Apple vs Google Search: AI Disruption Sparks Legal and Market Turmoil

Apple’s recent courtroom bombshell—delivered by Senior Vice President Eddy Cue—has ignited fresh debate around the future of online search. Cue testified that, for the first time ever, Safari users decreased their usage of search in April. He implied this decline was due to the rising popularity of AI tools like ChatGPT, which are becoming go-to platforms for users seeking information.

This statement sent ripples through the tech and financial world. Google’s stock plummeted nearly 8% as investors interpreted Cue’s testimony as a warning sign that traditional search might be under threat. However, Google responded swiftly, publishing a blog post that flatly contradicts Apple’s claim.

Google asserts that search engagement is not only holding steady but growing—even on Apple devices. The company points to increased query volume from Apple platforms, as well as innovation in areas like voice search and Google Lens. Google’s statement suggests that users may be diversifying how they interact with search rather than abandoning it.

Here’s where things get more complex. Cue’s comment came during a legal battle over whether the multibillion-dollar search deal between Apple and Google constitutes a monopoly. Apple profits enormously from this arrangement, receiving billions annually in exchange for making Google the default search engine on its devices.

To defend the deal from being labeled monopolistic, Cue appears to be portraying the agreement as outdated—an unnecessary preference in a rapidly evolving tech landscape dominated by emerging AI tools. This rhetoric may help Apple justify continuing the partnership without antitrust implications.

In a further twist, Cue also revealed that Apple plans to introduce AI-powered search engines like Anthropic and Perplexity as new options in Safari. This strategic shift signals Apple’s attempt to reposition itself amid the generative AI boom, showcasing openness to competition in search while subtly reducing its dependence on Google.

As these tech giants spar over usage statistics and the future of search, one thing is clear: AI is not just transforming how users seek information—it’s reshaping the power dynamics between companies who once ruled that space.

What Undercode Say:

The courtroom drama unfolding between Apple and Google is more than a battle over search usage—it’s a signal flare for an industry undergoing structural change. Cue’s testimony, whether strategic or sincerely data-driven, indicates that AI is beginning to take a meaningful bite out of traditional search models.

We must consider how valid both Apple and Google’s narratives are. Eddy Cue referenced a specific dip in Safari-based search activity—a metric that, while credible, might not account for the entire Apple ecosystem. Google counters with aggregated data, which includes usage across apps, voice, Lens, and browser integrations. The truth may lie somewhere in the methodological gap between them.

Let’s explore three key analytics emerging from this conflict:

Behavioral Shifts to AI Tools: Users are no longer confined to keyword-based searching. Tools like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Claude offer context-aware, conversational alternatives that better mirror how humans think and ask questions. These tools often bypass search engines altogether.
Economic Leverage and Legal Gamesmanship: Apple has a massive financial stake in maintaining its deal with Google. But to shield the deal from regulatory scrutiny, it now argues that Google’s dominance is waning. This argument could serve dual purposes: defending the current arrangement and laying groundwork to reduce Google’s grip without collapsing the revenue stream entirely.

3. Search as a Decentralized Interface:

Looking forward, the inclusion of AI-native engines into Safari might just be Apple’s way of hedging its bets. If regulatory tides shift, it can argue that it’s fostering competition. If AI tools grow dominant, Apple wants to be on the winning side—either through user choice or platform integration.

The SEO community, tech analysts, and investors alike must now reframe how they evaluate traffic, authority, and user intent. Classic metrics like “search queries per browser” are increasingly insufficient to gauge true engagement. The future belongs to platforms that combine utility with AI-native responsiveness.

Fact Checker Results

Safari Search Dip: Cue’s statement appears accurate but contextually narrow.
Google Query Growth: Google’s counterclaim is likely true across aggregate platforms.
AI Engines in Safari: Verified—Apple is preparing to add Perplexity and Anthropic as options.

Prediction

Within the next 12 to 18 months, we’ll see AI-native search interfaces take over 15–20% of mobile information queries previously routed through Google. Apple will gradually diversify Safari’s default search engine lineup, signaling a longer-term transition away from the Google-first model. Meanwhile, regulators will scrutinize these evolving partnerships through a more nuanced lens, considering not just market share but user interface dominance and data collection models.

Google’s monopoly argument will no longer rest solely on browser default deals—it will face a broader inquiry into how search monopolies might extend into AI interaction layers and device-level defaults.