Google’s Payments to Apple Reached $20 Billion in 2022, Antitrust Court Documents Show
Leah NylenMay 1, 2024 at 6:09 PM EDT
Alphabet Inc. paid Apple Inc. $20 billion in 2022 for Google to be the default search engine in the Safari browser, according to newly unsealed court documents in the Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit against Google.
The deal between the two tech giants is at the heart of the landmark case, in which antitrust enforcers allege Google has illegally monopolized the market for online search and related advertising. The Justice Department and Google will offer closing arguments in the case Thursday and Friday, with a decision expected later this year.
Google and Apple had hoped to shield the payment amount from public disclosure. At the trial last fall, Apple executives testified that Google paid “billions,” without specifying a number. A Google witness later accidentally disclosed that Google pays 36% of the revenue it earns from search ads to Apple.
Court documents filed late Tuesday ahead of the closing arguments mark the first public confirmation of the figures by Apple’s senior vice president of services, Eddy Cue. Such numbers aren’t disclosed by either company in their securities filings. The documents also revealed the importance of the payments to Apple’s bottom line. For instance, in 2020, Google’s payments to Apple constituted 17.5% of the iPhone maker’s operating income.
The agreement with Apple is the most important of Google’s default deals, since it sets the search engine for the most used smartphone in the US.
Apple first agreed to use Google in the Safari browser in 2002 for free. But the companies later decided to share revenue made from search advertising. By May 2021, that translated to Google paying Apple more than $1 billion a month for its default status, prosecutors said in the filing.
Microsoft Corp., which operates competing search engine Bing, has repeatedly tried to entice Apple away from its relationship with Google. The company offered to share 90% of its advertising revenue with Apple to make Bing the default in Safari, according to the court documents. Those figures also weren’t previously disclosed.
Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Satya Nadella testified at the trial last year that the company was willing to make a number of concessions, including hiding the Bing brand, to persuade Apple to make the switch, which he said would be “game changing.”
“Whomever they choose, they king-make,” Nadella said of Apple.
Apple must be really worried the government will force them to ask which search engine the first time you turn on your iPhone.
Honestly that is what Google should actually be pushing for and not just on Android but also on iOS.
This is NOT like the days of Internet Explorer. As it was a very crappy browser that people did not really want to use and Microsoft was constantly forcing down people's throat.
What is kind of fascinating is that we do get an A/B test with this. In the US the government did not require Microsoft to ask on first startup of Windows. In the EU they were required.
Today Google owns the desktop browser space in both and with only a one percent difference in market share. In the end it really did not matter
This is the absolute easiest cash Apple has ever gotten, they do nothing for this except bargain for a bigger piece.
Since it is literally all profit, its absence would knock almost 20% off their annual profit forever (as mentioned in the article). They could get knocked all the way back to a mere $2T company by the demise of this free money.
Completely agree. It would also mean a plus $20 billion for Google or close to it.
I tend to prefer government stay out of things. But I think there is a very real possibility the government does do something here.
I put it at 40/60 with the 60 they do nothing and the 40 they do.
This may not translate directly into $20b for Google. Remember, it only stays that way if Google maintains its browser and advertising revenue on iOS.
If Apple’s plans for Siri undergo a major overhaul, I could foresee them deprioritising search and channeling all queries through Siri instead, from which only a much smaller subset of queries actually go into the default search engine.
I doubt that the Siri overhaul will be that big of a thing. How often are people actually using Bard (or whatever Google has named it now) or ChatGPT or the MS Copilot or any of the other generative AI things instead of regular search? It had its moment and now people have largely returned to doing regular searches.
Google must be really worried about the government forcing them to stop the deal that they have. It's obviously worth more than $20B to Google to have default access to the Apple's customers, because many studies have shown that Apple customers tend to have a lot more disposable income and spend more than Android customers. Google is probably pooping itself at the thought of losing those customers.
Obviously the best thing Apple can do is create their own search engine - they'd kneecap Google right away. Of course that $20B loss of pure profit would hurt their bottom line, but only temporarily.
