How about a bit of critical thinking before yelling "Conspiracy!"? Concerning "sources", if Apple and Google are engaged in joint anti-competitive behavior, they'd probably not write press releases about it. But of course there is well-documented precedence of them doing exactly that, being caught and getting a mild slap on the wrist, so it's not a completely outlandish notion to entertain.

As for the officially stated reason: do you really think that there is an alternative search engine provider that Apple would switch to if Google didn't pay them 10 figures a year? If so, which one(s)? If not, what are they actually paying for? To mitigate the risk of a second Apple Maps? But is the case for entering the search engine market really remotely as compelling as entering the mapping space?

I'm not saying it's an open and shut case, but the idea that Google essentially pays Apple money a) as a "good-will gesture" b) to give regulators the impression that the search engine market is more competitive than it is seems possible to me. Whereas one of the alternative scenarios proposed here, that Apple would pick duckduckgo otherwise, really does not.

Personally, if I were Sundar, I'd be way more worried about anti-trust or Apple siding too much with the privacy of their users or stepping otherwise on my toes than say duckduckduckgo becoming a serious competitor because Apple anointed them default search provider after I failed to fork over enough money. I'd probably even do my best to keep a bunch of minimally viable competitors around -- not viable enough to ever pose a threat, but viable enough to keep anti-trust at bay for a bit longer. And both duckduckgo and firefox seem to fit that bill perfectly.

You are speculating as much as the op does. It's just not based in truthful statements. Ofc everything you and op are rhyming together can be true but at least don't state it as fact like op did.

Pretend that everyone that you interact with on the internet is expressing their opinion about the facts.

> A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.

https://wikiless.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory?lang=en

It's not a conspiracy when we know that GAFA works together: https://gizmodo.com/google-paid-apple-to-stay-out-of-the-sea...

It is because you can't validate it how is it that hard to distinguish between true statements and speculations. The same goes for your sources claims brought up in court are not true statements until they are proven to be factually correct.

No.

Google the definition of conspiracy, before presenting your wrong opinion as fact.

Do you even get the irony of what you've just done and I'm sure have been doing for years? Probably not.

You’re basically saying every comment here is a conspiracy theory, since (essentially) nobody here provides sources and everybody is convinced they’re spewing the unadulterated truth.

By your definition, it’s a conspiracy theory for me to say, “I’m sure JFK was shot!” Because I’m saying it as fact without source. But then it’s also a conspiracy theory to say, “I’m sure JFK was shot by aliens.”

The what is essential in defining a conspiracy theory.

It's about how not what at least follow the discussion you are answering. And nobody cares about your definition of conspiracy theories or your assumption of mine, normal human beings open for discourse care about the definition of the term in the general public. You can easily find it in a dictionary of your choice.