Apple’s senior vice president of services, Eddy Cue, has stated that the tech giant has no plans to develop a search engine to compete with Google, citing the immense financial and time investments required. Cue’s remarks, documented in a motion to intervene filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday, were part of Apple’s efforts to participate in the penalty phase of the DOJ’s antitrust case against Google. At stake is as much as $20 billion tied to Apple’s ongoing deal with Google to maintain it as the default search engine on Apple devices.
The DOJ and Google have clashed over how to handle Google’s dominance in the general-purpose search engine market. Both sides, however, have tentatively agreed on modifying or cutting Google’s lucrative partnership with Apple. Last week, Google proposed a three-year ban on long-term exclusivity agreements involving any proprietary Apple features or functionalities.
Cue has expressed concerns that eliminating the current agreement between Apple and Google would have unintended negative consequences. He argues that such a move would disadvantage Apple while strengthening Google’s position:
“If the Court bars Google from sharing revenue for search distribution, Apple would face two unacceptable options. It could continue allowing U.S. users to select Google as their search engine on Safari but forfeit any share of the resulting revenue, effectively granting Google free access to Apple’s user base. Alternatively, Apple could remove Google Search as an option on Safari entirely. However, since customers overwhelmingly prefer Google, this removal would harm both Apple and its users,” Cue explained.
According to MacRumors, Cue also highlighted that creating Apple’s own general-purpose search engine would be a highly risky endeavor from an economic perspective. He suggested that the future of search lies in AI-powered chatbots, which represent the next major evolution in the field. Apple’s filing further noted that to make a search engine financially viable, the company would need to integrate targeted advertising as a primary revenue source—an approach that conflicts with Apple’s commitment to user privacy.
Cue emphasized the importance of Apple maintaining control over its partnerships and strategies to serve its users effectively. “Only Apple can determine the kinds of future collaborations that best meet the needs of its customers,” he stated. He also cautioned that the remedies proposed by the DOJ could restrict Apple’s ability to innovate and fulfill its users’ expectations.
In its motion, Apple underscored that building a competitive search engine would demand significant time and resources. The company would need to invest billions of dollars and commit many years to achieve the level of sophistication required to challenge Google’s dominance. Such a pursuit would also force Apple to compromise its privacy-centric business model, a cornerstone of its brand identity, by adopting advertising practices inconsistent with its values.
The DOJ’s antitrust case against Google revolves around allegations that the company has used its market power to stifle competition, particularly through agreements like the one it maintains with Apple. The DOJ claims that Google’s position as the default search engine on Apple devices reinforces its monopoly and limits consumer choice. As part of its proposed remedies, the DOJ is seeking measures that would disrupt Google’s control over search distribution.
Google, on the other hand, has proposed a compromise, suggesting a three-year moratorium on exclusive agreements with companies like Apple. This would allow for a more open competitive environment while preserving certain aspects of its current partnerships.
Cue’s comments reveal Apple’s delicate position in this dispute. While the company benefits significantly from its partnership with Google, it must also navigate the legal and ethical challenges posed by the DOJ’s antitrust concerns. Apple’s reluctance to develop its own search engine further underscores the complexities of entering a market dominated by a single powerful player.
The broader implications of this case extend beyond Apple and Google. They highlight the challenges of regulating big tech companies and ensuring fair competition in rapidly evolving industries. As the DOJ and Google continue to negotiate potential remedies, the outcomes could reshape the search engine landscape and influence how companies collaborate in the future.
Ultimately, Apple’s argument centers on preserving its ability to make decisions that align with its privacy-focused philosophy and user-centric approach. The company’s leadership maintains that any imposed changes to its agreements should not hinder its ability to meet customer needs effectively or compromise its core values.