Bringing together the two companies to whom I offer the most unsolicited advice, I propose that Apple run a Google-API driven (or otherwise Google-run) web search and build it into Safari as the default search site (and available to others at some URL). Call it “Gapple.”
For Gapple, Apple should keep Google’s minimal layout, use textads (maybe some geared to Apple users), maintain the general integrity of the search, and pay Google for its service. Safari users should be able to change the search box to point to another service, but, if Gapple is implemented as described, they probably won’t want to.
The main difference should be that for computer-related searches, Gapple gives Apple and Macintosh offerings a bit of a raise in the sort-scoring, given the assumption that these will be more relevant to the searcher. E.g., if one were to search Gapple (perhaps from Safari’s search box) for “firewall,” the first result might be a page describing how to enable and configure OS X’s built-in firewall; subsequent results would similarly be Mac-related, but sorted using Google’s standard algorithms, otherwise. Computer users spend a lot of time searching for information about their computer; why not make it easier, without requiring any effort to do so on the user’s part?
For all (or at least most) other searches, Gapple should give the same results as Google. Anyone searching for “Lincoln birthday” probably wants the same result, whether he’s on a Mac, PC or ANSI terminal. Of course, it may turn out that Apple users–who have more or less self-selected–may share other interests, such as Volvos, NPR, and Bang & Olufsen stereo sets. In such cases, it would make sense to reorder search results based on this known and different [from the entire Net's population that created Google's rankings with its links] preference.
Searchers wanting Google’s standard sort-order could just go to Google.
Of course, Apple would face some incentive to alter search results in a way that degrades users’ experiences (e.g., NPR news offers to trade better placement for a couple of positive pieces on “All Things Considered”), but it should resist this urge. Such meddling could drive away users, not to mention Google, which might not wish its name so sullied.
The general point of this is that search should be able to be tuned when you know something about a set of users’ preferences and that this should result in a better search experience because users will find what they want more quickly. Allowing (rather than asking, which can be obtrustive) users to self-sort is easy, inexpensive, and would result in benefits all around. In this case, Apple would be able to better serve its users (and possibly reduce support expenses and move some hardware or software and make some money through textads), Google is better satisfying a group of users by giving better results (and earning some money from Apple), and users are more satsfied than they were before (and, if not, they can easily switch back to Google).
Finally, Google could offer this service, once it is perfected, to any group with a defining criterion (e.g., religious groups, socialists, feminists, etc.), though I can’t think of any group, outside of religion, that is as likely to pay for the service as Apple or that has as much to gain financially. Plus, Apple likes to appear innovative (as it often is), and an association with one of today’s more innovative software firms could spread that aura around.
Seems like a good idea to me.