Every now and then, you have these items which make you check the thermostat in hell. Today, we have a classic case: BusinessWeek is reporting that Apple and Microsoft are reportedly in talks about replacing Google with Bing as the default search engine on the iPhone.
BusinessWeek gets its story from the usual “people familiar with the matter” (two of them, in fact). They claim the talks have been going on for weeks, but that a deal is still far off. Supposedly, this is all a consequence of the increasing rivalry between the once comfy-cosy Google and Apple.
Increasingly, Google and Apple are becoming each other’s competitors. Google started the Android project which competes with the iPhone’s operating system, and of course also launched the Nexus One, which competes directly with the iPhone. On top of that, Apple is getting into mobile advertising, and Google will be launching its own desktop operating system, too.
“Apple and Google know the other is their primary enemy,” claims one of BusinessWeek people who is familiar with the matter, “Microsoft is now a pawn in that battle.”
If the talks did conclude with a deal between Apple and Microsoft, Bing may become the default search engine on the iPhone, requiring users to actively change it to Google or Yahoo. As it stands today, Bing is not even an option on the iPhone – you need to either browse to its website, or download the (admittedly, nice) Bing iPhone application.
While the “Bing-as-a-default”-thing surely makes for better headlines, reality is probably that Microsoft wants Bing as an option on the iPhone (alongside Google and Yahoo) and/or on Safari for Mac OS X.
The familiar people even state that Apple is looking into creating a search offering of its own – which sounds even more outlandish to me. A search engine is not an MP3 player – it takes years and years of steady indexing to get it right, and it seems unlikely to me that Apple is indexing the web in a basement somewhere at Infinite Loop.
Apple has already sold its soul to AT&T, so I see no reason why they won’t sell whatever shred of decency is left to Microsoft.
The image of Apple being some kind of hippie, revolutionary counterculture company needs to be knocked back. Steve Jobs is not Ghandi or Timothy Leary. People who believe that Apple’s “Think different!” slogan is anything more than marketing hype is kidding themselves.
Apple is just another corporation, one with an overabundance of lawyers. They do whatever they think is in the best short-term interests of shareholders.
Apple, a computer for the rest of them.
I’m sorry if I’ve insulted anyone’s religion. I know I’m committing blasphemy by saying these things. Apple fanboys, flame away!
Edited 2010-01-20 23:50 UTC
How is Bing more evil than Google? Apple is a private company, and like all private companies, it is obligated to do the best in can to generate profit. If that involves partnering with a different company, how does that make Apple evil?
Apple is a computer company, not a political organization. Their job is first and foremost to make money.
Wouldn’t that alone be reason enough to call them evil? Just a thought ;-p
Edited 2010-01-21 03:41 UTC
Well then, by your affirmation, everyone is evil except North Korea
and Pol Pot was one of the least evil people of the 20th century.
Lol! Yeah, cause we all know it’s either one or the other. ;o)
Yup, pretty much. Read up on how anarchy starts, dipshit.
Now that is hardly what I’d call polite. It’s not a very intelligent comment either.
From Wikipedia:
Now who’s the dipshit?
Apple is a public company…
I’ve resuscitated my os news’s account just to express my agreement on what you’ve just said.
I hate they try to convince people that apple is cool and hippie , they’re the exact same bollocks than Microsoft , they do better products in some cases.
Thanks.
Your welcome
Who’s welcome? Mine?
Oh USA, don’t blame Apple for ATT, blame you guys picking the WRONG digital mobile system. If you had gone for GSM, this would all be moot and you’d be in the same position as in Europe (multiple carriers in many regions.) If you only have 1.5 GSM carriers for your entire country, you have no right to complain if they suck. CDMA is a dead end technology outside of the US and Canada (and a small amount of other localities), so deal with it.
Actually it’s largely thanks to the CDMA technology that Verizon gets to claim such superiority over AT&T. CDMA is able to work with fewer cell towers, spaced further apart, and degrades more gracefully when the lines are overloaded.
CDMA is the betamax of cell phones. How technically superior or inferior it is does not matter, it’s dying anyway, for good. Nobody want to buy a phone just to travel to some place in the US when they can go everywhere else with their phone already, especially when they cost an arm like the iPhone. Verizon can claim superiority the same way betamax supporters claimed it was superior to VHS. Competition on product and implementations is a good thing. Competition on standards is a plague.
Edited 2010-01-21 13:40 UTC
What he said I wish I’d read this before commenting! LOL!
True, but CDMA also requires far, far more juice than GSM, which, let’s face it, will be a “bit of an issue” for iPhones.
CDMA might be the “bestestest technology EVAR!”, but much like Floppy disk, Laserdisc, BETAMAX and Minidisc, if no one uses it – it is DEAD. Doesn’t matter how many use it now, in 5 years that number will be minimal.
