Slashdot Mirror
Google Paid $7.2 Billion Last Year To Partners, Including Apple, To Prominently Showcase Its Search Engine and Apps on Smartphones (bloomberg.com)
A reader shares a Bloomberg report: There's a $19 billion black box inside Google. That's the yearly amount Google pays to companies that help generate its advertising sales, from the websites lined with Google-served ads to Apple and others that plant Google's search box or apps in prominent spots. Investors are obsessed with this money, called traffic acquisition costs, and they're particularly worried about the growing slice of those payments going to Apple and Google's Android allies. That chunk of fees now amounts to 11 percent of revenue for Google's internet properties. The figure was 7 percent in 2012. These Google traffic fees are the result of contractual arrangements parent company Alphabet makes to ensure its dominance. The company pays Apple to make Google the built-in option for web searches on Apple's Safari browsers for Mac computers, iPhones and other places. Google also pays companies that make Android smartphones and the phone companies that sell those phones to make sure its search box is front and center and to ensure its apps such as YouTube and Chrome are included in smartphones. In the last year, Google has paid these partners $7.2 billion, more than three times the comparable cost in 2012.
Because, you know, you are the product at good.
... and very informative, but not earth-shattering.
Sounds like a good business model for all concerned, except Google competitors.
Those companies could pony up if they think there's a decent ROI.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Teh Rushian Inphluanze?!?!?!
No, wait, actually that sounds like a perfectly normal business model.
What's the story?
I have a search box on my site that adds filetype:torrent to each search and I use it all the time. So where is my billion?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
More money flowing out of Google (which receives advertiser revenue) and into device/content providers (the ones that actually provide the things we want). I can understand how Google investors are getting worried about tightening profit margins, but how is this not a high-five for consumers?
I'm not a fan of Google but how is this abuse of dominance? The smartphone makers/partners weren't coerced or forced to make Google their default search engine - they did so willingly in exchange for compensation. How is this any different than Norton paying computer makers to preload their software?
... The entity with the biggest wallet wins.
How is this any different than Norton paying computer makers to preload their software?
Different rules apply when you have a monopoly. What Google is doing is anti-competitive, and that's a big no-no for a monopoly. Norton doesn't have any significant monopoly on anti-virus, so they can do what they please.
The comparison is more like Microsoft bundling software in the 90s, or making IE something that couldn't be uninstalled in Windows. They got hit with anti-competitive for both those practices. They were legally declared a monopoly in 2000, and only escaped being broken up because Bush II was elected.
Very satisfied. I just hope that Google doesn't buy them out for a couple billion dollars.
It's a bit borderline. You can't afford to pay Apple $2bn to be the default search engine unless you're already a huge company, and it's hard to grow to being a huge search engine company if someone else is the default on all of the popular platforms. It's not completely clear whether this extends beyond the normal sort of barrier to entry for an established market or whether it's prohibitive to new entrants (which would mean that you no longer have a functioning market).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The more money Google spends on this sort of thing, the less they'll have available to spend on doing their evil stuff.
Actually if Google has to pay out billions just to keep Apple from going to Bing, I'd say it's pretty decisive evidence AGAINST market dominance. Market dominating companies don't have to bribe retailers for shelf space.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
This is abuse of dominance in a market. That's as plain as it gets.
I disagree. This is just marketing.
No. It isnâ(TM)t. Having funds to pay for that isnâ(TM)t abusing position or monopolistic. Iâ(TM)m sure a hedge fund could drum up a competitor and make the same payments no problem, just pony up the capital. The real dilemma to competitions is convincing Apple brass that your new search engine is worthy to their users. If itâ(TM)s not, no amount of money will suffice. They just ditched bing in Siri for that reason, and Microsoft had a fortune to make that work.
I think there are other issues to consider. Microsoft could afford to enter the market, but even if there are others that could afford it they have to worry about churn.
Unless they can provide a search engine experience that's at least as good as Google's, some of the traffic they paid for will leave by selecting a different default. I imagine Google loses only a tiny bit to other competitors, whereas the reverse is likely no the case. So Google's acquisition cost of, say, $5 per user might be half that for another provider that loses half the customers back to Google.
Also the seller would probably prefer Google, so the others would have to outbid them by more than little bit.
Many markets have a pretty tall entry cost, that in isolation isn't a real barrier. If there was some super-profitable thing you could do but only if you were a billion dollar company then you'd quickly see many investors pile up their savings to get over that hurdle. The problem is more game theoretic, if you're a giant fighting a upstart threatening a small part of your business it's easy to sacrifice that profit in order to either drive them out of business or at least strangle their growth. While outright dumping is illegal there's many ways to do Hollywood accounting so your exposed business gets a free ride. Many of them are quite legal as funding new business ventures with old ones and responding to competition too.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
How is Google a monopoly? If I were to use Bing I would be able to do nearly everything that Google has. This is even less outrageous then Norton being preloaded, because all it is a default that we could easily switch to a list of competitors available. On the iPhone, I have Google, Yahoo, BIng and DuckDuckGo as options.
Having IE installed and inseparable from Windows is a much different problem. Because you were forced to use the product, even if you didn't want to, every time you open a file explorer, or go to settings, IE is running, with all its features and flaws, and using an alternative browser would take a long time to load up, and perhaps wouldn't be allowed to access the OS optimized features. For this is is just a default bit.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You have a source for the claim that Apple dropped Bing from Siri because they decided it wasn't worthy? Because I am reading the opposite in TFS. Maybe Google paid this much to push Bing out of Siri. Maybe they would have only spent $5B and the extra $2B bought Siri placement. That seems more likely IMO.
I don't mind much they being the default since you can change it easily but what I'd really like is being able to uninstall everything Google from my Android smartphone. Yes, I know it sounds a bit strange since pushing Google's services is the only reason of Android's existence but I wouldn't mind paying for a license (like you do with Windows on a PC)
Yup, sorry. I didnâ(TM)t think a citation was needed:
âoeSwitching to Google as the web search provider for Siri, Search within iOS and Spotlight on Mac will allow these services to have a consistent web search experience with the default in Safari,â reads an Apple statement sent this morning. âoeWe have strong relationships with Google and Microsoft and remain committed to delivering the best user experience possible.â
From: here
How is Google a monopoly? If I were to use Bing I would be able to do nearly everything that Google has.
I can vouch for that, as I actually do use Bing as my primary search engine. I started as an experiment and I just never turned it off. Google is still superior for some things (mainly, its index seems to be more up-to-the-minute) but for the most part I don't even notice that I'm using Bing and there's nothing that keeps pulling me back over to Google (hence, no monopoly).
Breakfast served all day!
The bastards! How dare they advertise!
Jews believe this of others they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple):
Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.
George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis. Zucker @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.
What World-famous Men have said About the Jews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MYPzKNQUE0/
There are three types of people who call themselves Jews:
1. True Torah [Sephardic] Jews: these are the descendants of Prophet Jacob-Israel (Jacobites or Israelites) (about 5%-10% of all Jews)
2. Khazarian or Ashkenazi Jews: these are the descendants of a Turkic idol/phallic worshiping tribe who migrated to Russia in the 7th Century A.C. and whose nobility converted to Judaism in the 8th Century A.C. and now inhabit mostly Europe. (about 90%-95% of all Jews)
3. Zionist Jews: these are the ones from the 2 above who are pretending to be Jews for political reasons but whoâ(TM)re are actually Illuminists-Luciferian-Masonic-Satanists as Harold Wallace Rosenthal admits in this interview.
They are led by the neo-Pharisees (occult-priest-banklords). They want to establish a Zionist Luciferian state from the Nile to the Euphrates from where they plan to rule the Earth. The new Israeli Supreme Court funded by the Rothschilds Banklords is full of Masonic Symbols, just like the B.I.S. Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, which is the Mother of All Private Central Banks.
The hexagram symbol on the Israeli flag is the ancient Star of Moloch, a Satanic-Baal deity to which people were sacrificed. There is no such thing as a Star of David which the modern Jews have been fooled into believing; however, the True Torah Jews are not fooled by the Zionists Illuminatis and you can visit their websites for more info .
1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."
5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off
See subject: It's how they get ahead E.g. - Bundling Chrome into other apps downloaded is another example of their CROOKED bullshit (or buying out superior competitors)!
* LIKE THEY BRIBED "AlmostALLAdsBlocked" to NOT WORK by default (which they also know most folks won't change) http://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-taboola-pay-adblock-plus-to-stop-blocking-their-ads-2015-2/
There is NO BRIBING ME & no doing that to hosts via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
(They take advantage of folks who aren't tech saavy who assume "Hey, Google wrote this program - it MUST be 'good'" - it's taking advantage of ignorance!)
APK
P.S.=> Everyone KNOWS them & how THEY operate - "DO NO EVIL"? Bullshit - they're SO evil they've been kicked nation to nation... apk
Except that's a provably false statement, as if they were choosing the best for their users, they wouldn't accept money to choose a specific search provider.
it's hard to grow to being a huge search engine company if someone else is the default on all of the popular platforms.
No...It's hard to build a huge search engine company because building a good search engine is really fucking hard. Back in the days when search engines were really simple, they sucked. It takes years and years of work to tune your search algorithms to help people find what they want -- not what some spammer wants them to find. And because spammers constantly adapt and defeat every new countermeasure you add, it's a constant, expensive as fuck battle that you can't just hire some random code monkeys to fight. Microsoft dumps a TON of money into Bing, and they still can't manage to figure out how to build a proper search engine; Yandex even manages to do a better job.
There's typically a difference (from a regulatory standpoint) between barriers to entry that are intrinsic to the market and barriers to entry that are imposed by existing participants. For example, if you want to create a new x86 microprocessor, then the cost of design is high, and the cost of either buying fab time or building your own fabs is also high. These are expected barriers. A patent cartel that refuses to license essential patents and agreements that PC makers will ship only Intel chips if they want to keep access to OEM discounts are artificial barriers and both have been ruled illegal.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News