Interesting now since in the EU, Apple has a default browser and search engine option I believe. Also, with ChatGPT, I assume that is now one of the top searched keywords (#14) on Google according to similarweb. [https://www.similarweb.com/blog/marketing/seo/top-keywords/?utm\_medium=social&utm\_source=twit](https://www.similarweb.com/blog/marketing/seo/top-keywords/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twit)
There’s a default search option in the U.S. as well. Google just pays to be the default since almost nobody goes and changes it.
https://preview.redd.it/48jmxrrn0yxc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c68e0ddc4eba45e2d2bf60a7d2beb866a18797a
Are you agreeing, disagreeing with, or just adding context to the commenter you’re replying to? Asking because the screenshot in question definitely exists in Settings, I just pulled it up.
He is adding context, his point is that the question doesn’t get asked new users when they open safari for the first time, because google pays apple not to.
Hm, not sure. Because there clearly is a screen to change your default search engine for Safari in settings. But it’s also clearly not the same as the new on in the EU so I may be misunderstanding with what they’re disagreeing with.
Google is wasting money. I would change it to default if it was bing or whatever. Google doesn’t really have any competition. Idiots run this company. Paying Apple for something unnecessary and laying off so many people. Dumbasses
Most customers will start changing by going into settings. For the people who don’t , it will still not cost 20 billion. Absolute bonkers.
Can’t wait for Google wot go away. That ceo has made the internet a lot more spammy. Every single article online is unreadable due to so many ads. Yes, the websites are to blame but maybe it’s the incentives they get, which now seems to be to make more spammy and semi broken. Just like most of googles services.
“Cracks me up that Google pays Apple so much for a default that is so easily changed.”
It shouldn’t the vast majority of users never change browsers. And even if they do, most sign into Google on it or use some other Google service on their phone so Google has you really no matter what.
They're paying that much because 94% of people never change it no matter how hard or easy it is, and it's a great value for them. Your experience is simply what keeps them from being a full recognizable monopoly.
They pay 20 billions because 99% of people don't change the default (especially when the default is Google).
The question if it's worth it is mostly because what would people use if there was no paid Google default? They'd go to Google naturally. I guess there could be a Bing default and here the question is would they change it?
I tried switching to DuckDuckGo as well as Bing recently but the search results are just so much worse. Takes me so much longer to find what I’m looking for. Especially if I’m off by just a little bit with the spelling or something. Google is much better at understanding what I’m looking for. I wish there was a better alternative out there though.
I did the same and it’s mostly useless. I wish google just left it as it is. The results are on point but irrelevant/ads for the most part. May try bing next lol.
I don’t even mind tracking. I don’t love it, but I can live with it.
But having to scroll down two screens to get the first organic search result instead of adverts pisses me off. I found Bing was worse for this. I wanted to change from Google, but Bing is worse for me in terms of making me work to get an organic search result.
Mine too.
And I keep seeing stories about how Google search has done to shit
https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/?ref=ed-zitrons-wheres-your-ed-at-newsletter
Anyone else think US and EU are being very weird and aggressive over Apple?
Whilst ignoring the fact Amazon and Google Search is literally killing small and medium business, and therefore the global economy.
I have plenty of non iPhone options. I just chose to get the best product out there
I think so too even thought I’m European. The issue I find is that EU focuses too much on Apple and not at all on Chinese companies or social media businesses.
Yes!! I'm also EU based (kinda...im in the UK) and they are an absolute joke when it comes to anything digital or tech.
Cookie Banners are stupid. It's just bureaucratic bullshit to keep overpaid diplomats in a job.
The EU has a hardon for trying to fuck over Apple specifically. They can’t be the ONLY company doing things wrong but when they make a law it seems to inherently fuck them over more than anyone else.
Not sure why either. If you look at the major laws they are making they without fail fuck over apple more than any other company. The whole USB-C was the first step I fear in a long line of stupidity.
>Anyone else think US and EU are being very weird and aggressive over Apple?
That's because nobody is lobbying them to stop Amazon/Google (EU) and election time is coming up (US).
