The Default Billion: Google–Apple Search Payments, Platform Power, and the AI Turn in Digital Capitalism

Lee, Alex

doi:10.65326/u7y566744

The Default Billion: Google–Apple Search Payments, Platform Power, and the AI Turn in Digital Capitalism, Google Apple Search Deal

Nov 7, 2025
18 min read

Updated: Jun 18

Author: Alex Lee

ORCID iD: 0009-0008-6407-2341

Affiliation: Swiss International University (SIU)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.65326/u7y566744

Received 5 September 2025; Revised 20 October 2025; Accepted 1 November 2025; Available online 7 November 2025; Version of Record 7 November 2025.

Volume 2, December 2025, (10021)

Abstract

This article examines a pivotal feature of the contemporary digital economy: the multibillion-dollar payments made by Google to Apple to secure default search placement across Apple’s ecosystem and the mounting pressures created by the rapid diffusion of AI-mediated search. Treating the “default” not as a neutral technical setting but as a sociological institution that structures attention, value flows, and competitive outcomes, the paper mobilizes three analytical lenses—Bourdieu’s forms of capital, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism—to explain (1) why such payments persist, (2) why Apple has not simply launched (or fully productized) a rival general-purpose search engine, and (3) how generative-AI interfaces destabilize the legacy “pay-for-default” business model.

The argument is threefold. First, default status functions as a conversion mechanism among economic, symbolic, and social capital, reproducing platform dominance through habituated user practices and entrenched field relations. Second, the Google–Apple arrangement exemplifies a core–periphery dynamic in digital capitalism: a small number of “core” firms capture outsized rents from control of device ecosystems, data, and ad distribution while peripheral actors confront structural barriers to entry. Third, organizational convergence—explained by institutional isomorphism—helps clarify Apple’s rational non-entry into general search at scale: pursuing search would entail costly capability building, regulatory exposure, and brand repositioning that undercuts its device-centric identity, while the default model already transforms installed-base power into services revenue.

Finally, the analysis shows how the rise of answer-centric AI (on-device and cloud-assisted) represents an inflection point: if users increasingly bypass link lists in favor of synthesized responses, the marginal value of “default search” falls. Device makers may thus pivot from exclusive default deals toward plural AI partnerships, threatening search-ad business models premised on traffic intermediation. Policy, competition strategy, and academic research must, therefore, move beyond browser defaults to interrogate AI intermediaries, data access, and interface governance in the next regime of information discovery.

Keywords: Default search; platform capitalism; Bourdieu; world-systems theory; institutional isomorphism; AI search; Apple–Google deal; attention economy; digital antitrust; device ecosystems

1. Introduction

Defaults appear trivial. A default is simply the option that takes effect unless a user intervenes. In digital markets, however, defaults operate as institutions: they organize behaviour, channel value, and shape competitive structure. The arrangement through which Google pays Apple to remain the default search provider across Safari and system-level entry points on Apple devices is the clearest contemporary expression of this logic. The payment is not compensation for a convenience. It is a recurring rent on attention, a fee for privileged access to a high-value user base, and an insurance premium against the behavioural friction that would otherwise erode market share.

Two questions motivate this article. If the rent that flows to Apple is as large as public reporting and litigation suggest, why has Apple not internalised it by operating a general-purpose search engine of its own? And if AI assistants increasingly resolve user queries without routing them to a ranked list of links, is the practice of paying device makers for default placement approaching structural decline? These questions cannot be answered through firm-level strategy alone. They require sociological theories of fields, institutions, and the hierarchical organisation of the world economy.

The literatures that bear on default-search payments have developed largely in parallel rather than in conversation. Platform economics explains why intermediaries subsidise one market side and monetise another, but tends to treat defaults as one tactic among many rather than as an institutionalised source of rent (Rochet and Tirole, 2003; Rietveld and Schilling, 2021). Critical political economy documents how data and attention are converted into durable market power, yet seldom specifies the organisational logic that keeps a partner such as Apple from entering the intermediary’s own market (Zuboff, 2019; O’Reilly, Strauss and Mazzucato, 2024). Institutional theory accounts for organisational conformity but has rarely been used to explain the strategic non-entry of a dominant device maker (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). The emerging research on generative AI and information access concentrates on retrieval quality, bias, and user behaviour rather than on the business model that default placement sustains (Shah and Bender, 2024; Li and Sinnamon, 2024). What is missing is an integrated account that treats the default as an institution and explains, within a single framework, why the payment persists, why the recipient declines to compete, and how an interface shift threatens the arrangement.

