[HN Gopher] Apple's deal with Google is lucrative, but it's hard...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple's deal with Google is lucrative, but it's hard to square with
its values
Author : retskrad
Score : 57 points
Date : 2021-08-29 15:06 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.inc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.inc.com)
| runjake wrote:
| Apple's values are to make as much money as it can.
|
| Part of Apple's business was, until recently, marketing itself as
| a privacy-oriented company. That does not mean it _is_ a privacy-
| oriented company.
|
| It's about as real as the old commercials from banks and
| insurance providers where they market themselves as your best
| friend or always being there when you need them, thereby easing
| the consumer from their worries.
| utopcell wrote:
| Apple's net profit was $57.41bn in 2020 [1] and that 15% is of
| course pure profit.
|
| 26% of Apple's profit comes from Google.
|
| [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267728/apples-net-
| income...
| jsnell wrote:
| Note that you're not comparing the same time periods there.
| That is 2020 total profit to the estimated 2021 search revenue.
| Apple's profits are going to be substantially higher in 2021.
| samfisher83 wrote:
| >I think we can all agree that $15 billion is a lot of money.
| Apple is absolutely in the business of making money, and it's
| very, very good at it. I'm just not sure anyone thought the
| company was willing to put a price tag on privacy
|
| All these companies care about is money.
| threatofrain wrote:
| Companies can have different values in a statistical sense, but
| I'm not sure that accepting money from Google is a user hostile
| move; the alternative big search provider would be Bing.
|
| People here talk about DDG but the search quality has never
| been there for me.
| [deleted]
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Why do they turn down government/defense contracts then? It's
| more complicated than that and humans aren't always logical
| anyway.
| eplanit wrote:
| Yes, and _that_ "squares with its values". Thinking that Apple
| (FAANG) have "values" other than that are falling for the
| marketers illusion.
| mgh2 wrote:
| It has _always_ been about money, don 't fall for their
| marketing https://m-g-h.medium.com/why-we-are-
| dispensable-7a577eba4f3e
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >Thinking that Apple (FAANG) have "values" other than that
| are falling for the marketers illusion.
|
| Apple _was_ different, and it all stemmed from Jobs. The tech
| world lost a lot more than just innovative products when he
| passed. Cook has done an incredible job at getting Apple to
| where they are as a company, but they 've truly lost their
| way in the meantime.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| Funny, I have roughly the exact opposite view of Jobs. To
| me, he was a groundbreaking figure in creating massive
| amounts of consumer surplus while having extremely anti-
| user values.
| oliv__ wrote:
| If he had _" extremely anti-user values"_ don't ya think
| there might be less..ahem... users of Apple products?
|
| Have you considered the possibility that your opinion is
| that of a minority.
| politelemon wrote:
| I think you've got a succinct explanation for what's been
| happening over the past few weeks.
|
| This illusion has been sustaining a brand loyalty for several
| years while getting away with privacy contradicting moves,
| and always being defended by its loyalists. I say loyalists
| instead of customers to make a distinction.
|
| What's happening now is the moves are becoming increasingly
| egregious, and what we're seeing is a slight awakening to the
| reality of the situation, that the 'stance' had been nothing
| more than a grab for user control (in turn to sustain
| profits)
|
| At this point it's either abandon ship, or make petitions and
| opinion pieces such as TFA.
| ksec wrote:
| >All these companies care about is money.
|
| That is not the problem, at least as far as I am concern. They
| have no problem with making money. We dont live in a
| communistic world.
|
| I have a problem with them pointing their fingers and using
| media to start a cultural war against others, claims to have
| moral high ground with their PR spin all while sucking up as
| much money as possible _against_ their own so called values.
|
| This is exactly the same as Google in early 00s. The we dont do
| evil and self claim righteousness. Or Hypocrite.
|
| So dont cry foul when all the other companies are working
| together against you.
| echelon wrote:
| Apple doesn't give a damn about customer privacy. The image they
| gained is just an illusion.
|
| CSAM, Google deal, Macs phoning home...
|
| They desire money and control and nothing else.
|
| Wake up, Apple fans.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| >Apple doesn't give a damn about customer privacy.
|
| In comparison to the alternative?
|
| >Google not only made it difficult for smartphone users to keep
| their location data private, but that it was a conscious
| decision that came down the company's hierarchy, a set of
| unredacted internal Google correspondence has appeared to show.
|
| Business Insider adds that the documents reveal how Google
| pressured phone manufacturers to keep the privacy settings
| hidden because these were being frequently accessed by users.
|
| https://www.techradar.com/news/google-accused-of-hiding-priv...
| floren wrote:
| It is possible to condemn Apple without implicitly praising
| Google.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| On privacy, it's impossible to pretend that Apple is
| anywhere near as intentionally terrible as Google is.
