Google Refutes Apple's Claims of Search Traffic Decline 14
Google has pushed back against Apple executive Eddy Cue's testimony that Safari searches declined last month, asserting it continues "to see overall query growth in Search" with "an increase in total queries coming from Apple's devices and platforms."
The statement comes as Apple's Senior VP revealed under oath that the company is "actively looking at" revamping Safari to focus on AI-powered search engines, potentially threatening the estimated $20 billion-a-year deal making Google the default search provider on Apple devices.
Cue testified that AI search providers including OpenAI, Perplexity, and Anthropic will "eventually replace standard search engines." Google, in its response, pointed to ongoing enhancements to its search product, noting users are "accessing it for new things and in new ways, whether from browsers or the Google app, using their voice or Google Lens."
The statement comes as Apple's Senior VP revealed under oath that the company is "actively looking at" revamping Safari to focus on AI-powered search engines, potentially threatening the estimated $20 billion-a-year deal making Google the default search provider on Apple devices.
Cue testified that AI search providers including OpenAI, Perplexity, and Anthropic will "eventually replace standard search engines." Google, in its response, pointed to ongoing enhancements to its search product, noting users are "accessing it for new things and in new ways, whether from browsers or the Google app, using their voice or Google Lens."
Poll please (Score:3)
I personally use google search a whole lot less now in favour of my preferred LLM.
This is one of these headlines that makes me wish we had an in comment section poll pinned to the top of it rather than just reading opinions and trying to weigh the sentiment.
Re: (Score:2)
I never find LLMs to be particularly useful. Because they hallucinate so god-damn much, I end up having to search for the terms they mention on a regular search engine just to make sure it's not bullshit.
As for google itself, it's so stupid how fucking hard it gets to look up anything that might be even tangentially political, especially if it involves a particular event that happened a few years ago, and end up with the top ten search results mentioning something about Trump in the fucking title, and some
Re: (Score:2)
I never find LLMs to be particularly useful. Because they hallucinate so god-damn much, I end up having to search for the terms they mention on a regular search engine just to make sure it's not bullshit.
So I take it you haven't tried Perplexity?
It not only gives you an LLM answer but also links its sources so you can check them out. Personally, I have found it quite useful. In fact, tons more useful than anything Google, for any serious (work-related) stuff. You can formulate a very complex query and even refine it, if it didn't quite get you the first time, plus validate if it got the answer right. With Google, no matter how well formulated your query is, it will spam you with a dozen loosely related (but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I never find LLMs to be particularly useful. Because they hallucinate so god-damn much, I end up having to search for the terms they mention on a regular search engine just to make sure it's not bullshit.
So I take it you haven't tried Perplexity?
It not only gives you an LLM answer but also links its sources so you can check them out. Personally, I have found it quite useful. In fact, tons more useful than anything Google, for any serious (work-related) stuff.
That's also my experience with LLMs. The hallucination rate is low enough to be useful. Plus I treat LLM results the same way I treat Google results, Wikipedia, webpages, and anything I hear, i.e., I filter everything through my own sanity and reasoning process.
Re: (Score:1)
References in several places to flags for “isCovidLocalAuthority” and “isElectionAuthority” further suggests that Google is whitelisting particular domains that are appropriate to show for highly controversial of potentially problematic queries.
For example, following the 2020 US Presidential election, one candidate claimed (without evidence) that the election had been stolen, and encouraged their followers to storm the Capital and take potentially violent action against lawmakers, i.e. commit an insurrection.
Google would almost certainly be one of the first places people turned to for information about this event, and if their search engine returned propaganda websites that inaccurately portrayed the election evidence, that could directly lead to more contention, violence, or even the end of US democracy. Those of us who want free and fair elections to continue should be very grateful Google’s engineers are employing whitelists in this case. https://sparktoro.com/blog/an-... [sparktoro.com]
Shilling for the Democrats and Big Pharma, echoing standard liberal talking points. They also like to maintain the status quo, deferring to the establishment:
Brand matters more than anything else Google has numerous ways to identify entities, sort, rank, filter, and employ them. Entities include brands (brand names, their official websites, associated social accounts, etc.), and as we’ve seen in our clickstream research with Datos, they’ve been on an inexorable path toward exclusively ranking and sending traffic to big, powerful brands that dominate the web > small, independent sites and businesses.
Easy to see how Google's results are now trash from the SEO leak. They try and steer your thinking with biasing results favoring their preferred narratives. I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
^^^^ This! A thousand times this!
Why? (Score:2)
I don't need answers from a search page (Score:3)
I need a list of websites based on my search keywords.
The answer to my question, I will derive from the websites provided.
Also, have only used DuckDuckGo in many years.