Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Paid $1 Billion To Keep Search On iPhone (bloomberg.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.

phantomfive writes: As the Google v. Oracle copyright case drags on, Oracle is claiming that Android has generated $31 billion in revenue for Google, $22 billion of which was profit. Court records also show Google paid Apple $1 billion USD to keep their search bar on the iPhone. A revenue sharing agreement was in place as well. At one point, Apple got 34% of the revenue generated by Google searches on iPhones. Both companies later requested that the information be redacted from the record, but once something is released on the internet, it tends to stay there.

14 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. Capitalism by The-Ixian · · Score: 4, Informative

    Company makes money and colludes with competitor to make more money.

    Nothing to see here; Working as intended.

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    1. Re:Capitalism by Hylandr · · Score: 2

      I don't see Google and Apple being competitors anymore than a Giraffe is a competitor to a Beaver.

      Totally different beasts imho.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    2. Re:Capitalism by Junta · · Score: 2

      They both want to do an ad network, they both sell music and mobile apps, they both provide mobile operating systems, they both push their platform for laptops. Apple felt compelled to release Apple Maps to reduce reliance on Google maps....

      Apple has not yet tried to get into Google's first business (internet search), but it seems only because Google pays them not to try.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:Capitalism by dugancent · · Score: 2

      Apple is ending their ad network, iAds.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    4. Re:Capitalism by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well Google vs Apple vs Microsoft vs Oracle vs Samsung...
      Big companies that do a lot of things have complex relationship with each other. They have particular product lines that compete with each other, then they have other product lines that complement each other, where it is in their best interest to partner. Then there are products that uses the products of the other.

      Apple uses Googles Services which may be using Oracle's products and Samsung's components...
      and
      Samsung makes a product that competes with Apple which uses Googles Product's based on Oracle's Products...

      Depending on the product they are best partners or bitter rivals. Capitalism isn't about making friends, it isn't about making enemies. It is about making choices that will benefit you the most.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Capitalism by macs4all · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apple felt compelled to release Apple Maps to reduce reliance on Google maps....

      BZZZT! WRONG!!! Thanks for playing...

      Nice revisionist history, there, buddy!

      Apple was FORCED to create Apple Maps because Google REFUSED to license their mapping API AT ANY COST to Apple for use with Apple's (then upcoming) Turn-by-Turn Navigation feature in iOS.

      In NO way did Apple WANT to go to the considerable trouble and expense to "map the planet" to the street-level; but they essentially had no choice if they wanted to provide turn-by-turn Navigation on the iPhone.

    6. Re:Capitalism by macs4all · · Score: 2

      By comparison, Apple cannot fab their own SOCs so they buy them from Samsung [informationweek.com], for billions of dollars yearly. Those two are also competitors (and legal adversaries) in many sectors distinct from chip supply. That's not "collusion" either -- it's the fact that a large business has many interests and generally can keep them separated so each part of the company can function.

      Exactly!

      In fact, Samsung just committed to a build-out of fabrication facilities costing several BILLION dollars, just to supply OLEDs for Apple.

      When companies get a large as Apple, Samsung and The-Company-Formerly-Known-As-Google, they are ALL afflicted with the corporate version of Multiple-Personality Disorder. Some parts of one company are friends with some parts of the other compan(ies), some are enemies, and some are "frienemies".

    7. Re:Capitalism by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      They both want to do an ad network

      Well, Apple did - they're basically abandoning iAds now.

      Probably because Google feels it's no longer necessary - remember iAds was the ONLY reason why Google was allowed to buy AdMob - the DoJ felt that Apple's iAds was a sufficient competitor in the mobile advertising space that Google's purchase of AdMob would not harm competitiveness.

      Of course, anyone who actually ran the numbers knew iAds was a joke. I don't think I even ever saw any real ads other than for apps using iAds (app developers could buy iAds for a low price). And it's hard for Apple to justify all the expense of maintaining iAds.

      There had to be more at play - perhaps Google was kicking some money towards Apple to create iAds as a "competitor" to AdMob, and Apple just took the money and didn't really bother actually doing anything with it.

  2. I am surprised by maroberts · · Score: 2

    that Google is paying Apple at all.

    I would have thought that if iPhone didn't do Google searches there would a great disturbance in the Force, as as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror....

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:I am surprised by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What percentage of users of any computer or smartphone do you think actually notice who their search provider is? These days, there are basically the small set of people that set it explicitly to DuckDuckGo and the overwhelming majority who just use whatever the default is because it's good enough.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:I am surprised by danbert8 · · Score: 2

      From Apple's perspective colluding with Google is probably the lesser evil to colluding with Microsoft... Even better if Google is willing to fork over cash.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    3. Re:I am surprised by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Informative

      You know, I've heard rumors of that. As an owner of a shiny new Surface, Cortana does Bing searches by default. I can say this with no reservation: Google searches, from within my Google account (I have my personal and business domain email managed in Apps accounts)*, is hands-down superior to Bing without the associated metadata. No amount of "this is the default" search engine is going to make me use an untrained/inferior search long enough to get 10 years of searching optimized.

      *If Google isn't customizing my searches, then it's just hands down better for the stuff I'm looking for, but I'm willing to give Bing the benefit of the doubt that it sucks simply because it doesn't know my history.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    4. Re:I am surprised by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Informative

      that Google is paying Apple at all.

      The summary sucks. The $1 billion was not a separate payment... it was Apple's cut of Google's iOS search revenue. And, also, it's apparently not defined in the testimony whether 34% was how much Apple keeps or how much Google gets to keep.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  3. Larry Ellison by monkeyxpress · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The real story here is that Larry Ellison is still bitching about his 'stolen' Java API.