11–20 of 27 posts
They wouldn't pay it unless it made good business sense. And besides "just works" Apple wouldn't want to have to offer a subpar default search offering to their users. So it's always win-win.
That's what people thought about maps, too.
But doesn't Siri use Bing? So this is only for Safari? Isn't it a weird experience if one app uses Google for search and another uses Bing?
But doesn't Siri use Bing? So this is only for Safari? Isn't it a weird experience if one app uses Google for search and another uses Bing?
Not really, results are results. And they're usually pretty similar anyways. Also, consider that when searching with Siri, Apple is controlling the formatting of those results as well, so they will fit Apple's style, not Bing's.
They did a extraordinary job of taking control over the final user. The user has the power ("ability" but let's exaggerate) to switch to any search engine they want, thwarting any decision these two companies make. But that's too complicated, let's leave it to the techies.
I really wish for a mandatory class in schools where students are demystified about computers.
There is no new story here. At all. The title is very misleading. Google paid Apple $1B in 2014, and they're digging this up to reuse old content. They speculate that the amount has grown since then.
They wouldn't pay it unless it made good business sense. And besides "just works" Apple wouldn't want to have to offer a subpar default search offering to their users. So it's always win-win.
> Apple wouldn't want to have to offer a subpar default search offering to their users That's what people thought about maps, too.
Isn't it interesting that the fight is between Google and Apple, while the consumer is the one holding the product in hand. They did a extraordinary job of taking control over the final user. The user has the power ("ability" but let's exaggerate) to switch to any search engine they want, thwarting any decision these two companies make. But that's too complicated, let's leave it to the techies. I really wish for a ma…
This sounds less like someone taking power and more like everyone collectively ceding it. Part of this involves transaction costs. Relative to the minor gains many might expect from taking the time to switch search engines, the cost of learning how to do that is steep. Naturally, those economies scale favor Apple and Google.
Perhaps the switching cost isn't, or shouldn't be, as high for consumers. I think the solution is in education and lowering peoples' fears with tinkering with their tech. But another part of me thinks most people simply don't find such fiddling worth the bother.
Isn't it interesting that the fight is between Google and Apple, while the consumer is the one holding the product in hand. They did a extraordinary job of taking control over the final user. The user has the power ("ability" but let's exaggerate) to switch to any search engine they want, thwarting any decision these two companies make. But that's too complicated, let's leave it to the techies. I really wish for a ma…