[HN Gopher] Apple gets a cut of search revenue from Chrome as pa...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple gets a cut of search revenue from Chrome as part of secret
Google deal
Author : samwillis
Score : 123 points
Date : 2023-02-18 17:49 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (9to5mac.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (9to5mac.com)
| marmee wrote:
| Very cowardly of Google, bribing Apple instead of counting on its
| superior product (at least up until a few years).
|
| This is a behavior that has a long history there, the no-poach
| agreements with Apple, selling Pixel in an extremely limited
| market, etc.
|
| This inexplicable fear in dealings with Apple means their
| situation is worse now when Google Search is in trouble
| [deleted]
| drcongo wrote:
| Haven't we known about this "secret" deal for years?
| goosedragons wrote:
| We knew Apple got paid for default iOS search to be Google but
| I don't think we knew Apple got paid for Google using Google
| search in Google Chrome on iOS.
| gundmc wrote:
| The article itself says that Bloomberg reported this in 2020.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Charging people to make a specific search engine the default
| for iOS search is arguably abusive of market power, but at
| least one could argue that it's well-understood by consumers
| and competitors alike. Using that market power to demand a
| cut of revenue from private apps _and then keeping it secret_
| looks much worse.
| votepaunchy wrote:
| A monopolist search provider paying off a potential
| competitor is arguably abusive of market power and looks
| much worse.
| luckylion wrote:
| A "potential competitor" that has no product at all? That
| sounds like nonsense.
|
| They're paying for access, not to keep Apple out of
| search -- otherwise they'd pay a few extra billions on
| top so that users on Windows can't use that potential
| Apple search.
| graeme wrote:
| Apple has been expanding its search activities for years.
| Google absolutely has giving Apple an incentive not to
| compete as part of its aims
| dmix wrote:
| If it's quid-pro-quo, ala Firefox funding itself via search
| defaults, I don't see how it's exploitative. I highly doubt
| Google is paying just to keep themselves in the Apple app
| store. They would (and could) have made a big fus about it
| unless they got something in return from Apple.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| What are they getting from Apple, then? That's the
| question that raises my anti-competitive fears.
| Presumably if Apple and Google wanted that question to be
| easily-answered they wouldn't have written a secret deal.
| joemaller1 wrote:
| how big is the secondary browser market on iOS? I can't imagine
| searches on iOS-Chrome are worth very much.
| whstl wrote:
| The 9to5mac article claims it is "a new report from The Register"
| but, as other people mentioned, this has been known for years.
|
| It is interesting, however, to see the amounts:
|
| 2007, 25 million:
| https://daringfireball.net/2007/06/wwdc_2007_keynote
|
| 2009, 82 million: https://techcrunch.com/2013/02/12/google-to-
| pay-apple-1-bill... (sorry couldn't find the original article)
|
| 2013, 1 billion: https://techcrunch.com/2013/02/12/google-to-pay-
| apple-1-bill... (same as above)
|
| 2015, 1 billion: https://searchengineland.com/prediction-apple-
| will-not-renew...
|
| 2016, 1 billion: https://www.macworld.com/article/227243/report-
| google-is-the... and
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/22/google-pa...
|
| 2017, 3 billion: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-
| paying-apple-3-bi...
|
| 2018, 9 billion: https://searchengineland.com/report-google-to-
| pay-apple-9-bi...
|
| 2018, 12 billion: https://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-
| safari-search-en...
|
| 2019, 9 billion:
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/02/12/apple-may-have-be...
|
| 2020: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-24/deals-
| wit...
| CharlesW wrote:
| Those stories are about what Google pays Apple to be the
| default Safari search engine.
|
| This new claim is that Google pays Apple cut of search revenue,
| in addition to that.
| NetOpWibby wrote:
| [flagged]
| samwillis wrote:
| I think this is bigger news than that. I think it's suggestive
| of controversial backroom deals where Apple allows Google Crome
| of iOS in return for a kickback on revenue.
|
| Obviously it could have been part of the negotiations around
| Google being the default search engine and revenue share with
| Safari, which if you are generous makes it less bad. But with
| the oncoming investigations and potential sanctions Apple is in
| line for (particularly in Europe) it doesn't paint the best
| picture.
| threeseed wrote:
| If Apple is forced to ask users to pick a search engine on
| startup then it won't be an issue for them.
|
| Huge problem for Google who will lose the most lucrative and
| dependable revenue source they have.
| samwillis wrote:
| Apple are paid $15 billion annually by Google for the
| Safari default. That's around 10-15% of their profit for
| doing nothing other than setting a default.
| gorbypark wrote:
| I've always wondered about the lost revenue possibilities
| of Apple not building their own search engine. Imagine in
| a perfect world (for Apple) that all Apple devices used
| AppleSearch 100% of the time. What kind of revenue would
| they need to pull in to clear 15 billion in profit per
| year?
|
| Some back of the napkin math shows that Alphabet is
| averaging about a 30% profit margin the last few years.
| Of course they do a ton of other stuff, most loosing
| money, but let's say Apple can make 30% off their search
| engine. That'd be 50 billion of revenue per year that
| Apple would need to bring in to break even with Google's
| 15 billion payment. Seeing as they already pull in ~20
| billion per year revenue from App Store ads alone, I
| think it's not far fetched to think that Apple is leaving
| money on the table by not rolling their own search
| engine.
|
| I think they must be working on something, even if it's
| just as a backup plan in case Google is prevented from
| making such deals in the future due to anti-trust issues.
| akmittal wrote:
| I wonder whom they will loose out to. I think >90% will
| still choose Google
| waboremo wrote:
| Nobody, the only way Apple is going to introduce such
| "choice" is by releasing the search engine they've been
| working on. Two birds one stone.