|
| Google literally buys copies of everyone's credit/debit
| card transaction data so they can spy on what you do in the
| real world as much as they spy on what you do online.
|
| >Of course, Google has been able to track your location
| using Google Maps for a long time. Since 2014, it has used
| that information to provide advertisers with information on
| how often people visit their stores. But store visits
| aren't purchases, so, as Google said in a blog post on its
| new service for marketers, it has partnered with "third
| parties" that give them access to 70 percent of all credit
| and debit card purchases.
|
| https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/05/25/242717/google-
| no...
|
| Google literally pioneered the privacy shredding
| surveillance capitalism business model.
|
| >As the pioneer of surveillance capitalism, Google launched
| an unprecedented market operation into the unmapped spaces
| of the internet, where it faced few impediments from law or
| competitors, like an invasive species in a landscape free
| of natural predators.
|
| Surveillance capitalists quickly realized that they could
| do anything they wanted, and they did.
|
| https://longreads.com/2019/09/05/how-google-discovered-
| the-v...
| echelon wrote:
| Both companies do shitty things.
|
| Your adoration of a fruit themed capital construct is
| empowering a company that is just as malignant.
|
| I like Nintendo games, but I'm not blind enough to
| overlook the horrible things they do to fans.
|
| I get that it can be an almost religious or celebrity
| experience for some, but don't be a single-party /
| single-issue voter with your adoration of fruit. It's not
| healthy for our freedom.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > Both companies do shitty things.
|
| Only one of the two companies intentionally buys copies
| of everyone's credit/debit card data, intentionally hides
| privacy settings from users, and intentionally ignores
| those settings when users do manage to find them.
|
| >Newly unredacted documents in a lawsuit against Google
| reveal that the company's own executives and engineers
| knew just how difficult the company had made it for
| smartphone users to keep their location data private.
|
| Google employees appeared to recognize that users were
| frustrated by the company's aggressive data collection
| practices, potentially hurting its business.
|
| "Fail #2: _I_ should be able to get _my_ location on _my_
| phone without sharing that information with Google, " one
| employee said.
|
| "This may be how Apple is eating our lunch," they added,
| saying Apple was "much more likely" to let users take
| advantage of location-based apps and services on their
| phones without sharing the data with Apple.
|
| https://news.yahoo.com/apple-eating-lunch-google-
| employees-0...
| ramesh31 wrote:
| They really should just roll their own search. It doesn't have to
| be better than Google, just good enough. They could easily do
| something at the level of Bing, and I would use it exclusively
| without thinking twice.
| sverhagen wrote:
| Isn't there a question about what technical abilities Safari
| offers for advanced tracking of users? I'm on no one's side here.
| But why couldn't they (even theoretically) sell the search engine
| no. 1 choice to Google while still tightly controlling the
| browser API as to avoid tracking abuses (presumable for all
| search engines alike)?
| wutbrodo wrote:
| To narrowly answer the question "why": Anything that made
| tracking meaningfully worse would reduce the aggregate value of
| Google searches on Safari, which would reduce the expected
| amount Google would be willing to pay them to be the default
| search engine.
|
| It's essentially the same question as "why couldn't they just
| make DDG the default search on Safari": because it would hurt
| their pocketbook
| hnaccount_rng wrote:
| I don't get that reasoning. The value of the searches doesn't
| come from the abilities google has with them. At least not
| primarily. It comes from the ability of iPhone _users_ to pay
| for purchases. It is this purchase power that makes the
| searches valuable to advertisers (and hence google). iPhone
| searches are valuable because iPhone users tend to have
| higher disposable income^.
|
| Additionally I'd say that the number of users switching over
| the search results of google vs DDG is approximately zero ;)
|
| ^ Of course in second order there is an added value of being
| able to subdivide iPhone users in smaller segments which
| might add some value (to google). But I'd bet that loosing
| out on >95% of those searches would be bad for google.
| Especially strategically as a significant fraction of their
| former income would then fund someone else's search engine
| development. This sounds eerily like Intel's refusal to build
| the chips Apple wanted, which pretty much funded TSMC's
| technical advantage. And back then nobody knew that those
| would go into a >200bn$/year product with 30% margins.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| I have much less of an issue with big tech companies than most
| people seem to. That said, it drives me nuts when people talk
| about a company's values. Apple, Google, Amazon, Walmart etc have
| no values. Talking about them havibg values is like talking about
| their hair colour. Apple isnt a person, its a corporation. It
| makes money not life choices. It only cares about money it cannot
| feel empathy or guilt or generosity or anger.
| Tagbert wrote:
| The people that make up a corporation can, collectively,
| establish values for that corporation. This arises through
| corporate culture and can be ratified by management. Many large
| corporations document and promote a specific set of values
| within the company. Corporations know that the values that they
| adopt affect how their customers and employees see the
| corporation and that impacts their loyalty to the corporation.
