US v. Google: in 2018 and 2019, DuckDuckGo discussed becoming Safari's default search engine for private mode, but Apple's John Giannandrea rejected the idea
- DuckDuckGo spoke with Apple about 20 times on possible change — Apple exec testified he viewed it as ‘probably a bad idea’
Context & Ripple Effects
The testimony adds a privacy-focused alternative to the record of Apple’s search-default decisions. It aligns with Eddie Cue’s view that Google was the only valid partner, even as Apple’s public privacy posture was raised during the case.
It also sits alongside evidence that Microsoft had pursued the iPhone default position without success and that Google’s Safari placement carried substantial financial value for Apple.
First-order effects
- DuckDuckGo did not secure Safari’s private-browsing default position, leaving Apple’s search configuration unchanged in that niche.
- Apple’s rejection becomes trial evidence that a privacy-oriented search alternative was considered but did not clear Apple’s product and partnership criteria.
Second-order effects
- The episode makes it harder for smaller search providers to treat a limited Safari default slot as an attainable route to scale; access still depends on Apple’s approval.
- For the antitrust case, the record broadens scrutiny from Google’s payments to Apple’s willingness to entertain alternatives, alongside Microsoft’s unsuccessful effort to replace Google.
Third-order effects
- If browser defaults remain controlled by a small number of platform gatekeepers, search competition may hinge less on product differentiation than on winning distribution agreements.
- That gatekeeper role could become more consequential as Apple explores reshaping Safari around AI search, potentially changing which kinds of providers compete for prominent placement.
The trend: Search distribution is shifting from a question of which engine users prefer to one of how browser platforms allocate default access across conventional, privacy-focused, and AI-driven search.