| yucky wrote:
| Maybe a dumb question, but how exactly is this sort of revenue
| kept secret in a publicly traded company?
| Zigurd wrote:
| It isn't a major part of Google's costs, nor a major part of
| Apple's revenue.
|
| Subsidies from apps, while they are usually bundled apps, which
| Apple doesn't do, are commonplace in hardware vendors' income.
| For PC makers, it is a more significant part of their business
| model.
| saagarjha wrote:
| It's like 15% of their profit, not all that small.
| saagarjha wrote:
| I believe Apple lumps it into one of their "other" categories
| that includes all sorts of other things.
| groffee wrote:
| I mean is it? We're reading about it on HN.
| fIREpOK wrote:
| You believe everything you read?
| yucky wrote:
| I didn't think I need to state the obvious, but clearly I
| meant "for so long". If it's been secret revenue for any
| length of time in a public company, that is the part I'm
| trying to understand.
| waboremo wrote:
| Financial reports aren't as strict as you might believe them to
| be. There are many widely accepted tactics utilized to keep
| certain things secret or just in general to paint a better
| picture. You can report on a deal with another company, but not
| specify every detail of that deal. Nobody would ever notice
| unless you're doing something egregious as suddenly having a
| 500% increase in "Other" revenue, or in the case of this
| situation being specifically investigated.
| siliconc0w wrote:
| Paying your competition not to compete, if only we had a
| government entity focused on limiting anticompetitive behavior.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Except that in this case Apple is a distributor. This is a
| pretty normal distribution agreement. Apple isn't in the search
| engine business, so to say they are being paid to not compete
| is like saying Best Buy is being paid not to compete (ie, they
| don't produce computers) by Lenovo.
|
| Many distribution agreements have a clause saying the
| distributor can't create their own product and compete. The
| reason is, as a distributor, you get a lot of insight into the
| customers, the product, the pricing. It's completely reasonable
| when you consider the full value chain of a product. Further,
| if Apple did compete in the search engine business, many would
| claim they would be unfairly competing by using their dominant
| market position in smart phones to dominate another industry.
|
| Competition issues are complex.
| [deleted]
| deanCommie wrote:
| > "This perhaps explains why Apple has not launched a rival
| search engine or invested in the development of its Safari
| browser to the point that it could become a credible challenger
| to Chrome,"
|
| I'm sorry what? On iOS, Safari is superior to Chrome in every
| way.
|
| People use Chrome for the cross-platform Google account
| integration
| Zigurd wrote:
| This is not wrong. I use Chrome because I use a lot of other
| Google tools, but Safari is clearly faster, lighter, and
| trouble free to the extent I have used it. Chrome isn't a
| necessity on MacOS.
| steve76 wrote:
| [dead]
| jimrandomh wrote:
| On iOS, Chrome _is_ Safari. Apple outright bans competing web
| browsers on its platform; what they allow is reskinned versions
| of Safari, which is basically a way to allow Chrome and Firefox
| to save face and support bookmarks-syncing, but not a genuine
| alternative browser.
| CharlesW wrote:
| That's like saying games that use Unreal Engine are basically
| reskins of each other. Yes, they both use WebKit, but as
| browsers they're quite different, and the data that Google
| collects when you're using Chrome is quite different than
| what it gets when you're using Safari.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| I'm not sure to what extent this is true but here's an
| anecdote.
|
| The other day I was at the local climbing gym where they
| have a "Moonboard"-clone - basically a spraywall with LEDs
| so you can program different boulder problems by selecting
| holds and having their LEDs light up to indicate which are
| part of the problem.
|
| The application to control it is a web app. It didn't work
| for me on Safari, but it did on Firefox.
|
| I thought it could be some difference in configuration but
| another iOS user confirmed it worked for him on Firefox but
| not Safari on his phone either.
| copperx wrote:
| You need stronger evidence than an anecdote to suggest
| Gecko is running on iOS.
| threeseed wrote:
| I would add that on macOS as well Safari is far superior in
| many aspects e.g. battery life, efficiency, performance.
|
| Also it argues that Apple takes more time to think through
| features rather than just blindly adding them. For example only
| allowing Web Push for apps installed to the phone rather than
| the bombarding the user.
| gorbypark wrote:
| Yeah, I think most complaints about Safari come from web
| developers. I do a fair amount of web dev yet use Safari as
| my default browser. As a user, it's great. It seems faster
| and leaner and it's definitely batter for battery life. The
| one downside is the extension ecosystem isn't as good as
| Chrome, but Ad Guard works ok (not as good as uBlock Origin,
| but good enough) and that's really all I need.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| It's shocking that Safari is the only browser that seems to
| aim specifically for not eating battery and not turning
| your laptop into an oven. With the ever rising importance
| of mobile platforms you'd think these things would be a
| bigger priority at Google and Mozilla, especially since
| Google has not one but _two_ mobile platforms, but instead
| the focus seems to be on gee-whiz bells and whistles of
| questionable value.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| Firefox is very good on macOS these days. Very low memory
| and CPU footprint, great battery life.
|
| I haven't run numbers but it feels similar to Safari in
| that I can use it pretty much all day without reaching
| for the charger - that is, unless I'm doing a lot of
| video confs.
| [deleted]
| wnevets wrote:
| Don't forget Apple really cares about your privacy unlike that
| mean Google.
| sfe22 wrote:
| If apple really cared about privacy it would cut a deal with
| google to limit or remove tracking for iphone users, not
| working on finding the highest bidder for iphone user data.
| CharlesW wrote:
| Apple does limit tracking for iPhone users, across the web.
| They don't need to "cut a deal" with individual companies to
| do that.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/24/21192830/apple-safari-
| int...
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-18 23:01 UTC)