[HN Gopher] Google's plan to stop Apple from getting serious abo...
___________________________________________________________________
Google's plan to stop Apple from getting serious about search
Author : mooreds
Score : 112 points
Date : 2023-10-26 10:40 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| who-shot-jr wrote:
| https://archive.ph/vZwNu
| m4jor wrote:
| So weird. I see a "Welcome to nginx!" page when I hit
| archive.ph.
| cj wrote:
| archive.ph doesn't allow people using Cloudflare DNS to
| access their site.
| daveguy wrote:
| I've heard this before. Do you know why?
| acatton wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive.today&
| old...
| cj wrote:
| Hm, Wikipedia says it's resolved.
|
| For me, archive.ph always shows an insolvable captcha
| (the page reloads after submitting the captcha in a never
| ending loop).
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| It's come up on HN a bunch, including recently. I'm not
| sure how to find the threads.
|
| It is weird and confusing, and has to do with the fact,
| if i remember right, that the Archive.today maintainer is
| mad that Cloudflare won't forward end-user IP addresses
| with DNS queries.
|
| This seems mysterious, but one other comment pointed out
| the maintainer saying that this prevents the maintainer
| from assigning traffic to servers the way they want,
| which is an odd way having to do with legal systems and
| national boundaries and maybe trying to send the user to
| a CDN endpoint _not_ in their own nation for some reason?
|
| If I'm remembering right.
|
| The whole thing is weird and I can't explain it, and is
| very under-documented, the archive.today maintainer
| apparently doesn't really like talking about it or
| explaining it?
|
| But basically archive.today intentionally deny-lists
| anyone using cloudflare DNS in a way that results in very
| mysterious behaivor where you don't know you are
| denylisted, including infinite captchas.
|
| I have had the same issue with Google 8.8.8.8 DNS and
| archive.today btw.
| vanchor3 wrote:
| I've also found they do very suspicious things in those
| captcha pages as well, such as sending random requests to
| unrelated websites (feels like a DDoS at that point).
| I've been avoiding archive.today links ever since.
| ndiddy wrote:
| The operator of archive.is got fed up with dealing with
| legal notices, so he set up his CDN so that accessing the
| site from any given country would get served by a server
| in a neighboring country (meaning that a takedown would
| involve international cooperation, so it would almost
| never be worth the effort). DNS requests have an optional
| field (EDNS client subnet) that provides part of the
| user's IP address so the CDN can respond with the closest
| possible server to the user, which is how archive.is does
| its country mitigation thing. Cloudflare's DNS does not
| provide this field. They say it's an anti-tracking move,
| others have speculated it's a competitive move since it
| means that Cloudflare will know where a user is located
| but competing CDNs won't. Because not knowing where a
| user is located before serving them would cause
| archive.is trouble, they respond to any DNS queries
| without the EDNS client subnet information with bad data.
| vanchor3 wrote:
| > he set up his CDN so that accessing the site from any
| given country would get served by a server in a
| neighboring country (meaning that a takedown would
| involve international cooperation, so it would almost
| never be worth the effort)
|
| I don't really see how this prevents that issue. They
| still have a server in that country. Just because the DNS
| name doesn't always point there doesn't seem like it
| should shield them from legal trouble.
| chrismsimpson wrote:
| Having not used Android in basically forever, how tightly is
| search integrated with the OS/interface? If spotlight can be
| designated a search engine can Android be as well? Google can't
| talk out of both sides of its mouth here and be taken seriously:
| "we can't allow someone else to have a monopoly in search because
| that's our shtick".
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| > how tightly is search integrated with the OS/interface?
|
| Basically not at all.
| EwanToo wrote:
| In some system apps it's deeply embedded, others not at all.
|
| e.g. The Google phone dialler which is pre-installed on a lot
| of phones can bring up the phone number for nearby places
| without them being in your contacts.
| fidotron wrote:
| It changed over time, and now the answer is not much.
|
| The early idea was very much like spotlight where each app
| would be able to respond to search queries itself without
| needing any remote connection. (The Android infra for this
| inter app functionality like this is criminally wasted).
|
| Google suffered from what now afflicts Microsoft where you
| alter the product away from what is good for the user towards
| strategic interests of the company, so the Android search bar
| widget becomes a Google search bar widget.
