Considering that the DOJ is going to come after Apple in the future probably after scoring win against Google and Amazon. I don't think this is a wise strategy by Apple to take this obvious side with monopoly position. And I hate that apple consider their hardware users as some belongings that they need to get money in order for others to reach them.
They might argue they provide Safari for free and as part of their business model earn a fee for referring users to the preferred search engine vs something substandard. This is a very common business model on just about every web publisher today.
I am pretty sure that if Apple lawyers to present this argument. Then DOJ will find it a gift when they file a monopoly case around apple monopolistic position and restrictions of non-Safari/Webkit based browsers (probably app store too). Because this will make it harder for Apple to present the case about security or privacy of the users if they just said before in a court that they do this as part of their business model to earn money.
The thing is, this payment from Google is billions in pure profit. If it were to stop, it would have a serious impact on Apple's valuation. Shareholders would want management to do anything they can to keep that cash flow coming.
I mean you can read into it in all sorts of ways, but the simplest is that Apple likes getting $20b per year by having a default setting on a config that is trivially easy for users to change.
That’s already so compelling, that I’m not sure it’s needed to read anything more sinister into it.
~Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on Safari
It could remove Google as a choice for users of safari? That seems like an insane thing to present as an approach apple might take. They could stop making it the default, but I think making it in unselectable actually would upset users enough to cause issues, at least in the short term.
There's not much there to disagree with. It's pretty clear that Apple thinks they'd lose more than they'd gain by having their own search service. As it is, they don't have to do anything except sign some documents and set a default URL and they make $20 Billion.
"If this Court prohibits Google from sharing revenue for search distribution, Apple would have two unacceptable choices. It could still let users in the United States choose Google as a search engine for Safari, but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple's users at no cost. Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on Safari. But because customers prefer Google, removing it as an option would harm both Apple and its customers."
and "... it is unlikely that Apple will decide to create a search engine in the future, regardless of what remedies are ordered in this case."
Apple is sounding like a cellular company pre-iPhone where the carriers demanded a cut of every transaction on the phone. They saw users as their asset and did everything they could to but themselves in the middle of every phone transaction. I'm talking about the time of $3 ringtones.
For Apple today, I can understand the argument for fees in the app store because there are real development and ongoing maintenance costs for that. But why should they get paid for a company to be a search engine option? How are they earning that money?
What's the problem with option 1? Users have a choice on what to pick, they pick Google because they prefer Google. Is users having choice foreign to Apple?
I hope Eddy Cue, SVP of Apple Services, gets to explain that quote in antitrust testimony at some point when he has to explain how Apple’s policy doesn’t assume ownership of users.
Readit News
That’s already so compelling, that I’m not sure it’s needed to read anything more sinister into it.
It could remove Google as a choice for users of safari? That seems like an insane thing to present as an approach apple might take. They could stop making it the default, but I think making it in unselectable actually would upset users enough to cause issues, at least in the short term.
I wish my life was that uncomplicated.
"If this Court prohibits Google from sharing revenue for search distribution, Apple would have two unacceptable choices. It could still let users in the United States choose Google as a search engine for Safari, but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple's users at no cost. Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on Safari. But because customers prefer Google, removing it as an option would harm both Apple and its customers."
and "... it is unlikely that Apple will decide to create a search engine in the future, regardless of what remedies are ordered in this case."
Source: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zgvoalybovd/...
Apple is sounding like a cellular company pre-iPhone where the carriers demanded a cut of every transaction on the phone. They saw users as their asset and did everything they could to but themselves in the middle of every phone transaction. I'm talking about the time of $3 ringtones.
For Apple today, I can understand the argument for fees in the app store because there are real development and ongoing maintenance costs for that. But why should they get paid for a company to be a search engine option? How are they earning that money?
Wouldn’t you complain too?
Dead Comment
That is entitled. Should every web site share profits with Apple because they are accessed via Safari.
Maybe Google should stop paying $15B/year on its own then...
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment