Google's Dominance on Trial: The Apple Safari Default Deal and Tech's Power Play

In the corridors of tech history, a pivotal moment unfolded in 2007 when Sundar Pichai, then heading Google Chrome, expressed concerns about a potential deal between Google and Apple. The deal in question would make Google the default search engine on Apple's Safari browser, to be featured on the soon-to-be-released iPhone. Pichai, now Google's CEO, raised eyebrows by suggesting that rival search engine Yahoo should also have a place on the device. Fast forward sixteen years, and that apprehensive email exchange is at the center of a legal storm, as the US Department of Justice (DoJ) takes aim at Google's dominance in the tech industry.

The Google-Apple agreement has been a financial bonanza for both tech giants, with Google shelling out approximately $18 billion each year to maintain its coveted spot as the default search engine on billions of iPhones worldwide. While users technically have the option to choose alternatives, few exercise that choice, effectively solidifying Google's position as the reigning search kingpin on mobile devices.

However, the DoJ alleges that Google's relentless pursuit of these exclusivity deals has strangled competition and innovation in the search engine market. They argue that such deals amount to anti-competitive behavior and want them declared illegal, potentially jeopardizing their future existence. The culmination of this two-month trial could have far-reaching consequences for Google and the broader tech industry.

The iPhone deal, though monumental, is not Google's only "primacy arrangement." It is, however, by far the most significant. "Apple owns one of the most important portals to the internet. And Google saw that," says Gene Burrus, a competition lawyer with extensive experience at Microsoft. Burrus's words underscore the sheer magnitude of Google's strategic maneuvering.

While Google has faced fines and regulatory scrutiny in the European Union, this case marks its most significant challenge on home turf to date. It parallels the US government's historic clash with Microsoft in 1998, a case that helped shape the tech landscape for years to come.

Beyond the Apple deal, there have been other high-profile tech company collaborations and exclusive agreements that have attracted regulatory attention. These include but are not limited to:

Google and Mozilla: Google has long paid Mozilla, the organization behind the Firefox browser, substantial sums to remain the default search engine on Firefox. In 2019, this amounted to around $400 million, a figure that drew the ire of privacy advocates.

Facebook's Data Sharing: Facebook's data-sharing arrangements with third-party app developers came under scrutiny after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, leading to concerns about the social media giant's monopolistic power over user data.

Amazon's Marketplace: Amazon has been accused of using its position as a dominant e-commerce platform to prioritize its private-label products, potentially stifling competition from third-party sellers.

Microsoft and LinkedIn: Microsoft's acquisition of LinkedIn raised questions about the tech giant's influence over professional networking and job search services.

As the DoJ's case against Google unfolds, it represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle to regulate the tech industry. If the government's efforts succeed, the exclusivity deals that have underpinned Google's dominance could be in jeopardy, and the tech titan may begin to show signs of vulnerability. For the tech world and beyond, the outcome of this trial could set a precedent for how big tech companies operate and compete in the future.

Peter Auwerx, Tech Correspondent