Apple Defends Google Search Deal in Court: 'There Wasn't a Valid Alternative' 30
An anonymous reader shares a report: Eddy Cue, in a dark suit, peered down at the monitor in front of him. The screens in the Washington, DC, courtroom had briefly malfunctioned and left witnesses with only binders, but now the tech was up and running -- showing an image of three iPhones, each demonstrating a part of the phone's setup process. Cue squinted down at the screen. "The resolution on this is terrible," he said. "You should get a Mac." That got some laughs in an otherwise staid and quiet courtroom. Judge Amit Mehta, presiding over the case, leaned into his microphone and responded, "If Apple would like to make a donation..." That got even bigger laughs. Then everybody got back down to business.
Cue was on the stand as a witness in US v. Google, the landmark antitrust trial over Google's search business. Cue is one of the highest-profile witnesses in the case so far, in part because the deal between Google and Apple -- which makes Google the default search engine on all Apple devices and pays Apple billions of dollars a year -- is central to the US Department of Justice's case against Google. Cue had two messages: Apple believes in protecting its users' privacy, and it also believes in Google. Whether those two statements can be simultaneously true became the question of the day.
Apple is in court because of something called the Information Services Agreement, or ISA: a deal that makes Google's search engine the default on Apple's products. The ISA has been in place since 2002, but Cue was responsible for negotiating its current iteration with Google CEO Sundar Pichai in 2016. In testimony today, the Justice Department grilled Cue about the specifics of the deal. When the two sides renegotiated, Cue said on the stand, Apple wanted a higher percentage of the revenue Google made from Apple users it directed toward the search engine. [...] Meagan Bellshaw, a Justice Department lawyer, asked Cue if he would have walked away from the deal if the two sides couldn't agree on a revenue-share figure. Cue said he'd never really considered that an option: "I always felt like it was in Google's best interest, and our best interest, to get a deal done." Cue also argued that the deal was about more than economics and that Apple never seriously considered switching to another provider or building its own search product. "Certainly there wasn't a valid alternative to Google at the time," Cue said. He said there still isn't one.
Cue was on the stand as a witness in US v. Google, the landmark antitrust trial over Google's search business. Cue is one of the highest-profile witnesses in the case so far, in part because the deal between Google and Apple -- which makes Google the default search engine on all Apple devices and pays Apple billions of dollars a year -- is central to the US Department of Justice's case against Google. Cue had two messages: Apple believes in protecting its users' privacy, and it also believes in Google. Whether those two statements can be simultaneously true became the question of the day.
Apple is in court because of something called the Information Services Agreement, or ISA: a deal that makes Google's search engine the default on Apple's products. The ISA has been in place since 2002, but Cue was responsible for negotiating its current iteration with Google CEO Sundar Pichai in 2016. In testimony today, the Justice Department grilled Cue about the specifics of the deal. When the two sides renegotiated, Cue said on the stand, Apple wanted a higher percentage of the revenue Google made from Apple users it directed toward the search engine. [...] Meagan Bellshaw, a Justice Department lawyer, asked Cue if he would have walked away from the deal if the two sides couldn't agree on a revenue-share figure. Cue said he'd never really considered that an option: "I always felt like it was in Google's best interest, and our best interest, to get a deal done." Cue also argued that the deal was about more than economics and that Apple never seriously considered switching to another provider or building its own search product. "Certainly there wasn't a valid alternative to Google at the time," Cue said. He said there still isn't one.
Seems ill advised (Score:1)
Cue squinted down at the screen. "The resolution on this is terrible," he said. "You should get a Mac." That got some laughs in an otherwise staid and quiet courtroom. Judge Amit Mehta, presiding over the case, leaned into his microphone and responded, "If Apple would like to make a donation..." That got even bigger laughs.
Judges probably shouldn't joke about that stuff. The idea of litigants giving gifts to those supposed to be administering justice isn't the sort of thing they're supposed to find funny.
Re: (Score:3)
About as appropriate as an Apple employee trying to do a sales pitch in a courtroom.
Re: (Score:1)
Or a city councilor asking Steve Jobs for free technology to approve their new HQ [youtube.com] at 13:21 in the video.
Re: Seems ill advised (Score:1)
As to the actual case, Google really do have the best search engine. Apple are wise to use it. But given that there is an
Re: (Score:2)
Donations to the federal government are permitted, but most often anything tangible would be just applied to the debt, probably sold by the GSA.