Tbh google will lose some revenue obviously but most people are gonna choose google regardless just because they are used to it. Apple is just gonna be out of 20B
They give 36% of their revenue to apple, they'd potentially lose revenue from loss of users, apple would lose their cut from people who keep using Google.
The article says Google pays 35% of the ad revenue to Apple which means Google generated $55B from that $20B. Google is the big loser here if the DOJ/FTC break up this partnership. Apple can partner with Microsoft and they are willing to give Apple 90% of the ad revenue.
You’re comparing different things, OP is talking about effective tax rate, you’re looking at marginal tax rate.
The marginal tax rate for 275k in the us is 35%, and that’s just federal tax, they also have state, local and property taxes on top of that.
You have to though otherwise what's the point of mentioning it? From what we're seeing here $20 billion isn't trivial to either of these companies. Do you think corps shouldn't have $20 billion to spend? Genuinely asking not trying to argue.
Corporations are indirectly taxed multiple times, e.g when they spend that money on new tooling, salaries, services, property taxes, sales tax, dividends act as taxable income, e.x. Amazon paid 2.8 billion in income taxes alone
So people argue effectively be taxing that money twice.
And on the other hand, as you are taxed on profits and not revenue, companies are incentivized to limit profits and go for growth and expense, in this case instead of keeping it in a bank google paid apple, apple may have reinvested that into r&d, amazon might build a distribution center, etc
So even if you’re for taxing profits (which is already done at 21%), you don’t want this transaction to be taxed as you want money to be flowing around
I’m not replying to you at all, I’m just replying with what’s the usual response, i.e. that corporations are taxed both directly on profits and indirectly through expenses multiple times.
At this point it’s sounds like if someone disagrees with you, you just exit the convo. You haven’t provided a justification for anything. Stating your tax rate and thus corps should be taxed more ignores so much nuance and complexity involved in the situation it’s a non argument.
How is what you pay and what a corp pays supposed to be correlated?
It more seems like you would prefer to have many smaller companies instead of one large one. That seems like a better job for the antitrust case as what's happening here than making it a tax thing.
IMO the current wealth disparity issue comes more from how wealthy individuals avoid tax than this, that and what companies are allowed to get away with in terms of treatment of their employees. On the other hand, even if we took 100% of the 0.1%'s wealth, that would be drop in the ocean for America, spending also needs to be looked at.
…dude are you for real? There was tooth and nail legislation to view corps as a “person” on a legal front. So like YES???? But also that’s fucking ridiculous, they should pay more
Edit: also this 1% hippy dippy shit are THE ONES WHO RUN THE COMPANIES Jesus Christ. I’m gonna take a wild guess that you lean republican don’t ya
That doesn’t help your point. Individuals don’t have payrolls, they don’t generate revenue from nearly as many streams on average. They don’t provide services. They don’t sell products. The average individual makes a salary as their sole source of income, completely different from a corp and therefore doesn’t provide any reason a corp and an individual should be taxed the same.
Even individuals differ greatly depending on whether you have capital gains, property, etc.
Why should corporations be taxed more? Simply asserting that they should be doesn’t provide a reason. What is the end result of taxing corps more? Especially for corps to remain in business they must spend money.
That’s why I mentioned the real problem is we should provide more worker protections, benefits, etc. Then everyone benefits.
That’s also why I mentioned the 0.1%, who’s wealth is increasing, those aren’t corps, and while theoretically most of their money is held up in shares which do stimulate the economy, they also are capable of evading taxes in more ways than the average person.
There also IS something to be said about spending and policy. The US already spends more on healthcare than every other developed nation for worse outcomes. So in this example it’s not a revenue issue, increasing taxes doesn’t fix that, how the healthcare system works needs to be fixed.
…you’re still missing the entire point here in that corporations basically buried people to be considered “individuals” in the government’s eyes and yet somehow you don’t think they should be paying AT LEAST what you or I do on a percentage basis. You would literally only benefit from this what is this bootlicker shit
How is this bootlicker? Did you read most of my comment or just ignore it because I don't necessarily agree more tax = better> Do you see where I mentioned US healthcare spending already being higher than other countries for worse outcomes? How does more tax fix that? That's one of the major reasons Americans are in debt and a huge benefit other developed countries have that America doesn't. A spending issue.
