thereby increasing usage of mobile devices and expanding search output.” GTB at 89. Again, Dr. Murphy asserted that Google’s revenue share payments fund the Android ecosystem, enabling competition with Apple, which results in more consumers searching on all devices.
DXD37 at 100; see Tr. at 9855:16-23 (Murphy) (“Since you’re going to pass some of that cost through, one of the ways you do that is through lower prices, but, also, higher quality. Higher quality is another way to get more users and, therefore, get more search and, therefore, more search revenue. So, this enhances search output, partly by directly encouraging search, because that’s where the payment is coming from, but, indirectly, also, by pushing the . . . platforms.”).
But this contention once again falls short. For one, the evidence is thin that Android device makers and carriers use Google’s revenue share in any of the ways Google suggest. See Giard Dep. Tr. at 277:25–278:3 (stating that while the revenue share payments could be said to have subsidized costs to consumers of all services provided by T-Mobile, it would have “helped in a very minor way”); Christensen Dep. Tr. at 30:9-14 (“Q. Does the fact that the Android operating system license is free help Motorola develop more competitive devices across different price points? A. I think there is not necessarily a direct relationship to that.”). Also, once more, Google has not shown how the agreements’ exclusivity is the reason for greater smartphone competition and thus increased search output. See Tr. at 9847:8–9848:1 (Murphy) (agreeing that expanded output “comes from many things . . . [l]ots of things are driving it[.] . . . I can’t tell you how much of that is due to that competition [in mobile search], but it’s clearly a part of the picture[.]”).
If anything, greater output resulting from increased competition between Android devices and iPhones benefits mainly Google. Search on those devices occurs primarily through the
254