I have seen specific instances where donations of labor/effort were permitted, but these were generally of the nature of making the government whole after some kind of prior failure to execute.
So no, I doubt Apple could donate computers specifically to one Federal court and replace their internal systems thereby. The judge knows that, certainly.
Re:Seems ill advised (Score:4)
Judges probably shouldn't joke about that stuff. The idea of litigants giving gifts to those supposed to be administering justice isn't the sort of thing they're supposed to find funny.
Good grief, you're reading WAY too much into a humorous off-the-cuff rejoinder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Seems ill advised (Score:2)
Something Else Ill Advised (Score:3)
Re:Something Else Ill Advised (Score:5, Interesting)
What he meant, and if someone were to attack that statement in court he would clarify, is that the UX on the iPhone would be negatively impacted by a bad search engine, and all the rest are bad in comparison to Google. You can say "Bing or DuckDuckGo or have gotten bettter", and you'd be right, but none really stack up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe it was mutually beneficial so Google was willing to pay to avoid trouble. Apple internally probably wouldn't have taken much action even if Google had only agreed to pay 50%. But if the revenue lost equaled enough to justify creating or bolstering a competitor....
It's all about money in the end. If some competitor was *actually* interested in owning search because Google was being unreasonable and not allowing others to wet their beaks, we'd see real competition. Microsoft doesn't do online, so
Re: (Score:2)
That still does not answer the basic premise of the question though which is that if there were really no acceptable alternative for Apple in their judgement then why would Google pay them billions to use theirs?
Why not pay if the price is fair and the benefit is mutual?
No alternative on Android, too (Score:2)
Funny thing, Google is the default on my Android phone. How much does Google pay for that?
(Ba-doom boom)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
In Soviet Russia, Google pays you!
Re: (Score:2)
You're in the wrong courtroom, this is the people versus Apple. The EU versus Google is over thataway...
Re: Something Else Ill Advised (Score:2)
Why does Coke spend so much on marketing? Everyone knows who they are!
Re: (Score:2)
Judges probably shouldn't joke about that stuff. The idea of litigants giving gifts to those supposed to be administering justice isn't the sort of thing they're supposed to find funny.
Apple wasn't one of the litigants. Eddy Cue was there as a witness, and not one of the parties in the lawsuit. That said, Apple may be affected by the decision.
Ask Jeeves? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I tried that. Jeeves also said there's no valid alternative.
Re:Ask Jeeves? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Valid Alternative" == "Someone willing to pay us billions of dollars a year to be our default search engine"
Re: (Score:2)
"Valid Alternative" == "Someone willing to pay us billions of dollars a year to be our default search engine"
I don't see any reason to reinterpret his word that way. He meant what he said, which is that anything else would have made Apple users unhappy. That means that Apple would have stuck with Google even without the payments -- though I'm sure they said exactly the opposite to Google during the fee negotiations.
If someone is giving you free money, you don't tell them to stop.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is giving you free money, you don't tell them to stop.
Now if only someone would put me in a position to test this hypothesis...
Re: Ask Jeeves? (Score:2)
There are alternatives, but the question should be âoewhat is valid about Google, to make the alternatives invalid?â Is user experience, quality of results, money or something else?
We could also ask whether it would be feasible to allow the user to pick on first install?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that is that it interjects an obstacle to a functional web browser. Most people just want stuff to work, and as long as it does, they don't care. For those people, stopping them from just jumping in to use Safari to answer a question (in which I gather the majority would just pick Google anyway) is bad UI/UX. For those that actually care, it is in fact quite easy to change the default search engine in the Safari preferences.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that is that it interjects an obstacle to a functional web browser. Most people just want stuff to work, and as long as it does, they don't care. For those people, stopping them from just jumping in to use Safari to answer a question (in which I gather the majority would just pick Google anyway) is bad UI/UX. For those that actually care, it is in fact quite easy to change the default search engine in the Safari preferences.
Its Apple. If they are mandated to provide a choice, then I'm sure they'd find a way to smooth out the user experience. Since this isn't mandated, they'll just go with what easier for now, which is making Google the default.
There is a simple solution (Score:2)
If the DOJ believes Google's payments are the reason for their dominance, not that they are the best... Then there is a VERY simple solution.
Simply have Congress disallow the payment of "placement" for search in 3rd party products.
Apple, Samsung, and others would not be legally able to receive a penny from ANY search provider, and would therefore only choose the provider that they believe is in their customers best interest and desire.
If you believe Apple and Samsung would still not drop Google, then there