People who say "they can just build their own search engine" should try Apple Maps.
Yeah, it's not bad, but from my 18 months in Google Maps, I know there's a very long tail you have to get through. They have huge teams working on problems so small you wouldn't even realize they were problems.
The first 90% of maps (or search) is easy. It's the 2nd and 3rd and 10th 90% that sucks up all the time.
Am I crazy or are the people saying that getting the headline mixed up? Google is the one paying Apple fifteen billion dollars here, not the other way around. Why would Apple want off that gravy train? I’m sure they could make some search engine, but they’d have to be better than Google at monetizing it for it to be worth the effort.
You actually mention that even Google Maps has problems. I live in the Bay Area and have constantly experienced problems with it, including it directing me to a block or two behind the actual destination, directing me to more congested routes, etc.
I think when Apple Maps first launched it definitely was not good at all, but at this point they're roughly the same. Neither are perfect and that's fine, but comparing them as being drastically different levels of quality seems a bit far-fetched, to me at least.
I find Apple Maps totally fine and basically on par with Google maps today. It was indeed trash when it came out but I use it exclusively now and haven’t had any issues in a couple years. My one gripe is the deep Yelp integration.
I think the biggest issue with Apple building a search engine is that it doesn't fit their brand and product suite.
Building a search engine comparable to Google requires utilizing tons of data and personalization in a way that Apple has never been comfortable with.
Apple is the company I pay more for and trust with privacy and not needing to spy on me for the sake of giving me personalized ads, while Google is the exact opposite.
>>The first 90% of maps (or search) is easy. It's the 2nd and 3rd and 10th 90% that sucks up all the time.
OK, let's look at it differently: was Apple smart to do Maps or not? Think of pros and cons and we know money means nothing. Apple has so much money they can spend $20 Billion in a quarter on it/them if they wanted.
They could do the same with a "good enough" SE and then let the heavy users set Google as default. Did they lose any users from Apple Maps?
If they stopped sticking with Yelp, they would fare far better in my book. Reviews are a big part of what makes Google Maps awesome... for travel I use Apple Maps because the GPS voice on Google Maps is obnoxious and I don't like the UI that much, but Google Maps has a big win with reviews.
Ah, they joy of holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time! Like, Apple does not sell user data to third parties and Apple is sending all search traffic to Google by default for $15b a year.
> Apple may share personal data with service providers who act on our behalf, our partners, or others at your direction. Further, Apple does not share personal data with third parties for their own marketing purposes.
> Partners. At times, Apple may partner with third parties to provide services or other offerings. For example, Apple financial offerings like Apple Card and Apple Cash are offered by Apple and our partners. Apple requires its partners to protect your personal data.
They share it, they just don't share your data “with third parties for their own marketing purposes”, no additional privacy guarantees.
Well, Google is the best search engine, and Apple wants the best user experience. This has the feel of getting paid $15b to do something you were going to do anyways.
What's the alternative? Should Safari choose a default search engine by random per user or per session? Google is undoubtedly the best search engine in nearly all cases. Should Apple subject its users to a weaker engine just because Google has a different privacy policy? You can also change the default search engine.
Why wouldn't Apple accept a payment for bringing billions of dollars in traffic to Google?
It's kind of like how the NSA has deals with other countries like the UK to allow spying on Americans to get around constitutional issues. Hey, we didn't do the spying! We're privacy focused. We just make billions by allowing other companies to spy on you, and we make it the default position. Plausible deniability at the corporate level.
"Like, Apple does not sell user data to third parties and Apple is sending all search traffic to Google by default for $15B a year."
Or like, Mozilla is working to protect user privacy^1 and Mozilla is sending all search traffic to Google by default for [much less than $15B] a year.
In each case, we can see two conflicting interests/objectives. Data collection versus privacy protection. Being honest, which is the one we can say is making the most progress at the expense of the other. How much data is being collected. How much data is off-limits. How much money is being "lost" by "tech" companies to privacy protection (user self-determination). Be honest.
1 And other noble causes, including maintaining a "healhty" web. Read: Ensuring online advertising does not die out.
I don't think there's a world where apple switches to bing for its default search engine. But I don't think its outlandish at all to imagine Apple rolls its own search engine and uses that as the default here. In practice I suspect this is really just google paying apple $15B not to compete with its golden goose.
Apple did switch to Bing at one point. The default search engine in Safari is likely just a matter of money to them.
