Hacker News Reader

Comment by arvinsim | Hacker News Reader

I have read somewhere that the money Google pays Apple for being the default is a relatively big chunk of Apple's profit margins. If true, then it is understandable why Apple is fighting hard for it.

View on HN

Also, what will apple do - make Google not the default? Giving users bing or whatever will just piss off a lot of people.

It seems the main thing the DoJ is upset about is that Apple hasn't developed a search engine themselves, because they have these deals with Google.

So they want more vertical integration?

Surprised Apple and Google haven't just come to an agreement for Apple to "create their own" search engine which uses Google as the backend to work around it.

This is pretty much exactly one of DoJ's proposed remedies they're trying to force Google to do https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/27/24302415/doj-google-sear...

Develop their own crappy version and rely on most people not noticing. (Apple Maps)

Your info might be outdated. Apple Maps is actually better than Google Maps in many ways (e.g. it says "pass this light and at the next one, turn left" instead of "in 300 feet, turn left")

I notice that I don’t see ads in Apple Maps.

Google search has already become crappy enough. I doubt Apples would do so much worse at this point.

Option 1: Present the choices on the Setup screen when you install the new iOS.

Option 2: Leave the default NULL and when the user first hits search in iOS (and default is NULL), present the list of search providers.

If they're still not being paid for those choices, I don't see why Apple would do this instead of just making the default Google (or something else reasonable).

In the EU both Google and Microsoft have such selection screens for search engines (and at some point browsers) because of antitrust concerns. I believe Apple also has a browser selection screen on iOS, but I'm not sure if this is the case for search engines.

If antitrust rulings make the case that any such big tech deals are illegal, Apple may not have a choice in the matter.

It's possible that Apple could be forced to do this, but just want to note that the EU Google and Microsoft thing is different. The EU didn't want them to push their own browsers, search engines, or other software on users.

Sure - but what I mean is that Apple seems to be stuck without any good options here. Even if they don't get the $20B/yr, most users will probably either choose google search, or be upset if they don't get google search on mobile safari.

I see your point. Apple can no doubt weather the loss of $20B.

Apple need to get their AI act together and replace Siri with a decent RAG-supporting AI that people are likely to prefer to search (Google search is becoming less and less useful, both in of itself and wrt AI).

It's funny that when Apple originally acquired the Siri tech from SRI international ("Siri" = "SRI"), there were plans to augment it with all sorts of agentic behaviors like OpenTable bookings, which never happened, and now OpenAI's first agent "Operator" seems to be focusing on exactly use cases like that (OpenTable, Uber, etc). Rather than paying for search, these sort of AI-generated business referrals could be a revenue source for Apple, or at least offset the cost of licencing a SOTA AI from someone else until/unless they develop their own.

Doesn't matter what % of Apple's profits, we're talking $11-figures per year.

There are not enough lawyers in American (within this legal niche) to soak up all the legal expenses that defending an 11-figure profit center could justify.

> relatively big chunk of Apple's profit margins

It's about 1/6 of Apple's profits.

And proportional to the growth of their devices i.e it's likely to go down over time as they grow beyond iPhone/Mac.

Does Apple think Google is going to intentionally lose the trial so they don't have to pay anymore :D?

Their services profits maybe (which is where Wallstreet's perceived growth is coming from)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com