Google Gives Apple Cut of Chrome iOS Search Revenue (theregister.com) 18
According to The Register, Google has been paying Apple a portion of search revenue generated by people using Google Chrome on iOS. From the report: This is one of the aspects of the relationship between the two tech goliaths that currently concerns the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Though everyone knows Google pays Apple, Samsung, and other manufacturers billions of dollars to make its web search engine the default on devices, it has not been reported until now that the CMA has been looking into Chrome on iOS and its role in a search revenue sharing deal Google has with Apple. The British competition watchdog is worried that Google's payments to Apple discourage the iPhone maker from competing with Google. Substantial payments for doing nothing incentivize more of the same, it's argued. This perhaps explains why Apple, though hugely profitable, 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.
Having Google pay Apple "a significant share of revenue from Google Search traffic" passing through its own Chrome browser on iOS is difficult to explain. Apple does not provide any obvious value to people seeking to use Google Search within Google Chrome. One attempt to explain the arrangement can be found in an antitrust lawsuit filed on December 27, 2021, and subsequently amended [PDF] on March 29, 2022. The complaint, filed by the Alioto Law Firm in San Francisco, claims Apple has been paid for the profits it would have made if it had competed with Google, without the cost and challenge of doing so. "Because more than half of Google's search business was conducted through Apple devices, Apple was a major potential threat to Google, and that threat was designated by Google as 'Code Red,'" the complaint contends. "Google paid billions of dollars to Apple and agreed to share its profits with Apple to eliminate the threat and fear of Apple as a competitor."
These alleged revenue sharing arrangements -- which are known in detail only to a limited number of people and have yet to be fully disclosed -- have been noted by the UK CMA as well as the US Justice Department, which along with eleven US States, filed an antitrust complaint against Google on October 20, 2020. Reached by phone, attorney Joseph M. Alioto, who filed the private antitrust lawsuit, told The Register it would not surprise him to learn that Google has been paying Apple for search revenue derived from Chrome. He said Google's deal with Apple, which began at $1 billion per year, reached as high as $15 billion annually in 2021. "The division of the market is per se illegal under the antitrust laws," said Alioto. Apple and Google are currently trying to have the case dismissed citing lack of evidence of a horizontal agreement between the two companies, and other supposed deficiencies.
Having Google pay Apple "a significant share of revenue from Google Search traffic" passing through its own Chrome browser on iOS is difficult to explain. Apple does not provide any obvious value to people seeking to use Google Search within Google Chrome. One attempt to explain the arrangement can be found in an antitrust lawsuit filed on December 27, 2021, and subsequently amended [PDF] on March 29, 2022. The complaint, filed by the Alioto Law Firm in San Francisco, claims Apple has been paid for the profits it would have made if it had competed with Google, without the cost and challenge of doing so. "Because more than half of Google's search business was conducted through Apple devices, Apple was a major potential threat to Google, and that threat was designated by Google as 'Code Red,'" the complaint contends. "Google paid billions of dollars to Apple and agreed to share its profits with Apple to eliminate the threat and fear of Apple as a competitor."
These alleged revenue sharing arrangements -- which are known in detail only to a limited number of people and have yet to be fully disclosed -- have been noted by the UK CMA as well as the US Justice Department, which along with eleven US States, filed an antitrust complaint against Google on October 20, 2020. Reached by phone, attorney Joseph M. Alioto, who filed the private antitrust lawsuit, told The Register it would not surprise him to learn that Google has been paying Apple for search revenue derived from Chrome. He said Google's deal with Apple, which began at $1 billion per year, reached as high as $15 billion annually in 2021. "The division of the market is per se illegal under the antitrust laws," said Alioto. Apple and Google are currently trying to have the case dismissed citing lack of evidence of a horizontal agreement between the two companies, and other supposed deficiencies.
Ahh... (Score:3)
This perhaps explains why Apple, though hugely profitable, 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.
...No that's not why. If Apple was at all interested in having a better web browser, they'd have done so by now. They don't want web browsers to be a credible challenger to app store revenue. Why else would they force web browser vendors to use safari?