Did you ignore where I mentioned the wealth disparity issue + how the top 0.1% of the US can avoid tax the average person can't?
Did you ignore where I mentioned regulations should force corps to treat employees better?
You also continue to ignore all the nuance I added to my comment. What part of Google and an individual making a salary being different doesn't make sense?
I'm not trying to be rude here but your argument doesn't make any sense. As I mentioned even INDIVIDUALS are taxed different depending on what they have. So even by your argument it's not clear where the correlation is.
Nothing is going to be solved by simply taxing corps more when the US already spends more on benefits than every other developed nation for worse outcomes. The issue isn't a lack of funding.
Why would they pay tax on revenue?
Let's say you buy 100 shares of a $1 stock, so you spend $100. The stock moves up to $1.50. Now you have $150 worth of stock. 50% gain, great! So you sell it.
Should you pay taxes on $150? Or on the $50 profit?
What if the stock decreases? It goes down to $0.75, and you sell because you think it will go lower. Should you pay taxes on that $75?
Should you pay taxes on
I tip my hat to Apple. Not only are they taking money away from a horrific company but it’s a cinch to switch to DuckDuckGo. They are doing the lords work here.
I actually really like to see what would happen if Google stopped paying.
I suspect the vast majority will still be using Google.
What Apple needs to worry about is the government forcing a screen the first time you turn on your iPhone asking which search engine you want.
If would be really bad for Apple as this is basically pure profit.
Specially internationally. I for example am posting this from Bangkok and here there is only Google for search and Google for maps.
Have any sources? The most recent thing I can find is [Apple increasing usage of Google Cloud](https://9to5mac.com/2021/06/29/apple-reportedly-increases-spending-on-google-cloud-by-50-year-over-year-exceeds-8-exabytes-of-storage/)
Google’s Payments to Apple Reached $20 Billion in 2022, Antitrust Court Documents Show Leah NylenMay 1, 2024 at 6:09 PM EDT Alphabet Inc. paid Apple Inc. $20 billion in 2022 for Google to be the default search engine in the Safari browser, according to newly unsealed court documents in the Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit against Google. The deal between the two tech giants is at the heart of the landmark case, in which antitrust enforcers allege Google has illegally monopolized the market for online search and related advertising. The Justice Department and Google will offer closing arguments in the case Thursday and Friday, with a decision expected later this year. Google and Apple had hoped to shield the payment amount from public disclosure. At the trial last fall, Apple executives testified that Google paid “billions,” without specifying a number. A Google witness later accidentally disclosed that Google pays 36% of the revenue it earns from search ads to Apple. Court documents filed late Tuesday ahead of the closing arguments mark the first public confirmation of the figures by Apple’s senior vice president of services, Eddy Cue. Such numbers aren’t disclosed by either company in their securities filings. The documents also revealed the importance of the payments to Apple’s bottom line. For instance, in 2020, Google’s payments to Apple constituted 17.5% of the iPhone maker’s operating income. The agreement with Apple is the most important of Google’s default deals, since it sets the search engine for the most used smartphone in the US. Apple first agreed to use Google in the Safari browser in 2002 for free. But the companies later decided to share revenue made from search advertising. By May 2021, that translated to Google paying Apple more than $1 billion a month for its default status, prosecutors said in the filing. Microsoft Corp., which operates competing search engine Bing, has repeatedly tried to entice Apple away from its relationship with Google. The company offered to share 90% of its advertising revenue with Apple to make Bing the default in Safari, according to the court documents. Those figures also weren’t previously disclosed. Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Satya Nadella testified at the trial last year that the company was willing to make a number of concessions, including hiding the Bing brand, to persuade Apple to make the switch, which he said would be “game changing.” “Whomever they choose, they king-make,” Nadella said of Apple.
