hide their end goal. When the rules clearly state that Apple’s iPad is NOT a gatekeeper, but they then rule that is IS a gatekeeper because “reasons”… that’s not some weird edge case. If the true goal is to lower Apple’s profits, then of COURSE a device that meets none of the criteria of a gatekeeper is defined as a gatekeeper.
I'd just point out that a certain organization has a history of pushing outdated and ineffective hypotheses instead of accepting current valid data.
And I'll point out that they're yet again pushing a "low sodium" diet as a universal good idea without individualized diagnostics, which is not rational given that sodium-sensitive hypertension is generally considered to be something that affects less than a third of humans.
I'll also mention that a certain organization has a bit of a profit motive to push their "Heart Healthy" label on food, a label that carries a fee for each product so labeled.
Did the doj sue Apple for making their own maps? No, they just laughed like everybody else didIMO you can’t win here. If Apple does their own search the DOJ will file another anti trust suitWho remembers IE and MS?
Who remembers IE and MS?
Just make them your home page, what’s the big deal?
The ones with the better reputation may make it into the list. Did DuckDuckGo pay to be listed?
Not if they offer a choice of other search engines without theirs as default. And perhaps require Google pay them billions to be listed among the top 2 choices, instead of in a random order. But let users pick Apple's own engine with better integration into privacy preserving Apple Intelligence. Win either way with no monopoly.
Neither the DOJ nor Judge Mehta claimed the deal held Apple back from developing its own search engine.
I believe forcing Apple’s hand is counterproductive and takes away from the ability to create a more perfect experience. At the same time it allowing the leader of a field to offer the most desired service by default allows them to focus on what they do best.
At least like macOS let me write down which search engine I want on iOS safari, i don’t like the options they give me they suck, hell I used to use duckduckgo but recently both bing and hence the same for ddg started to suck and I stopped using google for 12 years now lol don’t want to ever use that trash
Perplexity or something like that is future. The present situation is neither rosy nor ready. Perplexity needs to spend more time in making it better than hype and gas lighting.
There's no need for them to make their own search engine. Just adding a menu at setup letting the user choose the default search app would likely satisfy the courts. Most people will still choose Google anyway so the biggest thing is the $20B/yr Apple will lose.
exactly.
Apple spends time and money and then EU jumps in, calls them defaulting to their own search a monopoly and forces them to offer random choices...
Cut to the chase now, let the user decide.
And if they choose Google or another, let the engine pay a fee per request... Apple being the Gatekeeper to outside apps. EU seems fine about Gatekeeper role and charging. So long as there is user choice and competing apps...
So the only loser in this is Apple, not Google. hmmm.
And not going to change user behaviour...
There's your first problem, your treating the search box in a search engine like you're talking to a sentient being. It's going to find web pages with those words. It's not a chat text box. A better search term would be American Medical Association (AMA) blood pressure guidelines .
Maybe not if Apple lists Google at the bottom of a list of 47 different search engines in very small print ...
They'd probably get sued by the EU for doing something like that.
At best apple can just provide a list; sorted alphabetically.
Suddenly google inc's rename to alphabet makes sense; since that'd rank it ahead of bing.
You’re sidestepping to something very different from what you earlier claimed (“punishing American companies).
No, it’s not. The quotes from the interview completely contradict your claim.
She concedes that it will negatively impact market share and “potentially, sort of, … sone” profits.
That is not “basing success” on how much.
No, it’s about contestable markets and business and consumer choice.
When someone operates in a monopoly - as Apple do for digital content transactions on iOS, or Google pretty much for internet search - that implies they’re going to lose some market share. And possibly profits - cause monopolists rarely offer competitive pricing.
Let’s be honest here: iPadOS isn’t really something different or separate from iOS.
iPadOS is the same operating system as iOS, and the iPadOS App Store is the very same store as on iOS in all but name. With merely different names, screen sizes and the and the proverbial lick of paint (branding) slapped onto it. We both know that, and so does the European Union. If Apple were segmenting their business in such way today, they’d run afoul of the anti-circumvention clause of the DMA - they just did it in name and branding before to the law coming into force. And the designation of iPadOS - a platform inextricably linked to iOS, with allows purchase and use of the same services and app - recognises that.
Android isn’t making a distinction in branding between tablets and phones, and neither does Microsoft for Windows on handhelds or touch devices. iPadOS‘s designation as a gatekeeper is just on par with them.
Last edited:
Regarding Apple setting up their own search engine, I say, good luck with that.
Microsoft spent billions over many years and achieved squat. As this article states, they were willing to give it away, must have been a money pit even for Microsoft.
Microsoft would have far more in-house skills and ability for search than Apple in my opinion.
Google has vanquished every search competitor for over two decades.
My prediction, Google will maintain search dominance on Apple devices and pay nothing to Apple and Apple will at best create a niche search service.
Microsoft spent billions over many years and achieved squat. As this article states, they were willing to give it away, must have been a money pit even for Microsoft.
Microsoft would have far more in-house skills and ability for search than Apple in my opinion.
Google has vanquished every search competitor for over two decades.
My prediction, Google will maintain search dominance on Apple devices and pay nothing to Apple and Apple will at best create a niche search service.