Apple already competes with Google in some search verticals, for example if you ask Siri to find a pizza restaurant, you will get an iOS pop-up with results that link to Yelp for reviews and Apple Maps for directions.
I don’t see Apple competing directly against Google in general-purpose search. But I could definitely see them expanding what iOS does “natively” to include Siri handling more queries itself rather than punting out to Google results.
Apple understands and knows how to build customer devices and products. They have no understanding of web and infrastructure. Building search engine is way beyond their competency as an organization.
> But I don't think its outlandish at all to imagine Apple rolls its own search engine and uses that as the default here
I think this is even more outlandish than switching to Bing.
Google Search accounted for $100B in revenues. iOS has ca. 14% browser market share. Assuming that mobile users search as much or are as valuable as desktop searchers, then that suggests iOS users generate ca. $14B in revenue. Of course, it's likely iOS users are more valuable than the average Google user, but it gives a rough run of the numbers.
Google is happy to pay all of this revenue back to Apple so that they don't suffer indirectly in other parts of the business by having an Apple competitor or with Bing as default.
Apple on the other hand needs to generate this value from a standing start. It's difficult to see how they'd feasibly get to > $15B net monetization on such a massive and risky undertaking.
I really think you underestimate how hard it is to "roll a search engine" the size of Google or Bing. Even a company like Apple couldn't do it in anything under maybe 7-10 years, regardless of how much money they throw at the problem.
It doesn't have to be by default. Like many other preferences Apple asks when it pushes a new version of iOS or macOS, why couldn't this be a choice for users?
A valid point, but I wonder how effective Apple's search engine will be with their stance on user privacy. I'm sure Apple is perfectly content with letting Google do the dirty work.
I don't think there's risk of apple building a successful search engine that can compete with Google, but just paying for Mac users who are not savvy enough to change their default browser to Google. (or bribe against going with Duck.com)
Didn’t this already happen at one point? At least for Siri results I know it did. I feel like it happened on Safari too but it might just have been Siri results.
> I don't think its outlandish at all to imagine Apple rolls its own search engine
IMHO, that's the play behind Neeva[1], to be acquired by Apple. But will Apple give up the sweet, sweet $$$$$ it gets from Google, just to roll its own?
And it's additional $15B R&D fund for Apple to improve its own search system that I can't imagine it's been developing for many years now behind the scenes.
I doubt many people change the default search engine on their device/browser, so it must be worth it for Google.
Whenever I speak to my mother she refers to the web as "Google" because it's the entrypoint to everything she does online. She doesn't type URLs, she goes to websites by typing them into the Google search box and clicking through (often the top result which is usually an ad)
Considering how big Apple is already ($80 billion per QUARTER!) the idea that they could at some point still decide to add a search engine and the associated revenues is amazing to me. It obviously wouldn't be a 1-to-1 switch with Google traffic coming from Apple devices but if they seriously attempted it I don't see how it wouldn't be a very substantial business very quickly.
Presumably this payment is based on Google's evaluation of the search ad value attributed to Apple devices but only $3.75 billion per quarter still seems low for how much iPhone search traffic there must be? Especially considering the relatively lower level of iPhone ad blocking vs. desktop I see anecdotally in my non-tech friends. I imagine though that both companies send in fairly deadly teams of apex negotiators for a deal like this so it must be close to representing the true economic value of the tie-up...
That is a shocking amount. Consider that google purchased YouTube for less than 2 billion.
And while I know YouTube wasnt the behemoth then, I find it hard to believe that it is only worth 1 month of google being the default.
And only for macintosh users! And only macintosh users who use safari! And only macintosh users who use safari who don't change the default search engine!
I am curious what that amounts to per user per year.
The considerations that would inform such an agreement are far beyond my comprehension. I suppose we may draw the lesson from the presumptive wisdom of this decision that software defaults are very important (hobbyist developers take note!) and also that large figures ought to be nice, round numbers.
I actually find this fascinating as it puts a dollar figure on it.
It’s similar to the FDA priority voucher market. If you get a drug approved by the FDA for a neglected disease, you get a transferable voucher that gets you a priority FDA review for whatever drug you use it for. It might accelerate approval by 3-6 months.
What’s that worth? Well the vouchers have sold for $100-250M lately.
>Now, a new report from analysts at Bernstein suggests that the payment from Google to Apple may reach $15 billion in 2021, up from $10 billion in 2020.
>Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi says that Google is likely “paying to ensure Microsoft doesn’t outbid it.”