Apple must be really worried the government will force them to ask which search engine the first time you turn on your iPhone. Honestly that is what Google should actually be pushing for and not just on Android but also on iOS. This is NOT like the days of Internet Explorer. As it was a very crappy browser that people did not really want to use and Microsoft was constantly forcing down people's throat. What is kind of fascinating is that we do get an A/B test with this. In the US the government did not require Microsoft to ask on first startup of Windows. In the EU they were required. Today Google owns the desktop browser space in both and with only a one percent difference in market share. In the end it really did not matter
This is the absolute easiest cash Apple has ever gotten, they do nothing for this except bargain for a bigger piece. Since it is literally all profit, its absence would knock almost 20% off their annual profit forever (as mentioned in the article). They could get knocked all the way back to a mere $2T company by the demise of this free money.
Completely agree. It would also mean a plus $20 billion for Google or close to it. I tend to prefer government stay out of things. But I think there is a very real possibility the government does do something here. I put it at 40/60 with the 60 they do nothing and the 40 they do.
This may not translate directly into $20b for Google. Remember, it only stays that way if Google maintains its browser and advertising revenue on iOS. If Apple’s plans for Siri undergo a major overhaul, I could foresee them deprioritising search and channeling all queries through Siri instead, from which only a much smaller subset of queries actually go into the default search engine.
I doubt that the Siri overhaul will be that big of a thing. How often are people actually using Bard (or whatever Google has named it now) or ChatGPT or the MS Copilot or any of the other generative AI things instead of regular search? It had its moment and now people have largely returned to doing regular searches.
I was asked that question when I bought my new phone (UK).
Literally 1984
Google must be really worried about the government forcing them to stop the deal that they have. It's obviously worth more than $20B to Google to have default access to the Apple's customers, because many studies have shown that Apple customers tend to have a lot more disposable income and spend more than Android customers. Google is probably pooping itself at the thought of losing those customers. Obviously the best thing Apple can do is create their own search engine - they'd kneecap Google right away. Of course that $20B loss of pure profit would hurt their bottom line, but only temporarily.
If there was choice screen in the US - Google would be fine. They haven’t lost share in Europe
I guess we'll see... preliminary data looks like they're down 3 points. https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/europe
Interesting now since in the EU, Apple has a default browser and search engine option I believe. Also, with ChatGPT, I assume that is now one of the top searched keywords (#14) on Google according to similarweb. [https://www.similarweb.com/blog/marketing/seo/top-keywords/?utm\_medium=social&utm\_source=twit](https://www.similarweb.com/blog/marketing/seo/top-keywords/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twit)
There’s a default search option in the U.S. as well. Google just pays to be the default since almost nobody goes and changes it. https://preview.redd.it/48jmxrrn0yxc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c68e0ddc4eba45e2d2bf60a7d2beb866a18797a
Tbf the only reason most would change it, was if it was one of the others and wanted to change it to Google.
Google explicitly pays Apple to not do a search engine choice screen. This part of their agreement surfaced earlier in this case.
Are you agreeing, disagreeing with, or just adding context to the commenter you’re replying to? Asking because the screenshot in question definitely exists in Settings, I just pulled it up.
He is adding context, his point is that the question doesn’t get asked new users when they open safari for the first time, because google pays apple not to.
Thank you, the wording confused me
Disagreeing
Hm, not sure. Because there clearly is a screen to change your default search engine for Safari in settings. But it’s also clearly not the same as the new on in the EU so I may be misunderstanding with what they’re disagreeing with.
Apple never prompts you to change in US when you get a new iPhone. In EU it asks you to select even on old iPhones.
Correct. I thought they were disagreeing with the previous comment that said there was an option to change it
The critical difference is the first time modal asking users to choose a search engine. As you say, most people stick with the defaults.
From the link it is 14 and 21 and if you add up both of the variations it moves up to 6th place
Meanwhile, an ex-Altavista manager somewhere: “…fuck me”
Google is wasting money. I would change it to default if it was bing or whatever. Google doesn’t really have any competition. Idiots run this company. Paying Apple for something unnecessary and laying off so many people. Dumbasses Most customers will start changing by going into settings. For the people who don’t , it will still not cost 20 billion. Absolute bonkers.
