They wouldn't pay it unless it made good business sense. And besides "just works" Apple wouldn't want to have to offer a subpar default search offering to their users. So it's always win-win.
I suspect it's that they don't want to take the risk that not being front and center on Apple platforms could have on their business. Maybe droves Apple of users would jump ship to Bing... Or maybe they would jump ship to Android if Google Maps and Waze were pulled from the App Store.
I've actually switched, after a long time, to using Apple Maps as my default mapping application. It's good enough for 99.9% of the time. And I like its privacy-conscious construction.
I drive a lot of car KM's in Europe. Apple Maps is bad when it comes to guiding me over the best (read: moving traffic) roads compared to Google Maps.
As much as I enjoy particular instructions (specifically the indication of highway splits) from Apple Maps, Google Maps just keeps me moving and prevents stalls way better over here.
Short distances it matters less. That might be your 99.9%?
I've been trying to run Adwords Universal Campaign on my iOS app, but Google just wouldn't drive any traffic to my iOS app while similar Android campaign works like a charm. Is Google trying to undermine Apple via its Search/Adwords monopoly here?
Could you be bit more elaborate about your objective? Is it get your iOS app installs via Ads. More impressions/clicks on the ads, gets more money for Google, I don't see a reason for them to restrict that in any ways; in-fact the whole article is about it's importance.
Yes trying to get more installs for my apps but Adwords just wont run my iOS campaign while Android runs very well. This has nothing to do with Google controlling Play Store because when i see the placement source it is driving traffic mostly from youtube.com.
A big day for Apple is changing it's color on a phone with the same specs. Apple=consumer product(aka look at the jeans with the name brand)Google=business class. Microsoft=Smithsonian. Google just needs to step up there game and stop playing nice with Microsoft. Just sink there battleship already, they are always 10 years behind the times. Microsoft needs to put out books to figure out how to use the shit and Google is intuitive, no manual required. Mic drop.
Not really, results are results. And they're usually pretty similar anyways. Also, consider that when searching with Siri, Apple is controlling the formatting of those results as well, so they will fit Apple's style, not Bing's.
When Siri decides your request needs web search results, it uses Bing by default. You can override this by asking Siri to "google search" for your term. The behavior is different in that it will open your default browser to a Google search results page.
It is, but is also a sign that Apple wants to commoditize search on the iPhone, weakening Google's position. All without stop receiving Google's billions of course.
It makes perfect sense when you remember that the reason Android exists is to get users into the Google ecosystem, as a loss leader. iOS exists to sell expensive handsets. I don’t think Google cares what phone you have as long as all of your valuable data is in Google services and you’re viewing Google ads.
Isn't it interesting that the fight is between Google and Apple, while the consumer is the one holding the product in hand.
They did a extraordinary job of taking control over the final user. The user has the power ("ability" but let's exaggerate) to switch to any search engine they want, thwarting any decision these two companies make. But that's too complicated, let's leave it to the techies.
I really wish for a mandatory class in schools where students are demystified about computers.
> They did a extraordinary job of taking control over the final user. The user has the power ("ability" but let's exaggerate) to switch to any search engine they want, thwarting any decision these two companies make.
This sounds less like someone taking power and more like everyone collectively ceding it. Part of this involves transaction costs. Relative to the minor gains many might expect from taking the time to switch search engines, the cost of learning how to do that is steep. Naturally, those economies scale favor Apple and Google.
Perhaps the switching cost isn't, or shouldn't be, as high for consumers. I think the solution is in education and lowering peoples' fears with tinkering with their tech. But another part of me thinks most people simply don't find such fiddling worth the bother.
I work in an elementary school in technology and I follow this space very closely. I can confidently tell you we are moving in the opposite direction. While arguably there has never been as much talked about “computer science” as there is now, we’re fueling this growth by essentially removing just about any computer science that was left in these courses.
> I really wish for a mandatory class in schools where students are demystified about computers.
I do too, but I don't see how it would make a difference in this situation.
I know plenty about computers and I choose to use Google search anyway, because I've tried the alternatives and they are nowhere near as good. I choose to use Apple products too, because I prefer them to the alternatives.
Yes, and with your powers you choose google. If apple was to switch your default, you will silently go to settings and restore it to google search. Now imagine not even knowing there is a choice to be made.
Suggest new title: "Google pays Apple $1B to remain default search engine (2014)"
There is no new story here. At all. The title is very misleading. Google paid Apple $1B in 2014, and they're digging this up to reuse old content. They speculate that the amount has grown since then.
26 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 50.1 ms ] threadThat's what people thought about maps, too.
They did a extraordinary job of taking control over the final user. The user has the power ("ability" but let's exaggerate) to switch to any search engine they want, thwarting any decision these two companies make. But that's too complicated, let's leave it to the techies.
I really wish for a mandatory class in schools where students are demystified about computers.
This sounds less like someone taking power and more like everyone collectively ceding it. Part of this involves transaction costs. Relative to the minor gains many might expect from taking the time to switch search engines, the cost of learning how to do that is steep. Naturally, those economies scale favor Apple and Google.
Perhaps the switching cost isn't, or shouldn't be, as high for consumers. I think the solution is in education and lowering peoples' fears with tinkering with their tech. But another part of me thinks most people simply don't find such fiddling worth the bother.
I do too, but I don't see how it would make a difference in this situation.
I know plenty about computers and I choose to use Google search anyway, because I've tried the alternatives and they are nowhere near as good. I choose to use Apple products too, because I prefer them to the alternatives.
There is no new story here. At all. The title is very misleading. Google paid Apple $1B in 2014, and they're digging this up to reuse old content. They speculate that the amount has grown since then.