Google Struggles to Lessen Reliance on Apple Safari (theinformation.com) 20
Google is intensifying efforts to decrease its dependency on Apple's Safari browser, as a U.S. antitrust lawsuit threatens its default search engine status on iPhones. The tech giant has been trying to shift more iPhone searches to its own apps, with the percentage rising from 25% five years ago to the low 30s recently, The Information reported Friday.
Progress has stalled in recent months, however. To attract users, Google has run advertising campaigns showcasing unique features like Lens image search. The company recently hired former Instagram executive Robby Stein to lead this initiative, potentially leveraging AI to enhance its apps' appeal. Google paid Apple over $20 billion last year for default status on Safari. Reducing this dependency could protect Google's mobile search advertising revenue if the antitrust ruling goes against it. The report adds: Google executives considered having its new AI Overviews feature, which shows AI-generated responses to search queries, appear on its mobile apps but not on Safari, people who have worked on the product said. But Google ultimately decided against that move.
Progress has stalled in recent months, however. To attract users, Google has run advertising campaigns showcasing unique features like Lens image search. The company recently hired former Instagram executive Robby Stein to lead this initiative, potentially leveraging AI to enhance its apps' appeal. Google paid Apple over $20 billion last year for default status on Safari. Reducing this dependency could protect Google's mobile search advertising revenue if the antitrust ruling goes against it. The report adds: Google executives considered having its new AI Overviews feature, which shows AI-generated responses to search queries, appear on its mobile apps but not on Safari, people who have worked on the product said. But Google ultimately decided against that move.
Responses from AI Overviews feature (Score:5, Insightful)
Google executives considered having its new AI Overviews feature, which shows AI-generated responses to search queries, appear on its mobile apps but not on Safari, people who have worked on the product said. But Google ultimately decided against that move.
Smart move, Google. That would have been an incentive for many to prefer Safari...
Re:Responses from AI Overviews feature (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Responses from AI Overviews feature (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly this. I don't see being told to eat a few rocks every day, or to use glue on my pizza, as a particular incentive to rely more directly on Google. Of course, there's the added "bonus" of Google slurping even more of my data to also consider...
Amazing (Score:4, Interesting)
It is amazing to me that our massive federal government has the ability, desire and willingness to concern itself with such ABSOLUTE MINUTIA of the default search engine on a particular brand of cellular phone.
I mean, holy Christ. Imagine if it had that kind of focus on actual problems that desperately need to be addressed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The next time you buy a car you can only use the tire manufacturer the dealer provides. You are not allowed to use tires made by anyone else. Oh, and btw, the dealer is the one who makes those tires.
It's not about minutia. It's about competition. There isn't a justificable reason to prevent other search engines from being available other than stifling competition. They want only their engine to be used, not a competitor.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Informative)
There isn't a justificable reason to prevent other search engines from being available....
Nobody prevents that. I will give you a hint:
https://www.searchenginename.c... [searchenginename.com]
Check it out!!
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
"The next time you buy a car you can only use the tire manufacturer the dealer provides. You are not allowed to use tires made by anyone else. Oh, and btw, the dealer is the one who makes those tires."
-I don't think this is a valid example. Firstly, you absolutely ARE stuck with the tires the car company chooses as the 'default'. Good luck getting those tires removed by the dealer. You have to go swap those out if you want something else. Cars need to come with tires and it would be MORE intrusive to force the car company to ask you about your choice of tire. With the exception of 'sunk costs' in the factory tires, this is actually a reasonable analogy for how this works and likely should work. You get a computer, it has a default browser pre-loaded so you can use the system and a search engine pre-selected so you can search right away. knobs to swap that out if you like.
Re: (Score:1)
The same principle applies to any market in which Apple would like to not face chicken.
Focusing on any one instance is just apologetics for a multinational corporation.
Shall we disband the corporate form and level the playing field? That would be interesting.
How about selling gear and using cryptography to prevent choice by *owners* while demanding government enforcement services and booking all profits in Ireland?
That's not a good deal at all.
Re: (Score:3)
When the money involved in that small minutia is greater than the net worth of some countries then why on Earth would you be surprised?
Re: (Score:1)
It isn't the government's money. Why the fuck should it care?
Ah yes...the government has to protect people who are somehow so stupid they can't figure out how to use a different search engine.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
desire and willingness to concern itself with such ABSOLUTE MINUTIA of the default search engine
I think the issue here is not the default search engine:
It's the fact Google pays Apple $20 Billion to keep other search engines from being on there. Essentially: Bribing Apple to make them the default is also Google paying Apple to exclude their competitors - and also paying Apple themself to Not compete by introducing a search engine of their own as the default, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "product placement" and it's done all the time, in various industries.
Re: (Score:2)
It is amazing to me that our massive federal government has the ability, desire and willingness to concern itself with such ABSOLUTE MINUTIA of the default search engine on a particular brand of cellular phone.
I mean, holy Christ. Imagine if it had that kind of focus on actual problems that desperately need to be addressed.
Indeed.
Chromium needs to be de-Googled (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems unlikely a new browser will take off.
The current browsers are all pretty decent browsers.
When Mozilla started cutting into Internet explorer IE was terrible (slllloooooowwwww).
Not browsers are generally fast enough to not suck (both because processors are faster and because they are so much better than old IE).
I doubt adherence to web standards and twice as fast would be enough of a selling point for people to switch in the current environment.
Switch to our broswer because (Score:2)
Cue flashy ads and graphics.
Cue testimonials by “influencers” excuse me I just vomited a little bit.
Apple Users Are More Profitable For Google (Score:5, Informative)
Google makes 75% of its mobile search engine revenue from iPhone users (which accounts for about $73bn of $97bn in revenue annually). iOS users are generally wealthier than Android users and they also run significantly more web searches. And average iPhone user makes Google about twice as much as an Android user.
It's clear why Google wants to remain the default search with Apple.
Features like ... (Score:2)
Sorry, Google. I get better results using Yandex.
MS Lobbyists are the best. (Score:1)