And where I live, more people using GSM than CDMA will happen never. The advantages of a tech that works over larger areas with fewer towers is not to be underestimated in a place 2/3ds the size of Germany, with a population of 500,000.
Granted, most people live in more populated places (duh, they are more populated
) so the majority may be using GSM eventually but it’ll be a lot longer in coming here.
Well GSM are being used also in less populated areas on the 900 MHz band, it might cost a bit more to build but they get that back with economics of scale.
I think both standards are good, and I prefer GSM because it works anywhere and provides faster speeds and more handsets.
In fairness, there are valid reasons to use CDMA in Canada (and, presumably, the USA too). Others have already mentioned the better-coverage-with-fewer-towers factor – add that to the fact that, in many parts of North America, the population density is extremely low (last time I looked, the average here was about 1 person per square KM).
I’ve talked to people from both of the big 2 Canadian mobile carriers, they’ve (off the record) literally told me that their companies *hate* the Eastern, Atlantic provinces in particular. The reason being that, in addition to the factors mentioned above, they also have many mountainous, heavily-forested areas to contend with.
And while it’s anecdotal, I’ve seen the results first hand. My cell phone is through Rogers (GSM), and it gets either no service or an extremely weak signal when I visit relatives in rural Nova Scotia. Yet their Telus/Bell (CDMA) phones all get good signals.
I don’t doubt that. But, also anectotally, that happens here in the UK using GSM alone. We have 4 main GSM providers (Orange, O2, T-Mobile and Vodafone) and various other ones that piggyback to varying degrees on the services of those main 3 (though I think our carrier “3” might own its own 3G bandwidth and just piggy back for non 3G voice.) I, like most iPhone users, use O2 (as the other carriers only arrived in the last 3 months) and O2’s service/coverage is spotty in places. So is the service of my former carrier Vodafone. Orange is much the same. However, they aren’t necessarily spotty in the *same* places. You will forever hear people moaning about their “signal” to which some one will pipe up “who are you on? I’m on XX and I get 4 bars” and a discussion will ensue on the merits of each provider.
I think the CDMA vs GSM issue is not really as big a deal as many make out. If there isn’t a adequate GSM infrastructure in place, but there is CDMA, it’s not really rocket science to assume that CDMA will work better. And I stand by the statement – if the US had adopted GSM, then this would be moot. People would have demanded a better service, the infrastructure would exist.
Edited 2010-01-22 11:01 UTC
It’s not JUST marketing hype, it’s also an example of laughably-inept writing (for those who failed high school English, the less-illiterate wording would be “Think Differently“).
It was undoubtedly meant to pander to faux/wannabe-intellectuals unable to grasp the difference between adverbs and adjectives..
Next, Silverlight support on the iPhone.
Why trade one vicious competitor for another?
How is Microsoft less of a competitive threat than Google? If anything I think Microsoft is a bigger competitor to Apple since MS seems to be in every market.
Yeah Android has a lot of buzz now but for all we know when WinMo 7 is released it might have some feature that will have everyone craving one.
I’m not sure about the validity of this article.
I think it also has to do with image. Google is definitely seen as hip and trendy and “in”. So is Apple. So if two trendy names are competing with each other, there could very well be a loser.
Microsoft and Apple are complete opposites no matter how much MS tries to emulate Apple’s culture. No one is going to really think that those two are competing against each other. So it is safer for Apple to team up with MS than it is to help google appear hip and cool by having them on the iPhone.
Just my 2 cents. I personally can’t stand Apple or MS and don’t use any of their products. (Except a MS keyboard, those rock.)
I just don’t see how Apple can switch to Bing after years of mocking Microsoft and it’s flagship product for on TV.
My theory on why Apple is so successful among college kids is that it’s not their parents OS. I agree Microsoft has an image of not being hip or cool which is why I don’t see this move especially since Google would appeal to that crowd more.
Flip-flopping is nothing new for Apple (or their fanboys). Remember how IBM was “the enemy” for decades? Then, overnight, they became A-OK because of their work on the PowerPC.
Or anyone remember the “Megahertz Myth”? Don’t hear that one much anymore, not after Apple flip-flopped once again by switching to Intel processors.
If anything it’s more of a problem for Apple’s fanboys than it is for Apple. It must be difficult to keep up with the Apple apologist talking points when their source keeps doing complete 180 reversals (sort of like the Catholic Church coming out with their own brand of condoms).
Unless Microsoft sold it’s interest in the company, it still holds shares in Apple. I believe that investing in Apple through shares was part of the settlement over the Windows copyright infringement. Apple is also part of Microsoft’s ongoing Monopoly defense (see, we’re not the only OS retailer in the market). Apple also has a very small part of the market and a growth rate that hasn’t made it a real threat yet. Microsoft have a few reasons to be interested in Apple’s ongoing existence.
