11–20 of 64 posts
It's amazing that Google search, which is quite useful, has negative market value as content. In the cable TV world, there are channels cable systems pay to carry, such as ESPN, and channels that pay to be carried, such as the Jewelry Channel. How did Google end up in the latter category?
Google also used to pay Mozilla to be the search engine there, until Yahoo outbid them. It's amazing that Google search, which is quite useful, has negative market value as content. In the cable TV world, there are channels cable systems pay to carry, such as ESPN, and channels that pay to be carried, such as the Jewelry Channel. How did Google end up in the latter category?
Being the default search engine on iPhone means you can generate a lot of revenue, and so it is a valuable position to sell. As you say, Google got outbid by Yahoo a couple years ago for Firefox. If Google weren't paying, apple would sell the search bar to somebody else.
That's about 5% of what Google has made in profit from Android since ~2008.
Google also used to pay Mozilla to be the search engine there, until Yahoo outbid them. It's amazing that Google search, which is quite useful, has negative market value as content. In the cable TV world, there are channels cable systems pay to carry, such as ESPN, and channels that pay to be carried, such as the Jewelry Channel. How did Google end up in the latter category?
1. The power of browser defaults puts browser vendors in a strong position to demand a cut from third parties that make money from being a default.
2. Yahoo and Bing (plus some regional options) are realistic alternative bidders for this preferred placement. That dramatically tilts the bargaining power towards the browser vendor. With an alternative, however, a browser vendor still makes some money if negotiations with Google break down. Beyond that, a realistic alternative means Google loses more. Assuming negotiations broke down, more users would end up searching at Google if there were no search engine default than would if there were an alternative one.
To build on the cable analogy, suppose sports leagues were required by law to license their broadcasts (with the same terms) to any cable channel that wanted them. In that case, it wouldn't be hard for someone to put together ZSPN and bid away ESPN's carriage fees. ESPN doesn't just get those fees because they have valuable content - they can demand those fees because they have control over that content.
Google also used to pay Mozilla to be the search engine there, until Yahoo outbid them. It's amazing that Google search, which is quite useful, has negative market value as content. In the cable TV world, there are channels cable systems pay to carry, such as ESPN, and channels that pay to be carried, such as the Jewelry Channel. How did Google end up in the latter category?
In the case of Apple, they have numerous other highly valuable directions they could go with a piece of real estate on the iPhone, including selling it to Microsoft or Yahoo.
It would be like claiming that because every free app in existence isn't included by default on a phone, said non-included app/s must therefore have a negative value. My phone for example did not come with kik or viber pre-installed, therefore they have a negative value (not true).
Google also used to pay Mozilla to be the search engine there, until Yahoo outbid them. It's amazing that Google search, which is quite useful, has negative market value as content. In the cable TV world, there are channels cable systems pay to carry, such as ESPN, and channels that pay to be carried, such as the Jewelry Channel. How did Google end up in the latter category?
Cable TV is a fundamentally wrong analogy here, because there is only one search bar and only one default search provider, not a near-infinite number of channels to be filled. Being the default search engine on iPhone means you can generate a lot of revenue, and so it is a valuable position to sell. As you say, Google got outbid by Yahoo a couple years ago for Firefox. If Google weren't paying, apple would sell the s…
Bing powers Siri, and I assume now powers all of the internet search functions (unsure about Safari.) So I wonder if Microsoft paid this amount, or if Apple decided that less money made more sense so they could harm their competitor?
Google also used to pay Mozilla to be the search engine there, until Yahoo outbid them. It's amazing that Google search, which is quite useful, has negative market value as content. In the cable TV world, there are channels cable systems pay to carry, such as ESPN, and channels that pay to be carried, such as the Jewelry Channel. How did Google end up in the latter category?