“In other words, it suggests that Apple’s choice to make Google its default search engine wasn’t just about the size of the payment.”
Why would that have to be merely suggested? Why wouldn’t Google or the DOJ put an Apple exec on the stand to testify that it was or wasn’t respectively?
From the endnote: "But, you know, when we’re in a situation where, you know, we’re bidding 100 percent of our revenue and Google can bid 60 percent of your revenue (sic), that’s a really challenging spot to be in.”
I wouldn't interpret that as Tinter saying Google shares 60% of Google's revenue with Apple, I would interpret it as Tinter saying Google shares the equivalent of 60% of Microsoft's revenue with Apple.
I understand the revenue sharing agreements are likely to be stated in percentages, not dollar figures, so my interpretation mightn't seem to make sense. However I expect Microsoft to be well aware that they'd get less search traffic than Google would in the same default position, and therefore to have done the math on what percentage of their expected revenues they'd need to offer to match the dollar figures Google would be paying to Apple.
Good for you guys pointing out the secrecy of the trial and forcing everyone's hand on it!
“In other words, it suggests that Apple’s choice to make Google its default search engine wasn’t just about the size of the payment.”
Why would that have to be merely suggested? Why wouldn’t Google or the DOJ put an Apple exec on the stand to testify that it was or wasn’t respectively?
From the endnote: "But, you know, when we’re in a situation where, you know, we’re bidding 100 percent of our revenue and Google can bid 60 percent of your revenue (sic), that’s a really challenging spot to be in.”
I wouldn't interpret that as Tinter saying Google shares 60% of Google's revenue with Apple, I would interpret it as Tinter saying Google shares the equivalent of 60% of Microsoft's revenue with Apple.
I understand the revenue sharing agreements are likely to be stated in percentages, not dollar figures, so my interpretation mightn't seem to make sense. However I expect Microsoft to be well aware that they'd get less search traffic than Google would in the same default position, and therefore to have done the math on what percentage of their expected revenues they'd need to offer to match the dollar figures Google would be paying to Apple.
This was also my interpretation. He's trying to put the listener in Microsoft's view:
Imagine you were us, and Google was bidding 60 percent of your revenue. That's a really challenging spot to be in.