If Apple wants to make it an option to CHANGE to Bing, I have no problem with that. I DO have a problem if they make it the default.
Maybe Apple should buy Yahoo and create their own search engine. It almost looks like they are going to NEED to do that to get away from Google and Microsoft.
My take is, if you are going to use Bing, why not use a Windows Mobile phone? Sure they suck, but they will Bing. Apple is supposed to be Different, not the same. So changing to Bing just does NOT make sense to me.
Just say, “Hell No!” to Bing. We also don’t need Flash or Silverlight. HTML 5 can take care of everything except search.
That’s an odd argument. Wouldn’t it be equally true to say that if you’re going to use Google, why not use an Android phone? The default search provider is hardly the definitive feature of the device…
You make it sound very simple, ignoring the fact that Microsoft (and let’s not forget how much wealthier a company MS are) tried to buy Yahoo and failed.
I disagree. what doesn’t make sense is you actually think people care about what the default search engine is when choosing the right handset for themselves.
I’d say people cared more about (and in no specific order):
* aesthetics (hardware and software),
* ergonomics (eg is it comfortable to use in one hand?),
* OS usability (how stable, responsive and easy it is to use),
* OS features,
* apps available for the OS,
* compatibility with their other computers / devices (eg (but not exclusive to) do they need iTunes installed?),
* battery life,
* whether or not they need a hardware keyboard,
* quality of the camera,
* 3G/WiFi capabilities (eg Palm Pixie has no WiFi and some countries have poor 3G coverage),
* is it a brand name they’ve own and liked before?
* is it a phone that friends or family own (eg do they wont something similar so they get help if they’re not very tech-savvy? Or maybe they like playing phone games head to head? Or perhaps they want a completely different phone because they don’t want to be seen as sheep?),
* expected usage of the phone (eg is it for making money on iPhone app development? Do they need a rooted/jailbroken phone to perform their tasks?)
* what carrier networks the handset (officially) supports,
* cost….
…I could go on, but I think I’ve already overstated my point.
Two days later we’ll be see a barrage of articles about how Bing is growing as a search provider and nipping at the heals of Google. Instead of Microsoft and Apple making this decision for users, here is a wild idea: how about letting USERS decide for themselves which search engine they prefer. If Microsoft can produce a browser ballot whereby users can pick a default web browser, there is no reason Apple (and other vendors like Verizon, T-Mobile, RIM, etc.) can’t do the same for search engines. Personally, I’m sick of this back room wheeling and dealing.
I agree, but unfortunately these deals are the standard operating procedure of the industry. The majority of the Mozilla Foundation’s revenue comes from their deal with Google, for example, and both Google and Bing have made deals with various OEMs in the PC market. From Microsoft’s perspective, not making these kinds of deals would be handicapping their own efforts, and they’ve got an uphill battle already. From Apple’s perspective, this is a valuable piece of real estate to sell, and could be a strong source of additional revenue.
Of course, this could also be a bluff to get a better deal out of Google–if you have to work with a competitor, you may as well take them for all they’re worth… especially if that competitor is Google. Or it could also be that Apple doesn’t see Microsoft becoming a credible threat in the mobile space any time soon, and so they’re the lesser of two evils.
To be honest, I’m sick of all this ballot nonsense.
Most users don’t give a frak what powers the stuff they see just so long as they can understand how to use the software and the software returns what they expect to see.
So while I’m all for choice, I don’t see asking users 20 questions before they can even use their device as a step forward (it almost feels as if I should expect Monty Python to jump from around the corner shouting “Noooobody expects the Spanish inquisition”).
Admittedly I don’t boast to have a better alternative – but I really don’t think ballots are the way forward either.
Here’s a solution for it: How’s about there is a default and we can choose a different one if we so desire? You know, basically how we’ve been doing it until those idiots at the EU started infecting everyone with this ballot craze?
Funny enough, I nearly did suggested that in my earlier comment but then realised I was effectively just saying “carry on as we already are doing”
Edited 2010-01-21 14:58 UTC
I have to agree with you. The whole concept of a ballot for browsers and search and whatever-else is essentially an ego handjob for geeks; meaning, it doesn’t matter to the vast number of people but, for some reason, the technically-inclined who are naive enough to believe that the world revolves around their technology preferences. What most people care about is whether it’s usable, and whether it works; and, quite frankly, if you replaced Google with Bing on the iPhone, practically no one but the Asperger’s-afflicted geeks among us would notice or (gasp) care.
How likely did it seem that they had been running OSX on Intel processors for years in the basement at Infinite Loop?
Very, since both NEXTSTEP and Rhapsody ran on Intel. Rumours about Mac OS X on Intel were pervasive before the switch.