The numbers just dont make any sense, both from Google's Traffic acquisition cost and Apple services revenue. And I know both number fairly well.
I sometimes wonder if I could apply to be an analyst considering most, at least most of them ever came into mainstream media tends to be so wrong on tech.
If they pay 15billion, the revenue number must be astronomic, very curious to know the net revenue for this.
It's valuable to Google anyway, as part of branding pr.
I guess Apple devices are probably responsible for a decent amount of the consumer web browsing in the world (iOS has 25-30% mobile device market share). I wonder if Apple is still going to launch a full search engine[1] and that might actually change the game (Bing has less than 3% search market share and Apple might instantly get 30%!) - and they're indexing a bunch due to Siri and stuff anyway.
I really don't understand what would be the threat from Apple to Google if they don't pay. Build their own search engine as they did for google maps ? Send users to Bing ? Mac users would not be thrilled ...
Apple is a media company that sells hardware, they don't need to spend time figuring out and maintaining search, especially if they've convinced Google to pay them that amount for the privilege.
[+] [-] AlbertCory|4 years ago|reply
Yeah, it's not bad, but from my 18 months in Google Maps, I know there's a very long tail you have to get through. They have huge teams working on problems so small you wouldn't even realize they were problems.
The first 90% of maps (or search) is easy. It's the 2nd and 3rd and 10th 90% that sucks up all the time.
[+] [-] fshbbdssbbgdd|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacobolus|4 years ago|reply
... to be validated by concrete demonstration that Apple is capable of building an excellent service if they put their mind to it...
[+] [-] spike021|4 years ago|reply
You actually mention that even Google Maps has problems. I live in the Bay Area and have constantly experienced problems with it, including it directing me to a block or two behind the actual destination, directing me to more congested routes, etc.
I think when Apple Maps first launched it definitely was not good at all, but at this point they're roughly the same. Neither are perfect and that's fine, but comparing them as being drastically different levels of quality seems a bit far-fetched, to me at least.
[+] [-] tracedddd|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lowkey_|4 years ago|reply
Building a search engine comparable to Google requires utilizing tons of data and personalization in a way that Apple has never been comfortable with.
Apple is the company I pay more for and trust with privacy and not needing to spy on me for the sake of giving me personalized ads, while Google is the exact opposite.
[+] [-] dcormier|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|4 years ago|reply
OK, let's look at it differently: was Apple smart to do Maps or not? Think of pros and cons and we know money means nothing. Apple has so much money they can spend $20 Billion in a quarter on it/them if they wanted.
They could do the same with a "good enough" SE and then let the heavy users set Google as default. Did they lose any users from Apple Maps?
[+] [-] omegalulw|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Apofis|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] infofarmer|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] littlestymaar|4 years ago|reply
Oh, of course they do:
> Apple’s Sharing of Personal Data
> Apple may share personal data with service providers who act on our behalf, our partners, or others at your direction. Further, Apple does not share personal data with third parties for their own marketing purposes.
> Partners. At times, Apple may partner with third parties to provide services or other offerings. For example, Apple financial offerings like Apple Card and Apple Cash are offered by Apple and our partners. Apple requires its partners to protect your personal data.
They share it, they just don't share your data “with third parties for their own marketing purposes”, no additional privacy guarantees.
source: https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/
[+] [-] hyperbovine|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bko|4 years ago|reply
Why wouldn't Apple accept a payment for bringing billions of dollars in traffic to Google?
[+] [-] cronix|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] techrat|4 years ago|reply
Users have preferences and may change the engines they search with, not use Safari at all or be already using Google anyway.
[+] [-] 1vuio0pswjnm7|4 years ago|reply
Or like, Mozilla is working to protect user privacy^1 and Mozilla is sending all search traffic to Google by default for [much less than $15B] a year.
In each case, we can see two conflicting interests/objectives. Data collection versus privacy protection. Being honest, which is the one we can say is making the most progress at the expense of the other. How much data is being collected. How much data is off-limits. How much money is being "lost" by "tech" companies to privacy protection (user self-determination). Be honest.
1 And other noble causes, including maintaining a "healhty" web. Read: Ensuring online advertising does not die out.
[+] [-] HWR_14|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SimeVidas|4 years ago|reply
Better?
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] quanto|4 years ago|reply
15b USD/year / 500 m users = 30 USD/user/year
3 searches/user/day = 1000 searches/user/year
30 USD/user/year / 1000 searches/user/year = 0.03 USD/search
AFAIK, 0.03 USD per search (or impression) is in the right ballpark for advertising.