This article develops that account. Its contribution is threefold. First, it reframes the default search box as an institution rather than a setting, and shows how it converts economic outlay into symbolic dominance and habituated practice. Second, it reinterprets Apple’s non-entry into general search not as a capability deficit but as field-rational conduct, shaped by coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures. Third, it theorises the diffusion of answer-centric AI as a displacement of gatekeeping power from the search engine to the assistant, with consequences for the distribution of rents and for competition policy. The argument is summarised in a set of propositions intended to guide subsequent empirical work.

The remainder of the article proceeds as follows. Section 2 sets out the empirical background. Section 3 reviews the relevant literatures and locates the gap. Section 4 develops the theoretical framework. Section 5 describes the research design. Section 6 presents the analysis and derives propositions. Section 7 discusses the theoretical and policy contribution. Section 8 states the limitations and a research agenda, and Section 9 concludes.

2. Background

For more than a decade, default search placement on Apple devices has been among the most economically consequential settings in consumer technology. Figures entered into the public record through regulatory scrutiny and litigation indicate annual payments on the order of tens of billions of dollars to maintain default status, structured as a share of the search revenue generated through Safari. These sums have become material to Apple’s services revenue and central to Google’s position in mobile search.

In 2024, a United States federal court found that Google had unlawfully maintained monopoly power in general search, and identified its payments for default distribution as a principal mechanism of foreclosure (United States v. Google LLC, 2024). Subsequent remedies constrained exclusive default contracts and shortened their permissible duration, while stopping short of prohibiting paid default placement outright. Two features of this outcome matter for the present argument. The remedies target contractual exclusivity rather than the underlying control of the interface and the data it generates, and they arrive precisely as the interface itself begins to change.

That change is the diffusion of answer-centric AI. The integration of generative assistants into devices and operating systems signals a shift from navigation toward synthesis: a growing share of user intents may be satisfied inside an assistant rather than through a ranked list of links. If that shift continues, the historical rent attached to occupying the default search box will not disappear at once, but its economic basis will begin to decouple from the economics of satisfying information needs.

3. Literature Review

Four bodies of work bear on the default-search regime. The first, the economics of multi-sided platforms, explains how an intermediary can subsidise one user group and monetise another through cross-side network effects (Rochet and Tirole, 2003; Gawer and Cusumano, 2014). Default placement on a dominant device platform intensifies these effects by securing immediate scale and reinforcing feedback among usage, data, quality, and advertising yield. A systematic review of this field shows that questions of platform governance—how a dominant hub firm sets the rules that allocate value—remain comparatively under-developed relative to questions of pricing and network effects (Rietveld and Schilling, 2021). Recent work on platform and ecosystem dynamics has begun to address this gap by examining how orchestrators manage externalities among complementors (Jacobides, Cennamo and Gawer, 2024; Cusumano, Gawer and Yoffie, 2019).

The second body of work concerns the behavioural economics of choice architecture. Defaults exploit status-quo bias and the asymmetry between perceived gains and losses, so that even capable users rarely change a setting unless performance is poor or switching is effortless (Kahneman, Knetsch and Thaler, 1991). In a multi-device, multi-application environment, this inertia compounds, because system-level search is invoked across many contexts.

The third body of work is the political economy of data and attention. Beyond the mechanics of advertising auctions (Varian, 2009), this scholarship argues that user activity is converted into predictive assets and that control of the point of ingress is control of the data flow (Zuboff, 2019; Srnicek, 2017). A complementary line of analysis treats large platforms as engines of rent extraction, theorising how algorithmic control over user attention allows a platform to capture surplus from users, suppliers, and advertisers alike (O’Reilly, Strauss and Mazzucato, 2024), and how control over ecosystems of devices, standards, and contracts produces distinctly digital forms of rentiership (Birch and Cochrane, 2022). On this view, default status commands a rent that appears large relative to any single year’s query volume because it secures the durable position from which attention and data are harvested.

