31–40 of 64 posts
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?
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?
You're mistaking the context. You first acknowledged that Yahoo had to outbid Google to replace their search engine, which properly recognizes the situation: Google is replaced when it's outbid, or the real-estate owner otherwise has a better value gain to be had from other options. In the case of Apple, they have numerous other highly valuable directions they could go with a piece of real estate on the iPhone, inclu…
Few people consider yahoo or bing search comparable in quality to google.
So what parent finds odd, is that Apple is asking the best in class to pay them, to improve their product.
Title is misleading. Google didn't pay up front to keep the search bar, but rather agreed to share a percentage of the revenue generated, which ended up being $1B.
Oracle is really letting out Google secrets. First Android earnings, now this. Both said not to be public knowledge. Google going to go after oracle now?
Oracle is really letting out Google secrets. First Android earnings, now this. Both said not to be public knowledge. Google going to go after oracle now?
http://www.engadget.com/2015/12/30/google-will-strip-oracles...
Perhaps it pissed them off?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don't use an iPhone so have to ask, can users not select the search engine they want to use? Oneplus tried to change the default search on their phones to Bing and the first thing I did was switch back to Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're mistaking the context. You first acknowledged that Yahoo had to outbid Google to replace their search engine, which properly recognizes the situation: Google is replaced when it's outbid, or the real-estate owner otherwise has a better value gain to be had from other options. In the case of Apple, they have numerous other highly valuable directions they could go with a piece of real estate on the iPhone, inclu…
I don't agree. An iPhone without search is a really poor smartphone. An iPhone without Kik is not a poor smartphone. Few people consider yahoo or bing search comparable in quality to google. So what parent finds odd, is that Apple is asking the best in class to pay them, to improve their product.
I understand that someone reading HN would find that hard to believe, but when I look at some people around me who are not working in tech - many wouldn't be able to tell difference between Bing and Google search results. All they know is they can type/say a query and get the site they are looking for. The only time they would start thinking about underlying tech. is if they started to consistently get unusable results.
Google results are better, but how many people are actually aware of that (outside IT crowd) is questionable.