------------------------
Data used (retrieved from Google) 446m Safari users. An average user searches on Google 3 - 4 times per day.
[+] [-] jyu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spywaregorilla|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snowwrestler|4 years ago|reply
Apple already competes with Google in some search verticals, for example if you ask Siri to find a pizza restaurant, you will get an iOS pop-up with results that link to Yelp for reviews and Apple Maps for directions.
I don’t see Apple competing directly against Google in general-purpose search. But I could definitely see them expanding what iOS does “natively” to include Siri handling more queries itself rather than punting out to Google results.
[+] [-] justapassenger|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qeternity|4 years ago|reply
I think this is even more outlandish than switching to Bing.
Google Search accounted for $100B in revenues. iOS has ca. 14% browser market share. Assuming that mobile users search as much or are as valuable as desktop searchers, then that suggests iOS users generate ca. $14B in revenue. Of course, it's likely iOS users are more valuable than the average Google user, but it gives a rough run of the numbers.
Google is happy to pay all of this revenue back to Apple so that they don't suffer indirectly in other parts of the business by having an Apple competitor or with Bing as default.
Apple on the other hand needs to generate this value from a standing start. It's difficult to see how they'd feasibly get to > $15B net monetization on such a massive and risky undertaking.
[+] [-] HEmanZ|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zahma|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcurve|4 years ago|reply
I don't think there's risk of apple building a successful search engine that can compete with Google, but just paying for Mac users who are not savvy enough to change their default browser to Google. (or bribe against going with Duck.com)
[+] [-] todd3834|4 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.cultofmac.com/231133/apple-takes-another-step-aw...
[+] [-] 1024core|4 years ago|reply
IMHO, that's the play behind Neeva[1], to be acquired by Apple. But will Apple give up the sweet, sweet $$$$$ it gets from Google, just to roll its own?
[1] https://www.neeva.com/
[+] [-] 908B64B197|4 years ago|reply
For a long time Siri searches were powered by Bing.
[+] [-] loceng|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2OEH8eoCRo0|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Barrin92|4 years ago|reply
Pretty hard to square the notion that value delivered, not defaults and market power matter when you pay 15 billion for that one click
[+] [-] djhworld|4 years ago|reply
Whenever I speak to my mother she refers to the web as "Google" because it's the entrypoint to everything she does online. She doesn't type URLs, she goes to websites by typing them into the Google search box and clicking through (often the top result which is usually an ad)
[+] [-] 256DEV|4 years ago|reply
Presumably this payment is based on Google's evaluation of the search ad value attributed to Apple devices but only $3.75 billion per quarter still seems low for how much iPhone search traffic there must be? Especially considering the relatively lower level of iPhone ad blocking vs. desktop I see anecdotally in my non-tech friends. I imagine though that both companies send in fairly deadly teams of apex negotiators for a deal like this so it must be close to representing the true economic value of the tie-up...
[+] [-] Gunax|4 years ago|reply
And while I know YouTube wasnt the behemoth then, I find it hard to believe that it is only worth 1 month of google being the default.
And only for macintosh users! And only macintosh users who use safari! And only macintosh users who use safari who don't change the default search engine!
I am curious what that amounts to per user per year.
[+] [-] prvc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NelsonMinar|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] refurb|4 years ago|reply
It’s similar to the FDA priority voucher market. If you get a drug approved by the FDA for a neglected disease, you get a transferable voucher that gets you a priority FDA review for whatever drug you use it for. It might accelerate approval by 3-6 months.
What’s that worth? Well the vouchers have sold for $100-250M lately.
https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/sanofi-nets-valuable-fda...
[+] [-] ksec|4 years ago|reply
>Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi says that Google is likely “paying to ensure Microsoft doesn’t outbid it.”
The numbers just dont make any sense, both from Google's Traffic acquisition cost and Apple services revenue. And I know both number fairly well.
I sometimes wonder if I could apply to be an analyst considering most, at least most of them ever came into mainstream media tends to be so wrong on tech.
[+] [-] yawaworht1978|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spookyuser|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HumblyTossed|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] srg0|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daniel_iversen|4 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/barrycollins/2020/10/28/apple-b...
[+] [-] julienfr112|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChrisArchitect|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freediver|4 years ago|reply
[1] $15bn/1bn apple devices
[2] $500m/200m firefox installs