The fourth body of work is the law and political economy of digital competition. Research on digital antitrust emphasises that foreclosure need not take the form of outright exclusion; steering, defaults, and payments that raise rivals’ costs can entrench an incumbent without barring entry (Hovenkamp, 2018; Khan, 2019; Stigler Committee on Digital Platforms, 2019). Reports prepared for competition authorities have argued that effective intervention must address data access and interface control, not merely contractual form (Crémer, de Montjoye and Schweitzer, 2019). A more recent strand examines generative AI as an interface that reframes search from a navigational task into a conversational one, raising new questions about source authority, bias, and the migration of users away from ranked links (Shah and Bender, 2024; Li and Sinnamon, 2024; Zhou and Li, 2024).

Each literature illuminates part of the problem, but none accounts for the whole. Platform economics treats the default as a tactic; political economy describes the rent without specifying why the recipient declines to compete; institutional theory explains conformity but is rarely applied to non-entry; and the AI literature studies the interface without connecting it to the payment model it threatens. The framework developed below integrates these strands so that the persistence of the payment, the non-entry of the partner, and the vulnerability of the model to interface change can be explained together.

4. Theoretical Framework

The analysis draws on three theories, each addressing a distinct facet of the same arrangement. They are treated as complementary rather than competing: Bourdieu explains why the payment persists, world-systems theory explains how the resulting rents are distributed, and institutional isomorphism explains why the recipient does not enter the intermediary’s market.

4.1 Forms of Capital and the Conversion Logic of Defaults

Bourdieu’s account of the forms of capital and their convertibility (Bourdieu, 1986) clarifies what the default actually purchases. By paying for default status, Google converts economic capital into symbolic capital: ubiquity establishes its service as the unmarked, taken-for-granted way to search. Symbolic capital appears as trust, habit, and brand-congruent expectation, which in turn lowers the user’s motivation to switch. Apple’s installed base and ecosystem lock-in function as a stock of social capital within the field, which the default arrangement converts into services revenue at minimal operational risk. The arrangement is self-reproducing: defaults generate usage, usage generates data, data improves ranking and advertising performance, and improved performance justifies continued payment. The dominance of both firms thereby comes to seem natural—a habituated practice rather than a contestable choice.

4.2 Core, Periphery, and the Distribution of Rents

World-systems theory (Wallerstein, 1974) reads the digital economy as a hierarchy. Core firms command the infrastructures of attention—devices, operating systems, application stores, and search endpoints—and extract rents by setting interface standards and gatekeeping data flows. Semi-peripheral actors, such as regional search engines and device makers without premium market share, face costlier user acquisition, smaller data scale, weaker bargaining power, and regulatory exposure without offsetting leverage. Peripheral producers, including content sites and small enterprises, depend on the core for discovery traffic and advertising demand, and are most exposed when an interface change displaces link clicks. The default arrangement thus illustrates how surplus is captured in the core through institutional control of the interface rather than through technological superiority alone—a reading consistent with accounts of algorithmic attention rents and digital rentiership (O’Reilly, Strauss and Mazzucato, 2024; Birch and Cochrane, 2022).

4.3 Institutional Isomorphism and Strategic Non-Entry

The framework of institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) explains why Apple does not simply build a general search engine. Coercive pressures arise from regulatory scrutiny: accepting a rent from an external provider is far less exposed than becoming a search-and-advertising monopolist in its own right. Normative pressures arise from organisational identity: a firm whose legitimacy rests on a privacy-forward, device-and-services narrative would strain that identity by operating the world’s dominant behavioural-advertising business. Mimetic pressures arise under uncertainty: accepting payment for default placement is the field’s stabilised template, whereas building a global crawler, index, ranking system, advertising marketplace, and publisher ecosystem would require new capabilities and fresh legitimation. Isomorphism therefore reframes the question “why not build search?” as one of institutional fit rather than of capability alone.

4.4 Synthesis

The three lenses converge on a single object—the default as an institution—while addressing different facets of it. Table 1 summarises their respective contributions.

