No price Microsoft could pay Apple to use Bing: Google antitrust ruling excerpts
The ruling in the United States v. Google case confirms Google's monopoly in search engines, highlighting its payments to Apple, lack of competition from social media, and resilience against AI disruption.
Read original article
The recent ruling in the United States v. Google antitrust case, delivered by Judge Amit Mehta, highlights Google's dominant position in the search engine market. The extensive 286-page opinion reveals that Google pays Apple billions to remain the default search engine on Safari, with Apple executives stating that no amount from Microsoft could persuade them to switch to Bing. The judge noted that Google is perceived as the only viable option for many Fortune 500 companies, which find it financially unfeasible to consider alternatives due to the substantial revenue share they receive from Google. The ruling also clarifies that TikTok and other social media platforms do not compete with Google as general search engines, as they operate differently and do not index the web in the same manner. Furthermore, the judge dismissed the notion that AI could soon disrupt Google's search dominance, asserting that current AI technologies cannot replace the foundational elements of search. The ruling concludes that Google's ability to alter its search quality without fear of losing users is indicative of its monopolistic power, raising questions about consumer harm and competition in the digital age.
- The ruling confirms Google as a monopolist in the search engine market.
- Google pays Apple billions to maintain its default status on Safari.
- TikTok and social media platforms are not considered competitors to Google Search.
- Current AI technologies are not poised to disrupt Google's search dominance.
- Google's ability to degrade search quality without losing users reflects its monopolistic power.
Related
'Google says I'm a dead physicist': is the biggest search engine broken?
Google faces scrutiny over search result accuracy and reliability, with concerns about incorrect information and cluttered interface. Despite dominance in the search market, criticisms persist regarding data privacy and search quality.
Google loses antitrust lawsuit over its search dominance
A federal judge declared Google a monopolist in its search business, citing antitrust violations. The ruling may lead to penalties and impacts Google's contracts, affecting its AI development and competition.
Google's online search monopoly is illegal, US judge rules
A US judge ruled that Google illegally maintains a monopoly in online search, potentially leading to penalties or a breakup. Google plans to appeal, citing service quality over anti-competitive practices.
Will Google's anti-monopoly lawsuit be the death knell for Mozilla and Firefox?
A U.S. ruling against Google for maintaining an illegal monopoly threatens Mozilla's revenue, raising concerns about its sustainability and prompting exploration of alternative partnerships amid uncertain future implications.
Breaking up Google would offer a chance to remodel the web
The antitrust ruling against Google reveals its illegal monopoly, hindering competition. Alternatives exist but struggle. A post-Google internet aims for user privacy and diverse, non-invasive services.
10 commentsJust because they could, doesn't mean they should. But I guess they decided to anyway - it was around that time that adverts shifted from being clearly labelled to being disguised as search results.
Bing as of a handful of years ago wasn't all that bad -- in fact, if you lived in the Microsoft enterprise sphere, it was arguably better than Google. Now that Bing belongs to the ad division, it's no better than Google search. Both platforms are defacto promoted ad engines with SEO gaming for results just beyond the ads.
And I'm aware of Kagi, but it's not for the wide swaths of whatever can be indexed out there... it's tough to stomach paying for a utility that has been free since the 1990s.
But, if Bing (especially circa 2016) were that search provider, it would lead to confusion all the way down. It's bad enough not to receive an answer from your first attempt, but it's much worse not to be able to receive an answer at all.
The payments were certainly a sweetener to discourage exploring (or incubating) alternatives, but I agree with the article that I don't think they could have dumped or replaced Google at that time, even without the payments.
Given a broader shift from search engines to "knowledge engines" or however they're branded these days (which, in fairness, probably drew some inspiration from Google's Knowledge Graph), I think that Apple's options are wider these days.
Is that line item the justification for people to imagine, whole cloth, that Apple has an advertising incentive, and therefore is no better than Google?
Wouldn't it be ironic for folks trying to equivocate Apple and Google's advertising agenda to find out that the only reason Apple has revenue from "advertising" is because Google pays them to?
> The big DOJ antitrust trial over Google Search revealed last week that Big G pays Apple $20 billion a year to be the default search on iOS. That’s over 20 percent of the “services” revenue Tim Cook loves to talk about on earnings calls, but hey, where is all that money on the balance sheet?
> BI’s Peter Kafka found out: Apple categorizes it as “advertising.”
-- https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/6/24150326/well-thats-an-int...
Related
'Google says I'm a dead physicist': is the biggest search engine broken?
Google faces scrutiny over search result accuracy and reliability, with concerns about incorrect information and cluttered interface. Despite dominance in the search market, criticisms persist regarding data privacy and search quality.
Google loses antitrust lawsuit over its search dominance
A federal judge declared Google a monopolist in its search business, citing antitrust violations. The ruling may lead to penalties and impacts Google's contracts, affecting its AI development and competition.
Google's online search monopoly is illegal, US judge rules
A US judge ruled that Google illegally maintains a monopoly in online search, potentially leading to penalties or a breakup. Google plans to appeal, citing service quality over anti-competitive practices.
Will Google's anti-monopoly lawsuit be the death knell for Mozilla and Firefox?
A U.S. ruling against Google for maintaining an illegal monopoly threatens Mozilla's revenue, raising concerns about its sustainability and prompting exploration of alternative partnerships amid uncertain future implications.
Breaking up Google would offer a chance to remodel the web
The antitrust ruling against Google reveals its illegal monopoly, hindering competition. Alternatives exist but struggle. A post-Google internet aims for user privacy and diverse, non-invasive services.