The context is important. If the number is 34%, then Google's iOS revenue would be around $3B, of which Apple got a cut.
http://www.engadget.com/2015/12/30/google-will-strip-oracles...
Perhaps it pissed them off?
It's amazing that Google search, which is quite useful, has negative market value as content. In the cable TV world, there are channels cable systems pay to carry, such as ESPN, and channels that pay to be carried, such as the Jewelry Channel. How did Google end up in the latter category?
Being the default search engine on iPhone means you can generate a lot of revenue, and so it is a valuable position to sell. As you say, Google got outbid by Yahoo a couple years ago for Firefox. If Google weren't paying, apple would sell the search bar to somebody else.
In the case of Apple, they have numerous other highly valuable directions they could go with a piece of real estate on the iPhone, including selling it to Microsoft or Yahoo.
It would be like claiming that because every free app in existence isn't included by default on a phone, said non-included app/s must therefore have a negative value. My phone for example did not come with kik or viber pre-installed, therefore they have a negative value (not true).
Few people consider yahoo or bing search comparable in quality to google.
So what parent finds odd, is that Apple is asking the best in class to pay them, to improve their product.
I understand that someone reading HN would find that hard to believe, but when I look at some people around me who are not working in tech - many wouldn't be able to tell difference between Bing and Google search results. All they know is they can type/say a query and get the site they are looking for. The only time they would start thinking about underlying tech. is if they started to consistently get unusable results.
Google results are better, but how many people are actually aware of that (outside IT crowd) is questionable.
1. The power of browser defaults puts browser vendors in a strong position to demand a cut from third parties that make money from being a default.
2. Yahoo and Bing (plus some regional options) are realistic alternative bidders for this preferred placement. That dramatically tilts the bargaining power towards the browser vendor. With an alternative, however, a browser vendor still makes some money if negotiations with Google break down. Beyond that, a realistic alternative means Google loses more. Assuming negotiations broke down, more users would end up searching at Google if there were no search engine default than would if there were an alternative one.
To build on the cable analogy, suppose sports leagues were required by law to license their broadcasts (with the same terms) to any cable channel that wanted them. In that case, it wouldn't be hard for someone to put together ZSPN and bid away ESPN's carriage fees. ESPN doesn't just get those fees because they have valuable content - they can demand those fees because they have control over that content.
http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Mobile-Account-More-than-Ha...
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/apple-walked-away-from-iad...
