Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
During the U.S. antitrust case against Google, Apple executive Eddy Cue said there was effectively “no price” Microsoft could offer to make Apple preload Bing as the default search engine. That is the source of the “even if it were free” headline—but it is a paraphrase, not proof that Microsoft made a finalized zero-dollar offer or that Apple would never use Bing in any capacity.
Cue’s stated reason was that Google offered a better search experience, stronger investment and more effective advertising monetization. The financial stakes mattered too: Apple received substantial payments for making Google Safari’s default. The episode is less a simple product verdict than a case study in how valuable default placement can be.
What Cue said—and what the headline leaves out
In testimony and related court filings, Cue’s position was that no price would persuade Apple to make Bing Safari’s default search engine. He also described Google as the only “valid” default option available to Apple at the time and said Apple believed Google delivered the best experience for its users. Those are Apple’s assessments, not an independent finding that Google was objectively better for every search or every user. See the court filing and the Washington Post’s account of Cue’s testimony.
Recommended Free Tools
The qualification “at the time” matters. Cue was discussing Apple’s decisions and negotiations in the context of the Google antitrust litigation. His testimony does not establish a permanent Apple policy against Bing, nor does it mean Bing could not power a limited feature or be offered as a user-selected option.
#1 Best Overall
Did Microsoft offer to give Apple Bing?
Microsoft approached Apple about Bing, with reported proposals including a sale of the search business or a joint venture. The discussions also concerned making Bing the default on Apple devices. That is more complicated than a settled offer to hand Apple a complete search engine at no cost. Reporting on unsealed court materials and the Washington Post’s account describe the proposals and Apple’s rejection.
“Free” can describe very different deals: no purchase price, no licensing fee, a subsidy for default placement, or a guarantee of revenue to Apple. None would eliminate the cost of operating a search engine. A large-scale service still needs crawling and indexing, data centers, ranking systems, security, engineering and continuing investment. A no-cost transfer of an asset would not make those obligations disappear.
Why Apple said Bing was not a good default
Search quality and investment
Cue said Bing’s quality and investment did not match Google’s. A default search provider handles a huge range of queries—local businesses, news, shopping, images and everyday questions—across languages and markets. An engine can perform well for some searches and less well for others; the relevant question for Apple was whether it could reliably serve the broad Safari audience.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Search quality also depends on scale and continuing improvement. The Google court record discussed advantages linked to the volume of search data, while Cue argued that Microsoft had not invested at a comparable level. That does not prove Bing could never catch up. It helps explain why Apple did not see a favorable payment as enough to offset the perceived product gap.
Revenue per search
Search is also an advertising business. Providers earn different amounts from queries depending on whether they can identify commercial intent, match relevant ads and convert searches into advertiser value. Cue criticized Microsoft’s advertising organization and monetization relative to Google’s. A Bing default could therefore be worth less to Apple even if Microsoft offered attractive contractual terms.
Google’s payments to Apple are a major part of the context. Public estimates put the arrangement’s annual value above $20 billion in later years, but the precise contract terms are not public and estimates vary. It is safer to treat the figure as an estimate, not a disclosed or uncontested payment. The reported estimates illustrate the scale of the financial incentive; they do not by themselves explain Apple’s decision.
User experience and Apple’s own risk
Apple would be choosing the default that many Safari users encounter without changing settings. If users found the results less useful, they could blame Safari or the iPhone experience, not just Microsoft. Apple would also have to manage a transition and any resulting complaints. From Apple’s perspective, a large check could not necessarily compensate for a default it believed would make its product worse.
The competing explanation: Bing gave Apple leverage
Microsoft executives offered a less flattering interpretation: Apple kept Bing in the conversation partly to improve its bargaining position with Google. Microsoft also argued that Google’s default status reinforces its advantage: more default queries can mean more data and advertising opportunities, which help sustain the service and make it harder for rivals to compete. These are Microsoft’s arguments in the litigation, not neutral findings about Apple’s motives. See AP’s account of the testimony and Axios’s reporting on Microsoft’s position.
Both explanations can be true at once. Apple could believe Google was better for users and also use the possibility of Bing as leverage in negotiations. Apple benefits from Google’s revenue, from avoiding the cost and complexity of running search itself, and from having a strong default in its devices. It is not a disinterested referee between search companies.
Why a default is worth so much
A default is not the same as an exclusive choice: users can change Safari’s search engine. But defaults shape behavior because many people keep the preset option. The provider that receives the queries gets the chance to serve results and ads, learn from usage, and strengthen its commercial position. For the company controlling the default, the arrangement can yield revenue without building a search engine itself.
That creates a feedback loop at the heart of the antitrust dispute. A rival may need more query volume to improve its service and attract advertisers, but it may struggle to gain that volume while a dominant provider holds the most valuable defaults. At the same time, an alternative must offer Apple enough quality and revenue to justify switching. The DOJ’s legal question—whether default agreements unlawfully entrench Google’s position—is separate from the product question of whether Apple should choose Bing.
Could Apple build its own search engine?
Apple has considered the possibility, according to testimony and reporting, but that does not mean it had an active, imminent plan to launch a Google-scale web index. Building one would require substantial infrastructure and ongoing investment. Apple would also need to weigh the privacy implications, operating costs and advertising model against the benefit of greater control.
Best Value
It is useful to distinguish a full web search engine from Apple’s existing search-related features. Spotlight and Siri can help users find information or content without Apple maintaining a complete index of the web. Apple could also present a search interface that routes requests to outside providers. Reducing Google’s role does not require Apple to reproduce every part of Google Search.
AI search may change the question
In May 2025, Cue was reported as saying Apple was actively considering AI-powered search engines in Safari. That signals exploration, not a confirmed replacement for Google or a product launch. It also points to a different decision from simply making traditional Bing results the default. An AI-mediated search service raises its own questions about answer accuracy, citations, freshness, privacy and commercial bias.
It is therefore possible—though this is an inference, not an announced plan—that Apple could consider AI search providers while still judging Bing’s conventional web search unsuitable as Safari’s default. See Ars Technica’s report on Cue’s comments.
What Safari users can do
Apple lets users choose a search engine in Safari, though the available choices and exact controls vary by device, operating-system version and region. On Mac, Apple’s support guide covers the setting under Safari’s search preferences: Choose a search engine for Safari on Mac. Users can also visit search providers directly or use their apps. A default has influence, but it does not lock users into one provider.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
