There is no reporting whatsoever that there is any other payment to be in the list of alternatives. There is no evidence that Microsoft pays Apple to include Bing in the list of alternatives.
So nothing whatsoever like that was revealed in the case.
Dude, given you don't have any evidence to the contrary, the correct response here is "wow, I hadn't heard of that, please tell me more", rather than to assume that if you haven't heard of something, it must be false.
I don't know why there was no reporting of this, but it is what Gabriel Wineberg testified to under oath. See the trial transcripts, 2023-09-21, 1:36pm[0].
> Q. And since this agreement was signed in 2014, DuckDuckGo has been one of the built in options that a user can select as their search engine in Safari, right?
> A. Yes.
> Q. DuckDuckGo agreed, through this service integration agreement, to pay Apple a share of the revenue that DuckDuckGo receives from certain search traffic originating from Safari, right?
> A. Yes.
You see how that is DDG paying for being in the list of alternatives, right? And that it was revealed in this case?
Thanks for that, that's very interesting. And indeed, has had no reporting whatsoever as far as I can tell.
Do you know if Microsoft, Yahoo, and Ecosia also pay for placement? Since those are the other options Safari provides?
You're right, I shouldn't have said it was false -- I thought I'd followed this subject very closely, and this is definitely not common knowledge at all. I stand corrected, thanks.
There is proof (not just evidence) that Google paid to be on the list. There is evidence that to be on that list, one needs to pay; therefore, there is evidence that Microsoft also paid to be there.
We actually know it. I told you how we know it, and you ignored it. If that wasn't enough for you, you could have asked for details rather than scold me about not providing tedious details on something that was public knowledge.
Anyway, I've provided said tedious details in a sibling comment.