Re: (Score:2)
Google has little to worry about. If Apple had attempted building a search engine, just like early versions of their mapping software, it would probably tell you to go jump in a lake.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why this is modded down; the number of RCE CVEs in iOS and Safari over all time is pretty staggering. For comparison, Android and Chrome are both open source AND they've got about half as many. It does leave you wondering what bits Apple doesn't ever allow people to see, particularly given security audits of idevices and their apps are pretty difficult to do.
Re: Ahh... (Score:5, Informative)
I can't believe I have to explain this again and again. The post was NOT downmodded. It started at -1, based on the user's karma status.
A neutral or informative comment from a user with a -1 karma will look like it has been downmodded, bu this isn't always the case.
If you want to see what mods were applied to a post to reach the current value, then just click on the word "Score" to see the mod history. If you're reading Slashdot on a device where you can't view the mod history, then please refrain from commenting on mod values.
Odd (Score:1)
So, Google pays Apple when an iPhone user uses Chrome, which is itself just a skin over WebKit? Man, to be a fly on the wall at that negotiation. If you ask me, this actually sounds like a front to legitimize the payments for some other "off the books" agreement. Kind of like a "You give me the cocaine, and I'll buy your NFTs" sort of deal, except I strongly doubt Apple has been buying drugs from Google.
It will be interesting to see if more details unfold from this.
Re: (Score:3)
this is not about browsers but about default search engines, and it all sounds not really fishy but actually more like bullshit.
i can understand google values the apple user space simply because its presumably higher income rate, and would pay good money to secure that, but statements like "more than half of Google's search business was conducted through Apple devices" simply can't be true or are deliberately misleading. talking about chrome in this context is likely just part of the obfuscation. us justice
Re: Odd (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
this is not about browsers but about default search engines, and it all sounds not really fishy but actually more like bullshit.
i can understand google values the apple user space simply because its presumably higher income rate, and would pay good money to secure that, but statements like "more than half of Google's search business was conducted through Apple devices" simply can't be true or are deliberately misleading. talking about chrome in this context is likely just part of the obfuscation. us justice department is cited along with "eleven states" but the spokesperson in the end is a lawyer from san francisco who filed a private lawsuit. also who cares about the "uk competition and marketing authority"? also, the register, lol. this just sounds like another cheap fishing expedition.
Apple's marketshare is much higher for web browser usage than Apple's market share of mobile phones. Apple has more than 50% market share of mobile web browsers in North America [statcounter.com], and close to 60% in Norway [statcounter.com] (small, affluent, checked it because I live there). It's also the biggest player in the UK.
In contrast, the market share in e.g. Africa is just 12% [statcounter.com] - and in Europe overall Chrome is dominant [statcounter.com].
Thus, my hypothesis is that Apple's market share is bigger the wealthier a country is - and that this is also tru
Re: (Score:3)
Google already pays Apple for default search status in Safari and it would be a lot easier to bury anything unscrupulous in that much larger payment.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you show fear, you lose the negotiation.
Re: (Score:2)
The way I read the article: Google allegedly pays Apple when an iPhone user uses Chrome for searches. The problem is that neither Google, Apple, nor the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) says this outright. The inference is from a CMA report:
Google pays Apple a share of revenue derived from Safari search traffic; and pursuant to various commercial arrangements, Google pays Apple a share of revenue derived from [redacted] search traffic.
The author then says they were told the redacted portion was Chrome; however, they do not in any way identify who told them: "But the agency chose to omit the identity of the second product for which Apple is being paid. We're told the excised word is 'Chro
Borderline (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Apple could make a search engine. Or it could focus on the core business and accept funds for prioritizing google, as Firefox does.
These days people have the memories and attention spans of a potato. It was only 9 years ago!
Apple Spotlight started life as a web search engine, launched in response to MS starting Bing just a couple years prior.
It sucked.
So Spotlight was culled back to only local search and handed off Internet searches to Google, who at the time did not suck and was the undisputed best search engine for Internet searches.
Remember iAds? Most don't, because it sucked.
So iAds was terminated because AdSense was so much bette
Re: Borderline (Score:4, Informative)
Spotlight started as desktop search in 2004 (nearly 19 years ago)
Won't use Chrome on any device -long history (Score:2)
Like organized crime (Score:2)