The early developer previews of what became OS X (Rhapsody DR1 and DR2) ran on Intel hardware. I have Seen this with my own eyes! Also all the Next/Open Steps since at least 3.0 did too. I have Openstep 4.5 running on an old Toshiba P2 laptop for a few years till the hard drive died.
Also indexing the web in a way that no one notices is quite hard. I’m sure a lot of web masters would start commenting if a bunch of spiders coming from apple owned IP addresses started showing up in their logs.
Maybe the routed the harvesting scripts through TOR.
(just to fuel the conspiracy theory a little more
)
Personally, I think this may be a good thing. I would really like to see a search engine ballot, as somebody else mentioned. More competition is always good. More people using Bing would force Google to improve their search engine even more.
I have tried Bing before, and it wasn’t quite as good as Google, but it was way better than any other search engine I’ve ever used. I think Bing is good enough that I could use it without too many problems, but for now, I’ll stick with Google.
Now with Android in place as a competitor to the iPhone, ChromeOS around the corner… How is it in Apple’s best interests to continue to deal with Google.
… and it’s not like Yahoo, Ask or any of the other ‘also ran’ search engines are even worth looking at.
Apple has hopped in bed with Microsoft in the past – this would be nothing new; and while Windows Mobile might be considered a competitor to the iPhone – they really cater to opposite ends of the market and frankly, might be looking to cling to each-other given Google’s momentum.
Though it’s fun watching the tinfoil hat brigade talking about how “evil” Microsoft is when Apple’s business practices are twenty times sleazier… but as I’ve been saying a lot lately, people seem to now do the opposite of what Patton said… Today, people love a loser and will not tolerate a winner.
Edited 2010-01-21 04:01 UTC
Microsoft obviously disagree with you otherwise they wouldn’t be paying to use Yahoo’s search engine in future development projects of Bing.
It’s actually Yahoo that will be using Bing’s engine.
Not quite.
From what I can gather, Yahoo is using Bing right now (rather than in the future).
However Bing will use Yahoo’s search engine (or parts of it) in future versions of Bing.
So my earlier comment (above in bold) would still be correct.
Edited 2010-01-22 09:52 UTC
“How is it in Apple’s best interests to continue to deal with Google. ”
because people wan’t google stuff on their phone. if apple did away with google search and google maps and navigation. do you think people would want the iphone more? or less? i think less.
Apple conceded the OS battle years ago. Jobs said so in the interview with B.Gates and Mossberg (or whoever it was) .
Apple is doing fine in the computer hardware market. But its doing great in its new* lines:
* PMPS
* Mobile Phones
* Content Selling
These first and second is Apple’s core growth area, the third is a nice bonus that feeds into the first two (the gillette handle if you will).
Google is moving full steam ahead into the mobile phone sphere and content selling (though, not selling the content per se, but selling ads around it).
It really not that crazy to think that Apple would *consider* getting into bed with MS to take on Google.
Apple is a hardware manufacturer that happens to do its own software. Apple sells hardware. Google is a software service company that wants to keep many people honest. mostly Microsoft. There is no way that Apple will get to keep the kind of market share it has right now in smartphone web use. Its share will diminish, and Google wants to make sure Microsoft doesn’t get all the benefit. In fact, Google has just made it very hard for Microsoft to justify going after the smartphone market. Apple was going to compete with either Microsoft or someone else in this fight. If I was Jobs, I would be really happy the fight is with Google because Google doesn’t really want to be in the smartphone business. Google wants a proposition that makes it harder for Bing to usurp it in the mobile space. Apple is providing most of the mobile traffic to Google.
Heh…hehe…bwahahaHAHAHA! Seriously.
Google’s in it for the money.
LMFAO! There are so many things wrong with your post, that I almost don’t know where to begin. Look, there’s a reason why Google removed the “Do no evil” goal from their mission statement: Google IS evil. Make no mistake about it. They make Microsoft look like choir boys. They cooperated with the Chinese government to help repress the people until the point where it became obvious that China wasn’t allowing them to make any money; that’s the only reason they’re “thinking” of pulling out of China. Google doesn’t have a conscience. It doesn’t care about your freedom. It’s a company. A profit machine. The only thing that it cares about is keeping the rubes coming through the search turnstile, and cranking the cash machine. They see Apple’s success in the smartphone market, and they want to own it. Not to share market share: To OWN it. Android and Nexus One are a direct threat to Apple’s business, and anybody claims otherwise just doesn’t know WTF they’re talking about. Meanwhile, poor Microsoft can’t release a decent mobile phone to save its life, it’s losing developer mindshare, and in no way poses a threat to Apple or Google. Which is why Apple would even entertain the idea of using Bing. It isn’t easy to put up a search engine. Apple may want to do it eventually but, for now, they don’t have the time. But they don’t want to keep feeding Google, only to have Google use the search revenue to come right back at Apple. Get it?
Edited 2010-01-22 21:14 UTC