Microsoft’s Bing or DuckDuckGo probably won’t disrupt Google’s dominance in search, said Apple senior vice president of services Eddy Cue — but AI services easily could.
Cue was returning to a courtroom in Washington, DC where he last testified in the Justice Department’s trial against Google’s search monopoly in September 2023. During the current remedies trial on Wednesday, Cue said that in the time since, well-funded generative AI upstarts have made such significant advancements that they could ultimately disrupt that monopoly — perhaps more effectively than the court could.
Cue was also, however, there to defend a significant source of Apple’s revenue: the payments Google offers for default search engine placement on Apple’s Safari browser.
After the 2023 trial, Judge Amit Mehta found that Google illegally monopolized the online search market, in part through agreements like the Safari deal. For the last two and a half weeks, Google and the DOJ have pitched Mehta on what he should (or shouldn’t) do to fix the problem. The DOJ says Google should be forced to share valuable search data with competitors and spin off its Chrome browser, while Google (which plans to appeal the earlier ruling) wants only restrictions on the deals Mehta deemed unfairly exclusionary. And rather than barring its Apple deal altogether, it would make Google give Apple more flexibility to sign additional default search agreements across its various devices or in private browsing mode.
Cue argued Wednesday that rapid AI advancements mean the antitrust threat Mehta identified is shrinking. For the first time in 22 years, Cue said, Apple saw search volume decline in its Safari browser last month — a side effect of users seeking more information from AI chatbots. The DOJ, unsurprisingly, disagrees. It’s not uncommon for technological development to outpace the slow trudge of the court system, but the government says that pace isn’t fast enough to fix a persistent market issue.
Apple has a lot of skin in the game here — the DOJ previously revealed it rakes in $20 billion in payments from Google annually. Google’s proposed remedies could reduce it, but they would also open up Apple’s options and preserve much of its revenue flow. The DOJ’s, meanwhile, could wipe out that cash flow altogether. Cue seemed bewildered that Apple could get the short end of the stick for a punishment supposedly inflicted on Google. The idea that the court could decide Google did something wrong and then let it save money at Apple’s expense, he said, “just seems crazy to me.”
Google could even keep its prime Safari placement without a deal in the short term, Cue said. “We don’t really have a choice today,” he testified. Even if Apple could cut a new default deal with another company, Google is still the best service available for customers, so they’d probably seek it out — and Apple wouldn’t get a cut. Cue said he’s “lost a lot of sleep” over the prospect of losing the Google deal, and warned it would impact Apple’s ability to make new products.
Cue also told Mehta he “can’t say I disagree” with his analysis that Apple was disincentivized from building its own search engine because of its deal with Google. But, he added, “we can’t do everything,” and since Google is really good at what it does, Apple prefers to focus on areas where it can offer unique value.
There’s “much greater potential because there are new entrants that are attacking the problem in a different way”
AI could eventually change all of this, Cue testified. Apple is already exploring adding AI search options, though it recognizes they can’t yet replace traditional search engines. “To date, they’re just not good enough,” he said.
Cue said “good enough” could come sooner than he anticipated. He said there’s “much greater potential because there are new entrants that are attacking the problem in a different way.” Large language model (LLM) AI companies haven’t built a robust enough search index to substitute for Google yet, he said, but combining an LLM with search could let them use a smaller index effectively soon.
Even though he is backing Google’s fight to keep its search deals, he seemed to acknowledge that the DOJ’s proposal to syndicate Google’s search index could get AI rivals up to speed even faster.
Cue cautioned the judge that tech is not like other industries, and giants often fall even without court intervention. “When I got to Silicon Valley, all of the best companies, or the most successful companies, either don’t exist today or are significantly smaller and less impactful,” Cue said, pointing to companies like HP, Sun Microsystems, and Intel. In the technology field, being an incumbent might not offer the same benefits it does in other markets. “We’re not an oil company, we’re not toothpaste. These are things that are going to last forever,” he said. “You may not need an iPhone 10 years from now.” After nearly four decades at Apple, Cue now sees AI as “a huge technological shift.”
Putting himself in the judge’s shoes, Cue told Mehta, “we’re lucky, because honestly, if AI had not come about, I don’t know what you could do.” That’s because, he explained, “until there are truly competitive products, people will keep using the best one.”