Theoretical lens	Core concept	Facet addressed	Explanatory contribution
Forms of capital (Bourdieu)	Conversion among economic, symbolic, and social capital	Why the payment persists	The default converts economic outlay into symbolic dominance and habituated practice
World-systems theory (Wallerstein)	Core–periphery hierarchy and rent capture	How rents are distributed	Rents concentrate in core firms that control interface standards and data flows
Institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell)	Coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures	Why the partner does not enter and how firms converge	Non-entry is field-rational; firms adopt similar orchestration templates under uncertainty

Note. The three lenses are complementary rather than mutually exclusive; each addresses a distinct facet of the same institutional arrangement.

5. Research Design

This article is a theory-driven, single-case conceptual analysis. It adopts an explanatory case design in which the Google–Apple default-search arrangement serves as a revelatory instance of how interface defaults institutionalise market power. The case is selected on theoretical rather than statistical grounds. It is an extreme and information-rich instance—the largest disclosed default-placement payment in consumer technology and the central exhibit in a landmark antitrust proceeding (United States v. Google LLC, 2024)—in which the mechanisms of interest are unusually visible. The magnitude of the payment and the public record generated by litigation expose relationships that ordinarily remain tacit in commercial arrangements, which maximises analytical leverage.

The analysis draws exclusively on public-domain materials: figures disclosed in regulatory and judicial proceedings, the findings and remedies of the antitrust litigation, published corporate disclosures, and announced product strategies. No confidential data are used, and no figure is reported beyond what the public record supports.

The analytical procedure is mechanism-mapping. Each of the three theoretical lenses is used to specify a candidate mechanism; the mechanism is then checked against the documented features of the case; and the lenses are integrated into a single account from which propositions are derived. The reasoning is interpretive and comparative rather than statistical. No causal estimates are produced, and the propositions are offered as theoretically grounded conjectures for subsequent empirical testing rather than as established findings. The scope is bounded to general-purpose search and its AI-mediated successors within premium device ecosystems; it does not extend to vertical search, social platforms, or markets outside the consumer-device context.

6. Analysis

6.1 The Economics of Paying for the Default

Google pays for the default because the default amplifies three compounding effects. The first is friction avoidance: even a few steps required to change a setting reduce conversion, and payment eliminates that leakage. The second is data compounding: default-sourced queries supply the data that improve ranking and advertising, which attracts further usage in a self-reinforcing cycle. The third is advertiser stability: scale anchors auction liquidity and advertiser budgets, reinforcing the platform’s pricing power. Apple accepts the payment because the arrangement monetises its installed-base power without the fixed costs or political exposure of operating a search-advertising business. The payment is, in effect, a dividend on control of the premium device layer.

Viewed statically, the rent looks disproportionate to any single input cost. Viewed dynamically, it purchases insulation against behavioural erosion and data decay; it is a premium paid to preserve a dominant equilibrium in a winner-take-most market. This reasoning yields the first proposition.

Proposition 1. The persistence of default-search payments reflects the conversion of economic capital into symbolic capital; the rent is sustained less by query volume in any single period than by the habituation and durability of position it secures.

6.2 Why Apple Does Not Operate General Search

Beyond institutional fit, several constraints deter Apple from operating a general, advertising-funded search engine. Building world-class crawling and ranking requires sustained, large-scale investment and scarce specialised talent; the industrial stack of global web search differs markedly from Apple’s strengths in silicon, on-device software, and user experience. A privacy-forward brand sits uneasily with broad behavioural advertising. Entry would attract immediate antitrust attention, trading a relatively clean services rent for the most heavily scrutinised domain in the sector. The same capital and executive attention could instead deepen device differentiation and ecosystem lock-in, where the firm’s advantages are strongest. Finally, the diffusion of AI offers an alternative path: a device maker can orchestrate a portfolio of models—its own on-device intelligence together with opt-in connections to external providers—and so participate in the interface shift without owning a search-advertising stack. These considerations yield the second proposition.

Proposition 2. In a field organised around device ecosystems, a partner firm will decline to enter the intermediary’s core market when entry threatens its symbolic capital and identity more than it augments its economic capital, even where the foregone rent is large.

