backtop


Print 21 comment(s) - last by Tony Swash.. on Mar 15 at 2:56 PM


  (Source: sitetrail.com)
The FTC has subpoenaed Apple looking for documents that contain agreements between Apple and Google regarding Apple's mobile devices using Google services

Apple was recently subpoenaed by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission for information on its use of the Google search engine as the default on iPhones and iPads.

Apple and Google have a bit of a strange relationship. The two shared board members over the last decade, including Eric Schmidt. They were connected this way for a period of time until Google developed the Android mobile operating system to compete with the iPhone.

The FTC began investigating the sharing of board members in 2009 and whether it violated antitrust laws, and Schmidt ended up leaving the board that same year. From there, rivalry between the two has heightened due to Apple launching lawsuits against phone makers like Samsung, HTC and Motorola, who run Android on their phones.

Just last year, the FTC started investigating Google in an effort to find whether the company increases advertising rates for competitors unfairly and ranks search results to benefit its own businesses. Now, the FTC is pulling Apple into the equation regarding its default settings, which includes the Google search engine.

Apple has had Google as the default search setting since the iPhone launched in 2007 and since the iPad originally released in 2010. Google Maps is also used on both of these devices over any other map service.

The FTC is also curious as to whether Google is purposely stifling competition by partnering with Apple to keep Android and iOS in the top ranks of the mobile realm.

The FTC has subpoenaed Apple looking for documents that contain agreements between Apple and Google regarding Apple's mobile devices using Google services. It hopes to uncover details regarding their relationship and whether Google is using Apple's devices to crush competition unfairly.

"As mobile search gets more widespread, the default setting becomes more significant," said Allen Grunes, an antitrust lawyer at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP.

According to comScore, an Internet market research firm, Google took the top spot in Internet search in February 2012 with 66.4 percent of the market. By the end of last year, Apple had sold 183 million iPhones and 55 million iPads. The two coming together could surely take over the market, as they already have to an extent.

Source: Bloomberg



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Who the heck is going to create all of this?
By bigdawg1988 on 3/14/12, Rating: 0
By bigdawg1988 on 3/14/2012 4:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
ignore that crap, clicked on the wrong article!


By ProZach on 3/14/2012 6:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
bigdawg1988 barked up the wrong tree.

Actually, before reading I thought the title meant Google teamed with FTC over the ongoing eBook issue. Luckily, I read the article before posting ;)


Not quite accurate
By Tony Swash on 3/14/12, Rating: -1
RE: Not quite accurate
By elmikethemike on 3/14/12, Rating: -1
RE: Not quite accurate
By Flunk on 3/14/2012 4:57:15 PM , Rating: 5
It could easily go the other way with consumers demanding that device makers deliver pure Android builds that are very close to Google's trunk version.

You can't see the future after all.


RE: Not quite accurate
By retrospooty on 3/14/2012 6:03:09 PM , Rating: 3
"It's only a matter of time before Android is abandoned. I give it a couple years tops. It's going to become too expensive for OEM's to support it anymore. There's nothing free about it...or open for that matter as well. It's a fragmented, carrier controlled nightmare."

LOL... Obviously you dont use Android, becasue you know zip about it. jut LOL.


RE: Not quite accurate
By niva on 3/14/2012 6:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
A couple of years tops? Get off the pipe, Android is here to stay for sure. It's Apple's long term strategy and existence which is in question. They have tons of money now, but what happens 10 or 15 years down the road? Maybe they should enter the search business, Google certainly doesn't seem to mind any of it's competitors in that arena.


RE: Not quite accurate
By retrospooty on 3/14/2012 6:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly... In the same way Apple copied Palm and surpassed them with IOS, Android4 has now surpassed IOS.

Once the market is full of Android 4 devices it will only get bigger.


RE: Not quite accurate
By seamonkey79 on 3/14/2012 7:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
Apple has a history of this anyway... be really popular for awhile because you're ahead of the curve, keep things expensive while cheaper just as effective/better alternatives come about, go into denial mode overdrive for a decade, and try again.