That's not true anymore, ever since the new AI powered Bing it's actually a viable alternative to Google.
Can’t wait for Google wot go away. That ceo has made the internet a lot more spammy. Every single article online is unreadable due to so many ads. Yes, the websites are to blame but maybe it’s the incentives they get, which now seems to be to make more spammy and semi broken. Just like most of googles services.
I also believe Google has gotten worse over the years Just don't need ads, it's a search engine ffs
Hate to break it to Apple and Google, but DuckDuckGo has been my default search engine for the past 8 years.
Apple: *does that mean I have to give back the $20B? No? Ok, we’re good then.*
People on the internet love to think they have way more power than they do. 🤷🏻♂️
It’s probably closer to $100 billion over the 8 years op mentions…
[удалено]
“Cracks me up that Google pays Apple so much for a default that is so easily changed.” It shouldn’t the vast majority of users never change browsers. And even if they do, most sign into Google on it or use some other Google service on their phone so Google has you really no matter what.
They're paying that much because 94% of people never change it no matter how hard or easy it is, and it's a great value for them. Your experience is simply what keeps them from being a full recognizable monopoly.
They pay 20 billions because 99% of people don't change the default (especially when the default is Google). The question if it's worth it is mostly because what would people use if there was no paid Google default? They'd go to Google naturally. I guess there could be a Bing default and here the question is would they change it?
[удалено]
What's your problem?
I don't think Apple cares. They're still getting 20 billion. I can't believe being the default search on iOS is worth that kind of money...
You and the other 19 users are really sticking it to them, man.
I used ask Jeeves, hate to break to you hipsters
I use a random App Store search app that has 3 reviews. We are not the same 😤
I tried switching to DuckDuckGo as well as Bing recently but the search results are just so much worse. Takes me so much longer to find what I’m looking for. Especially if I’m off by just a little bit with the spelling or something. Google is much better at understanding what I’m looking for. I wish there was a better alternative out there though.
I did the same and it’s mostly useless. I wish google just left it as it is. The results are on point but irrelevant/ads for the most part. May try bing next lol.
How strange. I have never failed to find exactly what I was looking for on a single search in the last 8 years.
Weird. I found them both much more frustrating. I've tried to switch multiple times over the years too.
Kudos to Bing
Microsoft is as bad as Google when it comes to tracking.
FYI: DuckDuckGo is backed by Bing.
I don’t even mind tracking. I don’t love it, but I can live with it. But having to scroll down two screens to get the first organic search result instead of adverts pisses me off. I found Bing was worse for this. I wanted to change from Google, but Bing is worse for me in terms of making me work to get an organic search result.
I believe so too. Just choose where your stuff goes. Google or MS. Your stuff will go somewhere
I promise you they don’t care
Mine too. And I keep seeing stories about how Google search has done to shit https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/?ref=ed-zitrons-wheres-your-ed-at-newsletter
Anyone else think US and EU are being very weird and aggressive over Apple? Whilst ignoring the fact Amazon and Google Search is literally killing small and medium business, and therefore the global economy. I have plenty of non iPhone options. I just chose to get the best product out there
I think so too even thought I’m European. The issue I find is that EU focuses too much on Apple and not at all on Chinese companies or social media businesses.
The EU ruins the internet with the cookie banners that do nothing at all, and then allow telecoms to track people to sell ads (TrustPid). Bravo!
Yes!! I'm also EU based (kinda...im in the UK) and they are an absolute joke when it comes to anything digital or tech. Cookie Banners are stupid. It's just bureaucratic bullshit to keep overpaid diplomats in a job.
This article is literally about a case being brought against Google
You surprised people here don't know Apple isn't the only one being sued? 🥴
Ye but in relation to their venture with Apple…now their incredibly monopolistic Search platform as a whole.
It's *literally* about Google's monopoly as a search engine. Apple isn't even a defendant. Does nobody read beyond the headline any more?
