Apple Senior VP Eddy Cue has filed a declaration in support of Apple’s motion to intervene in the DOJ’s case against Google, defending its search deal and killing any hopes Apple would develop its own search engine.

A key element of the DOJ’s case against Google hinged on the company’s exclusivity deals, including its deal for Apple to make Google the default in its Safari web browser. Apple made roughly $20 billion from the deal in 2022 alone, but Cue says (via Reuters)the company also has deals with the other available search engines in Safari.

In exchange for distributing Google Search on Apple devices, Google shares with Apple a percentage of the revenue generated from Apple users’ search queries. In 2022, Google paid Apple roughly $20 billion under this deal. Apple also has revenue sharing agreements with other search engines listed above that provide them access to Apple customers’ search queries on the Safari address bar.

Under the DOJ’s proposed remedy, Google would be barred from making any such search deal with Apple for at least 10 years. Similarly, the remedy would prevent Apple and Google from entering any number of other deals, especially in the realm of AI.

Cue goes on to say that the DOJ’s remedy would put Apple in an impossible position, forced to choose between what its customers want and giving Google free access to their data.

If this Court prohibits Google from sharing revenue for search distribution, Apple would have two unacceptable choices. It could still let users in the United States choose Google as a search engine for Safari, but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain valuable access to Apple’s users at no cost. Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on Safari. But because customers prefer Google, removing it as an option would harm both Apple and its customers.

On the Question of An Apple Search Engine

Cue points out that the DOJ likely believes that prohibiting a search deal between the two companies would lead to Apple developing its own search engine, a proposition which Cue firmly denies.

From what I understand, Plaintiffs’ proposed remedies assume that, without a revenue sharing agreement or other commercial terms with Google, Apple would develop its own search engine or enter the Search Text Ad market. Apple witnesses can offer testimony and evidence explaining why that assumption is wrong. That evidence would cover the challenges Apple would face in entering the search engine market, the reasons why Apple has so far chosen not to develop a search engine, and why it is unlikely that Apple will decide to create a search engine in the future, regardless of what remedies are ordered in this case.

Cue lists three specific reasons why Apple will not develop its own search engine.

• First, Apple is focused on other growth areas. The development of a search engine would require diverting both capital investment and employees because creating a search engine would cost billions of dollars and take many years.
• Second, search is rapidly evolving due to recent and ongoing developments in Artificial Intelligence. That makes it economically risky to devote the huge resources that would be required to create a search engine.
• And third, a viable search engine would require building a platform to sell targeted advertising, which is not a core business of Apple. Apple does not have the volume of specialized professionals and significant operational infrastructure needed to build and run a successful search advertising business. Although Apple does have some niche advertising, such as on the App Store platform, search advertising is different and outside of Apple’s core expertise. Building a search advertising business would also need to be balanced against Apple’s longstanding privacy commitments.

Opposition to the DOJ’s Remedies Continues to Mount

Apple is not alone in its concerns with the DOJ’s remedy. Mozilla has similarly voiced its concerns, saying a prohibition on Google’s striking search deals will negatively impact the independent browser market, including Firefox.

Ultimately, both Mozilla and Cue are right. Google currently pays hundreds of millions of dollars per year to Mozilla to help fund the independent browser maker in exchange for being the default search engine in Firefox. If Google is prohibited from making such deals, more than 80% of Mozilla’s revenue disappears overnight. Similarly, if Google is forced to sell Chrome, it will have less incentive to help fund a smaller competitor to assuage antitrust concerns—concerns that will no longer be a factor if Google doesn’t have a browser of its own.

Similarly, Apple clearly has no intention of making its own search engine, regardless of whether it has a deal with Google or not, and the government cannot force Apple to make one.

The Other Side of the Argument

At the same time, Google critics argue that if the company’s ability to make exclusive search deals was curtailed, it would finally give competing search engines a fighting chance, on equal footing with Google.

While Google likes to say that it provides the best search results, many would argue that those days are in the company’s rearview mirror. Between AI-generated results, the explosion of ads in search results, and the company’s deal with Reddit, many feel that Google has lost its edge. If that truly is the case, prohibiting the company from having exclusivity deals could well level the playing field and allow better options a fighting chance.

Either way, the growing opposition to the DOJ’s proposed remedies—from outside Google—illustrates the complexities of the case and the challenges involved in finding a solution.