RE: Not quite accurate
By elmikethemike on 3/14/12, Rating: -1
RE: Not quite accurate
By gladiatorua on 3/14/2012 9:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
Wh.. What? iPhone4S was only successful because of marketing. What was so new and compelling? Apple copied couple of features from Android and... oh yeah! They pulled Siri from Appstore cutting off all the users and exclusively integrated it into 4S. Every new feature of iOS is overhyped and presented as revolutionary. Nice strategy.
In case of Android every truly new generation of phones brings speedbump and new substantial features. Every major Android OS version brings new features. They just weren't as overhyped.


RE: Not quite accurate
By zozzlhandler on 3/14/2012 6:12:51 PM , Rating: 5
You obviously do not understand Google. Android is not meant to make money. It is meant to
a) Ensure that mobile advertising is not controlled by someone like Apple, and
b) Provide a platform for Google to expand search, location, mapping and other services in to mobile realm (along with all the money-making advertising that comes attached to these).
It has been hugely successful, and mobile revenue is growing on a hockey-stick-like curve.


RE: Not quite accurate
By Tony Swash on 3/14/12, Rating: -1
RE: Not quite accurate
By zozzlhandler on 3/14/2012 8:47:40 PM , Rating: 2
Glad you know so much more about Google than I do. But I think you are wrong. Look again at the two purposes for Android I stated. Also, I think a run-rate of $1 billion is not a failure. The trend was towards *very* rapid increase. There are also many other sources of revenue (app sales, payments, ...). Android is a strategic platform for Google, and it is only a few years old. As far as I can see, you armchair CEOs have no clue whatsoever. Google can think very long term, because their revenue stream allows them to. But Android is already a success, and growing into a bigger one. Admittedly, Apple is more successful in this area, due to superb products and execution. They may continue to succeed, or they may not. Things change very rapidly in this industry. But calling Android a failure at this stage is just dumb.


RE: Not quite accurate
By Tony Swash on 3/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: Not quite accurate
By Magnus909 on 3/14/2012 9:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That means that total mobile revenue will account for about 6.5% of Google's revenue.


It's all about keeping people in the ecosystem.
Android ad revenue in itself may not be the greatest for google, but the extreme integration into google services will mean that more people use google services on other devices (desktop pc;s, laptops and so on), which means better targetting of ads and more exposure to ads which in turn means better revenue for google on the whole.
Most people will probably be logged in to google all the time on the pc. Many using services other than just gmail, like calendar, maps, youtube, picasa, google plus, documents and so on logged in to google all the time generating more ad revenue and tracking user behavior (meaning even better ads targeting). And the tracking of course also take place in the android phones themselves...
That means that android indirectly leads to better revenue for google in a way that is harder to measure.

quote:
Even the one maker of an Android tablet that is selling in quantity, the Amazon Fire, is selling the device at a loss and excludes many Google services.


This is even more about "keeping people in the ecosystem" which is the Amazon store. It's all about selling the cheapest possible device even at a loss (used also for Xbox360 and playstation 3 in their first years).
It's about selling books, films, loads of gadgets and so on in the amazon store in the end.
That is also hard to measure since many probably also will buy more from the amazon store with other devices (like a normal pc) than the Amazon fire.

But I got to admit (reluctantly) that Apple is a monster money making machine. Very focused and keeping the "hype" alive, but I wonder what will happen in the long run when the flood of android devices of all kinds in all areas (tv;s and other devices) finally makes it impossible for apple to keep up.
It's just a matter of time before the apps in the android market generate more in total sales due to sheer volume, even if every user spends much less on apps for android.

Theres also the additional advantage of developers to get their apps released even in the beta stage compared to submitting to the appstore and wating for permission already means that some apps are released first for android and I think that also will be more common in the coming years.


RE: Not quite accurate
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2012 1:13:59 AM , Rating: 2
LOL Tony...sigh, wow.