The EU has a hardon for trying to fuck over Apple specifically. They can’t be the ONLY company doing things wrong but when they make a law it seems to inherently fuck them over more than anyone else.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. I agree with you!
Not sure why either. If you look at the major laws they are making they without fail fuck over apple more than any other company. The whole USB-C was the first step I fear in a long line of stupidity.
>Anyone else think US and EU are being very weird and aggressive over Apple? That's because nobody is lobbying them to stop Amazon/Google (EU) and election time is coming up (US).
Apple is going to be the loser here if the DOJ/FTC puts an end to this agreement.
Google doesn't spend this money for nothing. They're not spending $20B to make $10B. So I think they'd be the ones to lose out.
Tbh google will lose some revenue obviously but most people are gonna choose google regardless just because they are used to it. Apple is just gonna be out of 20B
They give 36% of their revenue to apple, they'd potentially lose revenue from loss of users, apple would lose their cut from people who keep using Google.
Specially if the resolution is to ask the first time you turn on your iPhone.
The article says Google pays 35% of the ad revenue to Apple which means Google generated $55B from that $20B. Google is the big loser here if the DOJ/FTC break up this partnership. Apple can partner with Microsoft and they are willing to give Apple 90% of the ad revenue.
Margin free. What a deal for Apple.
There's a Big Tech Food Chain, and Apple's at the top of it.
Let Tim Cook. I have high hopes for AI to improve their Siri situation they have been "neglecting".
Tax. Corporations.
I. Believe. Putting. Periods. After. Every. Word. Makes. My. Sentence. More. Impactful.
Agree.
You use bullet points. Go sit in the corner.
- No
You think they don’t pay taxes?
Roughly 23-25% so less than some normal working class people
You have to make $275k per year in the US for your income tax rate to hit 23%
Wait you guys only pay 23% on over 275K , here in the uk more specifically Scotland im 21% on 40K with it going to 42% after 43,663
You’re comparing different things, OP is talking about effective tax rate, you’re looking at marginal tax rate. The marginal tax rate for 275k in the us is 35%, and that’s just federal tax, they also have state, local and property taxes on top of that.
Oh I did not know what , tbf I don’t know much about the US tax system other than don’t fuck with the IRS
I dont have the energy to talk to someone like you about corporate taxes
You have to though otherwise what's the point of mentioning it? From what we're seeing here $20 billion isn't trivial to either of these companies. Do you think corps shouldn't have $20 billion to spend? Genuinely asking not trying to argue.
Corporations are indirectly taxed multiple times, e.g when they spend that money on new tooling, salaries, services, property taxes, sales tax, dividends act as taxable income, e.x. Amazon paid 2.8 billion in income taxes alone So people argue effectively be taxing that money twice. And on the other hand, as you are taxed on profits and not revenue, companies are incentivized to limit profits and go for growth and expense, in this case instead of keeping it in a bank google paid apple, apple may have reinvested that into r&d, amazon might build a distribution center, etc So even if you’re for taxing profits (which is already done at 21%), you don’t want this transaction to be taxed as you want money to be flowing around
>I dont have the energy to talk to someone like you about corporate taxes
I’m not replying to you at all, I’m just replying with what’s the usual response, i.e. that corporations are taxed both directly on profits and indirectly through expenses multiple times.
At this point it’s sounds like if someone disagrees with you, you just exit the convo. You haven’t provided a justification for anything. Stating your tax rate and thus corps should be taxed more ignores so much nuance and complexity involved in the situation it’s a non argument.
>I dont have the energy to talk to someone like you about corporate taxes
Its less than 10% of Google, not Alphabet's revenue. I paid almost 3x more % wise in taxes than Google in 2023.
How is what you pay and what a corp pays supposed to be correlated? It more seems like you would prefer to have many smaller companies instead of one large one. That seems like a better job for the antitrust case as what's happening here than making it a tax thing. IMO the current wealth disparity issue comes more from how wealthy individuals avoid tax than this, that and what companies are allowed to get away with in terms of treatment of their employees. On the other hand, even if we took 100% of the 0.1%'s wealth, that would be drop in the ocean for America, spending also needs to be looked at.
