\n<\/p>\n
This week, our trial with the Department of Justice and State Attorneys General came to an end. After 10 weeks, the evidence confirms what we\u2019ve said all along: People have many choices when searching for information online, and they use Google because it\u2019s helpful.<\/p>\n
Here are our key takeaways from the trial:<\/p>\n
Throughout the trial, we heard testimony on the many ways Google constantly innovates in Search to create a better experience for our users. As our VP of Search Quality, Pandu Nayak, said on the stand, \u201cthere\u2019s no sense that Search has ever been good enough.\u201d That\u2019s why we invest billions in R&D every year and have pioneered advancements in machine learning and artificial intelligence. By comparison, Microsoft\u2019s CEO Satya Nadella confirmed that Microsoft\u2019s \u201cfailure to make capital expenditures to support its search business\u201d was not because they lacked the resources, and that in 2018, Google Search\u2019s engineering team was five times bigger than Bing\u2019s. And DuckDuckGo\u2019s CEO testified that it has distributed capital to shareholders several times, rather than investing in improving its search engine.<\/p>\n
Our former VP of Search, Ben Gomes, testified that in 2007, our founders instructed a \u201cmobile-only\u201d approach to innovating and improving Search. The Court heard how this was a gamble, since mobile queries were a small fraction of total queries and the vast majority of searches still occurred on desktop. Google\u2019s investments and innovations to advance mobile computing and Search on mobile devices \u2014 including the launch of the open-source Android operating system and the Android mobile application distribution and revenue share agreements \u2014 made us the most attractive partner to mobile device makers like Samsung. As our CEO Sundar Pichai testified, these companies wanted to give their users \u201cessential out-of-the-box functionality.\u201d By contrast, a Microsoft executive testified that they did not even launch a mobile browser until 2017 and failed in various efforts to develop a competitive mobile platform.<\/p>\n
As Sundar said, \u201cWe want to make it very, very seamless and easy for users to use our service.\u201d We compete for promotional opportunities so people can easily access Search and so that people search more. Our revenue-sharing payments have increased over time because people are searching more with Google, enjoying the benefits of incredible innovations in our partners\u2019 mobile devices and browsers. But just being the default does not guarantee success, because users know how to find the alternatives they prefer. For example, even though Microsoft preloads Edge and Bing, and puts up obstacles to switching, the large majority of Windows users search with Google. Satya Nadella testified that Bing\u2019s share of search queries on Windows is \u201cin the teens.\u201d We also learned that when Bing was the default on Blackberry and Windows Mobile mobile devices, the majority of searches still went to Google. Mozilla\u2019s CEO, Mitchell Baker, testified that when they changed the default on Firefox to Yahoo!, \u201cwe found our users trying all sorts of different ways to get back to Google, and we experienced lots of people leaving Firefox.\u201d<\/p>\n
Apple\u2019s Eddy Cue testified: \u201cWhen we were doing the deal with Google, we wanted the capabilities to provide the best \u2014 the best service, the best application, the best thing for customers. Google was the best one.\u201d Mozilla\u2019s Mitchell Baker said, \u201cOur users made it clear that they look for and want and expect Google, and that when they get Google Search results and Google as the default, that\u2019s what they expect, and they\u2019re happy.\u201d And Motorola\u2019s Erik Christensen agreed that preloading Chrome and Google Search on Motorola phones was in the \u201cbest interest of\u2026its consumers.\u201d<\/p>\n
Evidence at trial shows we face fierce competition from a broad range of competitors \u2014 from specialized search engines like Expedia, Angi and Yelp to social-media firms like Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. As Prabhakar Raghavan, our SVP of Knowledge and Information, said, \u201cWe feel ourselves competing with them every day.\u201d Economist Dr. Mark Israel testified that \u201ceach query made by a user is a meaningfully distinct choice about where to go [to] get information. Amazon competes for shopping queries, Expedia competes for travel queries and Yelp competes for local queries.\u201d We compete for all of these queries and innovate every day so users will choose Google for their information needs.<\/p>\n
Experts and our top engineers testified the DOJ overstates the value of click-and-query data.<\/p>\n
Several of our top engineers testified that there are many important aspects of search quality that require little or no click-and-query data, including recent innovations in large language models and building a comprehensive index of the web. (In fact, Microsoft\u2019s head of search and advertising testified that one of Bing\u2019s major challenges was that its web index has historically been far smaller than Google\u2019s and didn\u2019t invest in expanding it until 2019.) And the founder of Neeva testified that he believed one only needs 2.5% of users to have a competitive general search engine.<\/p>\n
When the DOJ filed their lawsuit over three years ago, we said its case was deeply flawed. Over the last ten weeks, we presented the facts to back this up. We appreciate the opportunity to tell our side of the story and look forward to continuing to make our case in the post-trial proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n