[isleyaardvark]

His quote is stunningly disingenuous, I'm surprised to hear that coming from Doctorow.

That Google has paid Apple to be the default search engine was a business deal that has been open knowledge for a decade or more. Other search engines could've paid to be the default. Apple didn't have a search engine when they created the iPhone, and why would they start? Ever? MS didn't do so well. And why would Apple want to make their own search engine? Even if Apple did, the reaction would certainly be that Apple was abusing their position to promote their own search engine and would be committing an anti-trust violation then.

Also I think it's safe to say there is no actual testimony about a quid pro quo arrangement to get Apple to agree to not make a search engine.

[rufo]

> One of the facts established in the verdict was that Google had been slipping Apple more than $20b/year...

While the payments were public knowledge and there was speculation about the amount being somewhere between $8B and $12B, the number had never been confirmed until unsealed in the case, was more than the previous speculation, and was something both Google and Apple wanted to keep under wraps: https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/2/24147007/google-paid-apple...

Thus, it's a fact that was established in the verdict. "Slipping" is possibly a stretch, given the deal itself was at least publicly known? - though the fact both parties wanted to avoid discussion of the deal since its inception makes it feel at least somewhat evasive, so I can see what the word choice gestures towards.

> ...in exchange for which, Apple forbore from making a competing search engine.

From https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1402141/dl?inline=:

> Cutting off all search-related payments from Google to Apple would strongly alter Apple’s incentives. Rem. Tr. 3825:7–3829:2 (Cue (Apple)) (Apple’s SVP of Services “can’t say [he] would disagree” that “it was a disincentive for us to do a search engine based on the payments that we were receiving from Google”)

> forbear: politely or patiently restrain an impulse to do something; refrain

That seems like a reasonable description of what Eddy Cue stated to me. It certainly wasn't part of the wording of the deal, but if I were Eddy, I'd probably refrain from building a search engine in his shoes.

[rtpg]

> Apple didn't have a search engine when they created the iPhone, and why would they start? Ever?

I mean Apple Maps happened. Is it the same scale of problem? No, because Street View is harder than search in some sense! In all seriousness it's not the same problem, but it's something.

$20B/year is real money, and I have a very easy time imagining that squashing the idea at all (even if the intent on Google's side is "simply" to maintain dominance, and not squash out competition from Apple specifically)

[rz2k]

Based on what I can find, Kagi seems to have received less than $1B in funding. Delivering results to a large user base would cost more, but that seems to be pretty cheap for creating and engine that users often consider better results than Google.

[rtpg]

well from Apple's position they're _receiving_ 20 billion dollars a year from Google. It's "free" money, for doing nothing! If they created their own search engine, maybe those 20 billion dollars disappear.

That's the calculus, right?

[onlypassingthru]

Can you explain why Google Android can use Google search but Apple iOS can't use Apple search because that would be an anti-trust violation?

[b_e_n_t_o_n]

Probably the same reason why iOS can have Safari installed as default but MS got in trouble for IE years ago. These laws are applied very inconsistently.