Google makes billions from it's web based services. Now what is Android all about? Selling phones, or extending those services to millions of mobile devices?

Google isn't in the smart phone business. They don't make phones. They ARE in the web-based services business, and Android is a delivery platform for those. An excellent one at that.

You are flat out insane if you're trying to make a case that Android has been a net loss for Google. Do you even research this stuff? Look at their quarterly profits ever since Android got big. Notice something?


RE: Not quite accurate
By Tony Swash on 3/15/2012 7:55:56 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You are flat out insane if you're trying to make a case that Android has been a net loss for Google. Do you even research this stuff? Look at their quarterly profits ever since Android got big. Notice something?


And almost all of that profit comes from the old desktop/browser market.

You seem to think that Google has made a lot of money from Android - OK - show us some figures to support that proposition.

Larry Page himself says mobile brings in 2.5 billion. In total. We know that iOS accounts for two thirds of all mobile searches on Google so what proportion of that 2.5 billion has come from Android?

And how much has Google invested in it's Android strategy?


RE: Not quite accurate
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2012 1:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
That's JUST the direct profits of the mobile division. Are you thick or something? What I'm saying is that Android increases the overall use of Google's services, thus increases their profits. The net effect of Android is probably impossible to calculate, or I'm unable to find exact numbers online, but you can believe they wouldn't be pushing it with such vigor if it wasn't extremely profitable.

Again, Google doesn't sell devices. They sell services. And smart phones and tablets are great device consumption platforms.

quote:
You seem to think that Google has made a lot of money from Android - OK - show us some figures to support that proposition.


There you go again. Just because something doesn't make as much as Apple doesn't mean it isn't viable and they should just give up and go cry in a corner. Get over Apple's profits, they are NOT a sledgehammer in every debate.

You know full well that Google doesn't have to disclose how profitable Android is specifically, but in a lawsuit Oracle seems to think it's around $4 billion a year from Android generated advertising profits. I guess that's not a "lot" of money to an Apple fanboi like you though. But I sure wouldn't mind making $10 million a day.

http://androidcommunity.com/how-much-does-android-...

Last time I checked Androids market share continues to grow. Not at Apple's level, but that doesn't make them a complete and utter failure like you make them out to be later. If Google has to play the long game, so what? Android will eventually be a $10+ billion dollar generator.

quote:
And how much has Google invested in it's Android strategy?


Not nearly as much as Apple. Software development is VERY cost effective. They aren't making devices and pouring money into R&D, after all. Nice try, but Android is clearly profitable. There's no way it's cost them more to develop than it's profited.


RE: Not quite accurate
By Tony Swash on 3/15/2012 2:56:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's JUST the direct profits of the mobile division. Are you thick or something? What I'm saying is that Android increases the overall use of Google's services, thus increases their profits.


How? Given that the only way that Google makes any money is through advertising how much revenue does Google earn on mobile advertising. The best figure I have seem, straight from the horses mouth, is Larry Page's number of $2.5 billion. How much of that comes from Android? We don't know for sure but if iOS search is two thirds of Google's mobile search a guess of a third of that 2.5 is reasonable.

There is zero evidence that Google makes any money from anything else other than advertising in mobile, just like as with the desktop/browser market, and lots of evidence that Google's income from mobile advertising (just like everyone else's) is small.

quote:
If Google has to play the long game, so what? Android will eventually be a $10+ billion dollar generator.


So assuming that somehow Google can pump up income from mobile to four times what it is now it will contribute about 25% of Google's income. At best. Based on track record two thirds of that will be coming from iOS and that will decline as Apple starts shutting out Google (revenge is a dish best served cold). What happens if the growth of mobile leads to a secular decline in the old desktop/browser ad market?

quote:
Nice try, but Android is clearly profitable.


No it isn't and there isn't a shred of evidence that it is. Remember Google spent over $10 billion on buying Motorola alone in order to shore up it's Android strategy.


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki