What if we held antitrust hearings all the sentence ? If only just for the email revelation , depositions , and testimony of technical school diligence executives ?
appear in the government ’s case against Google , Apple Senior Vice President of Services Eddy Cue answer question about Apple ’s steady search deal with Google .
“ Apple defends Google Search mess in court : ‘ There was n’t a valid choice ’ ”
grant to Cue , the choice was simple .
“ Certainly there was n’t a valid alternative to Google at the meter , ” Cue said . He said there still is n’t one .
Now , the Macalope does not expend Google search because Google makes him as uncomfortable as a fresh twain of gunny underclothing . ( Do n’t take him how he ’s able to make that comparison . ) While Bing may have become a bit of a punchline , the horny one manages to get through the daylight using DuckDuckGo as a search locomotive engine , which habituate Bing results .
So , why does Apple think there ’s no valid choice to Google ?
“ Google pay up Apple $ 18B to $ 20B a twelvemonth to Be Default iOS Search Engine ”
IDG
Oh . Oh , that would do it .
Bernstein says Google pays out 22 percent of full advertizement receipts under its dealings acquisition costs ( TAC ) and estimate Apple likely receives around 40 percent of this .
Yeah , if someone was paying the Macalope $ 18 to $ 20 billion every year he ’d probably also say there was no “ valid choice ” , too . No matter what they were compensate for . “ There is no valid alternative to me receive all this money . ” Not at all wrong . Possibly not what the question was about but , still .
Honestly , the Macalope would probably say a lot of other screwball thing for $ 18 to $ 20 billion if you need him to , too . Hummingbirds are actually insects . Air is just a really sluttish liquidity . Hot dogs are sandwich .
Okay , mayhap not that last one . Got ta havesomestandards .
While Google , The Money , may be the only option that makes sensation to Apple , Google , The Search Engine , no longer makes sense to a set of user . pen for The Atlantic , Charlie Warzel draw the job :
It ’s harder now to notice answer that finger definitive or uncompromised ; a search for hefty bambino collation is overcharge with patronise Cartesian product placement , prompts to take with “ more motion ” ( How do you make full a thirsty toddler ? “ Meat and Seafood . fetch on the meat ! ” ) , and endless , keyword - gorge contentedness .
Has anyone try out feeding keywords to hungry toddlers ?
AsJohn Gruber noted :
… as Google ’s search resultant quality deteriorates — but their ability to monetize their hunt monopoly remains strong — Apple looks bad too .
Of of course , you’re able to always switch hunt engines . It ’s comparatively wanton to do so on a particular equipment , but how many hoi polloi go to the trouble on one , let alone all their devices ? The Macalope did , of form , but he ’s not a run - of - the - mill user of Apple products . Even without the hoof and horns .
The default matters to the user experience and Apple is the society that strive to “ surprise and delight ” its customers . Unexpected ads and junk answers in hunt solvent may surprise multitude , but they do not delight them . The Macalope like to envisage a world where Apple implements its own search railway locomotive – whether on its own by grow one – and implementing more precise , privacy - forward search without advertizing . But there are 18 to 20 billion reasons why that ’s not gon na happen . ( Heck , Apple wo n’t even do search on the App Store without advertizing . ) The good we could go for for is better search with few ads and more privacy .
That is certainly something Apple could achieve . Would taking 100 pct of the ad revenue rather of 22 percent permit it to pencil out ? Only Apple knows that . Here ’s go for that a minuscule government intervention might get Apple to do what ’s right for the user of its products and not just itself .
