There’s been some good points raised by both sides in the case but there’s still some logic that doesn’t flow.

* Google pays a rev share to Apple for being _default_ search provided and default was key: “no default, no deal”. Apple turned down more money from Microsoft including offers to buy all/part of Bing. Samsung also dallied with Microsoft for more money but also turned it down.

* This suggests that there’s some other reason aside from money that Apple is going with Google. After all, as Google points out, if competition is just a click away why wouldn’t Apple click away to another partner? This could be:

Google is just better. If Apple switched their users would notice and suffer/leave Apple. There’s additional leverage that Google has that it is leveraging e.g. search ranking penalty? Access to other Google services (especially for Samsung), Agree not to compete in other areas (like their previous no-poach agreement they had).

So a couple of key questions:

1. Is Google really that much better to the _average_ internet user (note that HN crowd is not average in this regard)? Is there much risk to Apple to take the money from Bing and make them default?

2. Somewhat dependent on 1, but ff Google knew/know Apple or others are unlikely to switch because Google is that much better than why not exercise their market power and lower the rev share % they pay to others?

Feels strange for both things to be true - that Google is that much better AND that they don’t negotiate down their rev share.