6.3 The Distribution of Rents and the Limits of Remedies

If rents concentrate in firms that control the interface and the data it generates, then competition remedies aimed only at the contractual form of default agreements will leave the core rent largely intact. Constraining exclusivity or shortening contract terms changes who may bid for the default and how often, but it does not alter the underlying fact that whoever occupies the default position captures attention and data at scale. The locus of power is the interface, not the contract. This reasoning yields the third proposition.

Proposition 3. Rents in digital capitalism concentrate among core firms that control interface standards and data flows; remedies that constrain contractual exclusivity without addressing interface and data control leave the core rent substantially intact.

6.4 The AI Turn: From Ranked Links to Synthesised Answers

Generative AI reframes search as satisfaction rather than navigation. Users articulate intents and receive synthesised responses, so the ranked list of links recedes from view (Shah and Bender, 2024). Two consequences follow. First, monetisation migrates: if answers resolve queries inside an assistant, fewer downstream advertising and affiliate clicks occur, and value shifts toward sponsored answers, context-aware suggestions, and subscription or compute margins. Second, the value of the default decays: when the assistant is the first point of contact and may route to several knowledge tools rather than a single web engine, the marginal value of paying for the browser’s default search box falls. Control over which model is invoked—at the level of the operating system or the assistant layer—becomes the new gatekeeping position, and the authority and source-selection behaviour of these systems become matters of public consequence (Li and Sinnamon, 2024; Zhou and Li, 2024). This reasoning yields the fourth proposition.

Proposition 4. As an interface innovation reduces the share of user intents resolved through ranked links, the marginal value of default search placement declines, and gatekeeping power migrates from the default search engine to the default assistant.

6.5 Convergence under Uncertainty

The same institutional pressures that explain Apple’s non-entry also shape how firms respond to the AI transition. Under uncertainty about which interface and business model will prevail, device makers and model providers are likely to converge on similar arrangements: plural, opt-in model partnerships, privacy-oriented framings, and curated marketplaces of assistants (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Jacobides, Cennamo and Gawer, 2024). Such convergence reflects mimetic and normative pressures more than any demonstrated performance advantage, and it is likely to persist unless a competitor establishes a decisive performance–cost edge that resets the field. This reasoning yields the fifth proposition.

Proposition 5. Under interface uncertainty, device makers and model providers converge on similar orchestration arrangements—plural, opt-in model partnerships—reflecting mimetic and normative pressures rather than demonstrated performance superiority.

7. Discussion

The analysis contributes to three theoretical conversations and to two policy debates. To Bourdieusian field theory, it extends the logic of capital conversion to the design of digital interfaces. The default is shown to be a site at which economic capital is converted into symbolic capital and, through habituation, into a durable competitive position. This specifies a concrete mechanism through which symbolic dominance is manufactured and maintained in platform markets, rather than treating dominance as a residual of technical quality.

To world-systems theory, the analysis offers an application beyond its original agrarian and industrial setting, locating the core–periphery relation in the control of interfaces and data. It also identifies a movement within the hierarchy: as the interface shifts toward synthesised answers, the position from which rents are extracted moves from the search engine to the assistant. This refines accounts of digital rentiership and algorithmic attention rents by tying the locus of extraction to a specific and changing interface (Birch and Cochrane, 2022; O’Reilly, Strauss and Mazzucato, 2024).

To institutional theory, the analysis applies isomorphism to a phenomenon it has rarely addressed: strategic non-entry. Apple’s decision not to operate general search is interpreted not as hesitation or incapacity but as conduct that conforms to coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures within its field. The same framework anticipates convergence in firms’ responses to the AI transition, generating an expectation that can be tested as the market develops.

For competition policy, the central implication is that remedies focused on the form of default contracts are necessary but insufficient. If the rent derives from control of the interface and the data it produces, then exclusivity rules and shortened contract terms will not dislodge it; attention must turn to data access, interoperability, and the governance of the assistant layer (Crémer, de Montjoye and Schweitzer, 2019; Khan, 2019). For platform strategy, the implication is that the contest is shifting from owning the default search box to governing the point at which user intent is interpreted. The decisive question for the next regime of information discovery is not only who pays whom for a default, but who governs the assistant, who controls the retrieval interface, and how access to and attribution of data are negotiated.

8. Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations bound these claims. The study is a single-case conceptual analysis; its propositions are theoretically grounded conjectures, not empirically estimated effects, and they should be read as such. The evidence is confined to the public record, which is shaped by the disclosure choices of firms and the framing of litigation, and exact contractual terms remain only partially observable. The interpretive method establishes plausibility and coherence rather than causal identification, and the scope is restricted to general-purpose search and its AI-mediated successors on premium device ecosystems.

These limits indicate a research agenda. The propositions invite empirical testing: studies could examine whether the value of default placement declines as the share of intents resolved by assistants rises, and whether device makers and model providers converge on similar orchestration arrangements as the framework predicts. Comparative work across jurisdictions could assess how different remedy designs affect the persistence of interface rents. Behavioural research could measure how synthesised answers reshape switching, trust, and source evaluation among users. Finally, work on the political economy of the assistant layer could trace how data access, content licensing, and attribution are negotiated as gatekeeping migrates from the search engine to the assistant.

9. Conclusion

The payments that secure default search placement on Apple devices show how a seemingly minor interface choice organises the wider economy of attention. Read through the conversion of capital, the core–periphery distribution of rents, and the pressures of institutional conformity, the arrangement becomes intelligible as an institution: it persists because it converts money into habituated dominance, the partner declines to compete because entry would cost more in identity than it would yield in revenue, and the model is vulnerable because the interface on which it rests is changing.

The article’s contribution is to integrate these explanations and to locate the next contest. As synthesised answers displace ranked links, the rent worth paying for will attach less to the search box and more to the assistant that interprets intent. For scholarship, this reframes the study of platform power around interface governance; for policy, it argues that durable competition will depend on the governance of data access and the assistant layer rather than on the form of default contracts alone.

References

Birch, K. and Cochrane, D.T., 2022. Big Tech: Four emerging forms of digital rentiership. Science as Culture, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2021.1932794
Bourdieu, P., 1986. The forms of capital. In: J.G. Richardson, ed. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241–258.
Crémer, J., de Montjoye, Y.-A. and Schweitzer, H., 2019. Competition Policy for the Digital Era. Report for the European Commission. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Cusumano, M.A., Gawer, A. and Yoffie, D.B., 2019. The Business of Platforms: Strategy in the Age of Digital Competition, Innovation, and Power. New York: Harper Business.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp. 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M.A., 2014. Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), pp. 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12105
Hovenkamp, H., 2018. Federal Antitrust Policy: The Law of Competition and Its Practice. 6th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing.
Jacobides, M.G., Cennamo, C. and Gawer, A., 2024. Externalities and complementarities in platforms and ecosystems: From structural solutions to endogenous failures. Research Policy, 53(1), 104906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104906
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. and Thaler, R.H., 1991. Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), pp. 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193
Khan, L.M., 2019. The separation of platforms and commerce. Columbia Law Review, 119(4), pp. 973–1098.
Li, A. and Sinnamon, L., 2024. Generative AI search engines as arbiters of public knowledge: An audit of bias and authority. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), pp. 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.1021
O’Reilly, T., Strauss, I. and Mazzucato, M., 2024. Algorithmic attention rents: A theory of digital platform market power. Data & Policy, 6, e6. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2024.1
Rietveld, J. and Schilling, M.A., 2021. Platform competition: A systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature. Journal of Management, 47(6), pp. 1528–1563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320969791
Rochet, J.-C. and Tirole, J., 2003. Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), pp. 990–1029. https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603322493212
Shah, C. and Bender, E.M., 2024. Envisioning information access systems: What makes for good tools and a healthy web? ACM Transactions on the Web, 18(3), Article 33, pp. 1–24.
Srnicek, N., 2017. Platform Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Stigler Committee on Digital Platforms, 2019. Final Report. Chicago: Stigler Center, University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
United States v. Google LLC, 2024. Memorandum Opinion (Liability), No. 1:20-cv-03010-APM. United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Varian, H.R., 2009. Online ad auctions. American Economic Review, 99(2), pp. 430–434. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.2.430
Wallerstein, I., 1974. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.
Zhou, T. and Li, S., 2024. Understanding user switch of information seeking: From search engines to generative AI. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006241244800
Zuboff, S., 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: PublicAffairs.