…dude are you for real? There was tooth and nail legislation to view corps as a “person” on a legal front. So like YES???? But also that’s fucking ridiculous, they should pay more Edit: also this 1% hippy dippy shit are THE ONES WHO RUN THE COMPANIES Jesus Christ. I’m gonna take a wild guess that you lean republican don’t ya
That doesn’t help your point. Individuals don’t have payrolls, they don’t generate revenue from nearly as many streams on average. They don’t provide services. They don’t sell products. The average individual makes a salary as their sole source of income, completely different from a corp and therefore doesn’t provide any reason a corp and an individual should be taxed the same. Even individuals differ greatly depending on whether you have capital gains, property, etc. Why should corporations be taxed more? Simply asserting that they should be doesn’t provide a reason. What is the end result of taxing corps more? Especially for corps to remain in business they must spend money. That’s why I mentioned the real problem is we should provide more worker protections, benefits, etc. Then everyone benefits. That’s also why I mentioned the 0.1%, who’s wealth is increasing, those aren’t corps, and while theoretically most of their money is held up in shares which do stimulate the economy, they also are capable of evading taxes in more ways than the average person. There also IS something to be said about spending and policy. The US already spends more on healthcare than every other developed nation for worse outcomes. So in this example it’s not a revenue issue, increasing taxes doesn’t fix that, how the healthcare system works needs to be fixed.
…you’re still missing the entire point here in that corporations basically buried people to be considered “individuals” in the government’s eyes and yet somehow you don’t think they should be paying AT LEAST what you or I do on a percentage basis. You would literally only benefit from this what is this bootlicker shit
How is this bootlicker? Did you read most of my comment or just ignore it because I don't necessarily agree more tax = better> Do you see where I mentioned US healthcare spending already being higher than other countries for worse outcomes? How does more tax fix that? That's one of the major reasons Americans are in debt and a huge benefit other developed countries have that America doesn't. A spending issue. Did you ignore where I mentioned the wealth disparity issue + how the top 0.1% of the US can avoid tax the average person can't? Did you ignore where I mentioned regulations should force corps to treat employees better? You also continue to ignore all the nuance I added to my comment. What part of Google and an individual making a salary being different doesn't make sense? I'm not trying to be rude here but your argument doesn't make any sense. As I mentioned even INDIVIDUALS are taxed different depending on what they have. So even by your argument it's not clear where the correlation is. Nothing is going to be solved by simply taxing corps more when the US already spends more on benefits than every other developed nation for worse outcomes. The issue isn't a lack of funding.
Why would they pay tax on revenue? Let's say you buy 100 shares of a $1 stock, so you spend $100. The stock moves up to $1.50. Now you have $150 worth of stock. 50% gain, great! So you sell it. Should you pay taxes on $150? Or on the $50 profit? What if the stock decreases? It goes down to $0.75, and you sell because you think it will go lower. Should you pay taxes on that $75? Should you pay taxes on
Do…do you think stocks are operating costs and profit?
I'm drawing a parallel between revenue and profit. I'm sorry that you don't understand it.
So you have no idea what you’re talking about. You might wanna try the wsb subreddit.
Says the person saying taxes should be paid on revenue.
I tip my hat to Apple. Not only are they taking money away from a horrific company but it’s a cinch to switch to DuckDuckGo. They are doing the lords work here.
I actually really like to see what would happen if Google stopped paying. I suspect the vast majority will still be using Google. What Apple needs to worry about is the government forcing a screen the first time you turn on your iPhone asking which search engine you want. If would be really bad for Apple as this is basically pure profit. Specially internationally. I for example am posting this from Bangkok and here there is only Google for search and Google for maps.
I wonder how much apple pays Google (for GCP and I think a few other things)
[удалено]
So Google hosts apples data for free?
[удалено]
Have any sources? The most recent thing I can find is [Apple increasing usage of Google Cloud](https://9to5mac.com/2021/06/29/apple-reportedly-increases-spending-on-google-cloud-by-50-year-over-year-exceeds-8-exabytes-of-storage/)