| If a corporation compromises those values, that will have a
| negative impact. This is analogous to how society responds to
| individuals who express values and either follow those values
| or depart from them.
|
| Sometimes the values can be in conflict where the choices will
| all have negative impacts and that can be tricky to navigate.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| Seriously. I hate to be a dick, but I don't get how it's
| often possible to believe something that stupid (despite the
| fact that many, many people do, especially on HN). This model
| of corporations' decision as incapable of being influenced by
| anything but maximizing profit in a vacuum is trivially
| belied by examples like this[1].
|
| (To head off the inevitable-but-nonsensical response that
| averting an employee revolt helps the bottom line...that's
| trivially true, but turns the statement into a tautological
| one, defining a "corporation" as some formless void that
| somehow doesn't include anyone making the decisions).
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com > google-pentagon-project-maven
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| im3w1l wrote:
| Apple is a company. A company is made up of a lot of people. Some
| of who (really do) value privacy more, and some less. In addition
| to that there is the corporate positioning and messaging where
| they may take a certain position because it's currently
| favorable.
|
| Saying they 100% value privacy or 100% don't value it is too
| simplistic. Even ascribing a consisent set of beliefs is too
| simplistic.
| iamgopal wrote:
| 15 billion a year is not enough for google to create a competing
| rival ?
| diskzero wrote:
| Google has created a competing rival to Apple in the mobile
| market called Android. Am I not understandng your question?
| jahnu wrote:
| It would be a lot more than 15 if Android didn't exist
| robotresearcher wrote:
| Google has a competing product in just about every category.
| Android, phones, tablets, laptops, always-on-music-players,
| Google Assistant, App Store, media and game store, TV streamer,
| watch* , even AirPod clones.
|
| Google doesn't sell a workstation and big screen.
|
| * OS-only, not first party HW IIRC.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Google doesn't sell a workstation and big screen.
|
| And does not sell in person customer support.
| Jyaif wrote:
| I don't really understand what is going on with Google.
|
| They are paying Apple more than what they are spending on
| Android.
| [deleted]
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Simple - they don't see there being returns in throwing big
| money at Android when it is already mature and doesn't have
| any major areas that could bring returns. The niches are
| carved out already and trying to make something configurable
| to do both ends in compromises that don't leave them better
| off.
| laurex wrote:
| I am literally a crusader against ad-based business models, but
| this article seems very hand-wavey to me.
|
| First off, Apple is in the privacy business as a product
| positioning stance, not as an actual guiding force for their
| business.
|
| Second, Apple doesn't prevent anyone from using another search
| engine as a default, and the vast majority of people are quite
| comfortable using Google, even if it is completely shady on the
| privacy front.
|
| Third, these giant tech companies work together by design- they
| all feed off each other due to the fundamental driver of
| "shareholder value." Instead of having any expectation that they
| will choose user safety and health over profit, we need to
| explore other avenues to address the rampant and destructive
| aspects of ad-driven tech economies.
| utopcell wrote:
| > they all feed off each other due to the fundamental driver of
| "shareholder value."
|
| Kudos for not resorting to hand-wavey statements yourself.
| wayneftw wrote:
| > Apple doesn't prevent anyone from using another search engine
| as a default.
|
| In Safari on iOS, where this deal is relevant, they do. There
| is no choice for using Yandex or StartPage among many others.
| There are just 5 choices.
| laurex wrote:
| I stand corrected (though they do offer DuckDuckGo, which
| seems like the biggest 'privacy-oriented' player). Are you
| suggesting that the deal with Google is responsible for the
| omission of Yandex or StartPage, though? I would guess it's
| for other reasons, such as user experience or reluctance to
| vet and endorse less-frequently used engines.
| wayneftw wrote:
| Personally I would want freedom to just put whatever URL I
| want, as my search engine. Every popular desktop browser
| has this feature and I don't see why it could not exist on
| the iPhone. I bet Apple would claim that it's "taking away
| options to help people".
| bilbo0s wrote:
| May not be in line with its values, but it's certainly in line
| with keeping the Feds off their back. I'd personally dare Apple
| to kick out Google. Wasn't it partially that exact Damoclesian
| situation that got Google on the Apple platform in the first
| place?
|
| Now don't misunderstand me. Google, along with FB, are probably
| the worst monopolies out there. But Apple pulls a stunt like
| that, I'm guessing the risk that the Feds would come at them
| would be extreme. No one's going to allow Apple to control search
| in addition to everything else, least of all the government.
|
| One solution could be to force Apple to use to another provider?
| Bing maybe? But that has all the same privacy problems.
|
| But the "Apple makes their own privacy protected search engine
| and it's default on every platform" option is a complete non-
| starter. Just about everyone in industry and government would
| demand action against that.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-29 23:03 UTC)