Google proposes splitting search engines between iPhone and iPad in antitrust dispute with Apple

Google’s long-term partnership with Google apple To maintain Safari’s status as the default search engine – a deal reportedly worth $20 billion a year – the company could face a ban following a US antitrust case. As the Department of Justice (DOJ) works to ban such payments over the next 10 years, GoogleCountermeasures have been proposedwhich included a controversial proposal to assign different default search engines to iPhones and iPads.

$20B search transaction under scrutiny

Over the years, Google has paid Apple billions of dollars to secure its position as the default search engine in Safari’s integrated search bar, leveraging high-value traffic from Apple users. The partnership is lucrative for both companies. Google benefits from ad revenue generated from search queries from Apple’s wealthy customer base, while Apple essentially enjoys billions of dollars in passive income. A subsequent court ruling blocked such deals, and the Justice Department asked for a ten-year ban to treat small search engines fairly.

Google’s counteroffer: shorter bans and split presets

In its counteroffer, Google said it realized a ban was inevitable but, given the pace of the industry, was aiming to limit the ban to three years rather than 10 years. The company even points to the recent development of new AI-powered search applications as evidence that its current leadership position is by no means guaranteed to continue, and that market dynamics could change significantly in just a few years. What a great freebie: Allowing Apple to assign different default search engines to iPhones and iPads. In theory, this would create more opportunities for competitors to win the auction for Apple’s business without requiring Google to bring Safari everywhere. But let’s take a deeper look at the Split Default concept.

For example, under Google’s proposal, Apple would choose Google search as the default search on the iPhone, but it could use some other search provider on the iPad (such as Microsoft’s Bing) or independent search provider DuckDuckGo. Another element of the concept: consumers will be allowed to change their default search provider once a year.

This may be a compromise to provide more flexibility for search engine partners, but from a practical and user experience perspective, such advice is simply not correct. Apple’s ecosystem focuses on fluidity across devices, which could become fragmented if it offers different presets for users who rely on a consistent workflow between iPhone and iPad.

So what’s next?

In this case, as the lawsuit progressed, Google’s claims were weighed against the Justice Department’s preconditions. Thereafter, the court shall issue a ruling imposing or extending an injunction on the permanent transaction in the amount of $20B.

For Apple, losing Google’s massive payment would be a financial blow to its services revenue, but the tech giant could correct course, open the door to new partnerships or double down on privacy-focused promotions like DuckDuckGo options.

Google’s offer to distribute preset locations among Apple devices suggests it wants to retain some control while trying to appease antitrust concerns. Whether such a compromise will satisfy the court remains to be seen, but the case could significantly reshape the search engine market and the relationship between the two technology giants.