|
| Android is a truly lost opportunity - things like it should be
| possible to launch an Activity on another device, access
| content providers from another device and so on, all mediated
| by the OS.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > things like it should be possible to launch an Activity on
| another device, access content providers from another device
| and so on, all mediated by the OS
|
| Actually, that does exist, at least for smartwatches. I fail
| to see the use case for other devices beyond sending links
| between Chrome on the device and on a laptop.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Sounds like something similar to what Samsung has where
| certain apps like Samsung Notes can 'move' between devices,
| such that if you were working on a note on phone and
| immediately switched to a Galaxy book or tablet, a
| notification shows to continue editing on that device.
|
| Besides, links and notes, a seamless transfer like that
| would be a pretty convenient feature for video/audio apps
| like YouTube.
| lopis wrote:
| Google Search is an app like any other. It might be tightly
| coupled with your launcher app, and also other apps like Google
| Translate and voice input might require it. But the EU has
| forced Android to provide a search engine selection option when
| you first setup your device. The EU also wants to both break up
| Google and force Apple to open up and allow other app stores
| and browsers. If the EU succeeds in all these endeavors, Google
| will both be in a great and a bad place.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Doesn't Google already allow other app stores and browsers?
| pierat wrote:
| PlayProtect Entered chat
|
| <installs f-droid>
|
| Prevented install
|
| <installs f-droid>
|
| Prevented install
|
| <installs f-droid>
|
| Prevented install
|
| <googles for install apk>
|
| does the dumb dev tab dance, that'll likely be removed
| later, and enables "3rd party apk"
|
| <installs f-droid>
|
| Playprotect wants to block it cause "scary"
|
| Have to select "dont scan"
|
| Playprotect keeps pestering you about turning back on and
| scanning
| caymanjim wrote:
| Not only do I have an Android phone, I have a Google Pixel
| phone and Google Fi is my provider. I don't see Google search
| integrated _at all_. Maybe it 's there, but if it is, it's not
| obvious to me. I launch Chrome, which defaults to searching
| Google, and I use it a lot that way. Other than that, I don't
| know if it's present. I never search my actual phone via
| anything like MacOS's Spotlight. I don't even know if my phone
| has any search capability like that.
|
| I launch apps and use them, that's about it.
| hoppyhoppy2 wrote:
| Is there not a Google search bar at the very bottom of your
| home screen? Maybe you use an alternative launcher?
| caymanjim wrote:
| Wow, there is, and I somehow had no memory of it. My first
| thought was "no, the bottom row is just my quick-launch
| apps, where I typically launch Chrome". But you're
| absolutely right. I don't think I've ever used it. I
| somehow tuned it out entirely.
| smallerfish wrote:
| Not the OP, but I use an alt launcher, and I use Firefox
| (w/ Privacy Badger + Ublock) with Kagi set to the default
| search.
|
| I'm sure Google still see some metrics from me (maybe from
| Google Services Framework or Android System - two services
| that Glasswire reports sending small amounts of data
| periodically.)
| dotnet00 wrote:
| How often do people even use that? I remember having it on
| all my phones, but I'm so used to searching via the browser
| (where I now have Kagi as default) that I never even think
| to use the search bar widget.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| usually very little / not-at-all
|
| but I never owned a Google made smartphone
| toni wrote:
| The article says that in 2021, Google paid Apple around $18
| billion to keep Google's search engine as default in iPhones.
|
| What if Apple would put all that money back into developing its
| own search engine?! That would be beating Google with its own
| money!
| TradingPlaces wrote:
| That is from the recent Bernstein estimate. Justice Department
| says only $4-$7b
| toni wrote:
| That is indeed far less. Hopefully Apple has still put some
| of that money into rivaling Google search.
| dewey wrote:
| > What if Apple would put all that money back into developing
| its own search engine?!
|
| They have 50B cash on hand, I don't think the money would be
| the limiting factor if they wanted to do it or think they are
| in a position where they could do it.
| jasode wrote:
| _> They have 50B cash on hand, I don't think the money would
| be the limiting factor if they wanted to do_
|
| Just to provide some ballpark numbers...
|
| Supposedly, Microsoft spent $100 billion on Bing and the CEO
| Nadella said the most common search query on Bing is _"
| Google"_.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+spent+%24100+billi.
| ..
|
| It's safe to assume Apple executives look at Bing and
| estimate the costs and potential ROI when considering their
| own plans for an in-house search engine.
| dewey wrote:
| Also they don't have to spend it all at once, they have
| been crawling the web for a long time already and are not
| starting from scratch. So far it's just more in the
| background and integrated into the OS (Siri etc.)
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-10-01/could
| -...
| mminer237 wrote:
| Bing makes over $11 billion a year now though, so that's
| not a bad ROI.
| jasode wrote:
| _> Bing makes over $11 billion a year now though,_
|
| That ~$11 billion is _revenue_ not profit. We 'd have to
| compare Bing's lower _profit_ numbers to the various
| reports ($4-$7 billion? $18 billion?) of Apple payments
| from Google.
|
| Microsoft doesn't break out profit/loss for Bing in its
| financial reports so we (as outsiders) can't calculate an
| ROI. It's probable that Apple has enough inside info from
| Microsoft to determine if the ROI makes sense for them.
| jprete wrote:
| That's a good point to being up. Apple's entire pile of cash
| is just under three years of Google payments. This tells me
| Apple's been spending the money on other things. "Replace
| Google Search" probably isn't high on their list of
| priorities, as opposed to Microsoft who seem really intent at
| it.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| It is pretty amazing to realize Apple's oft-commented upon
| huge pile of cash could be entirely attributed to google
| payments...
|
| And to me makes it make sense that a company with enough
| control over search that they can pay other companies _18
| billion a year_ to maintain that control, may be an
| antitrust issue. I don 't actually know much about
| antitrust law, but it seems like paying competitors to stay
| out of your business to maintain your monopoly might run
| afoul of it.
| rat9988 wrote:
| They would still need to make more cash with it than what
| Google gives them.
| baggachipz wrote:
| And as we know, "free" search is really just a way to sell
| ads. So Apple would be effectively getting into the ads
| business and competing with google on that front. I hope I
| speak for other Apple users when I say we don't want that. I
| pay the Apple tax to have some of my privacy respected and a
| less ad-riddled OS.
| randomdata wrote:
| Apple could theoretically use search as a way to compel
| people to buy Apple devices, or to become iCloud
| subscribers, or whatever. It doesn't have to be an
| advertising business. That is a manoeuvre they are quite
| familiar with.
|
| In reality, I'm not sure Apple could actually create a
| search engine that is compelling enough against the
| competition to see people drawn into the Apple ecosystem,
| but in theory...
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| > What if Apple would put all that money back into developing
| its own search engine?! That would be beating Google with its
| own money!
|
| But then they would loose the $18 billion each year they got
| from Google.
|
| By keeping Google as the default search engine - they get free
| money and send Apple users to the search engine they probably
| want to use, without being targeted with the flack Google gets
| for tracking/mingling ads with search etc.
| Teever wrote:
| Maybe Apple users only probably want to use that search
| engine because Apple didn't take the money and use it to
| build a better search engine.
| SllX wrote:
| Billions have been invested in making a better Google than
| Google by other entities but most people just want Google.
|
| Even if Apple did make a search engine, that's no guarantee
| iPhone users would want to use it, and if Google and
| _nobody else_ paid Apple a penny to be the default, there's
| better than even odds Google would still be the default.
| Teever wrote:
| Yes but those other entities aren't Apple.
|
| Apple does the impossible. Frequently. If anyone could
| make a better Google it would be Apple.
| SllX wrote:
| Look, I like Apple too but don't get too high on their
| supply.
|
| Apple does the possible but extremely challenging,
| frequently. Given enough time and money, they probably
| could be at least competitive with Google, but how much
| time? How much money? What are the opportunity costs to
| doing this and not investing somewhere else where they
| are either stronger or there's a more lucrative future
| business to be had (like their mixed reality headset)?
| Teever wrote:
| That's the point of the discussion, how much of that
| opportunity cost is due to monopolistic behavior on the
| part of Google?
| SllX wrote:
| There would be an opportunity cost even without Google's
| money. Google may not be what it once was but it is
| definitely still the best in the free-tier search engines
| you can use today and in 2007 it was several heads and
| shoulders above anything else Apple could have picked as
| the default on iPhones.
|
| If payment from Google (or anyone else) isn't a factor in
| what Apple uses as the Safari default, it is not at all
| clear that this change alone would make it worth Apple's
| time to develop their own search engine. You have an
| easier argument with that change, but it's not a slam
| dunk.
| henry2023 wrote:
| Have you seen Apple Maps?
| sethherr wrote:
| Have you seen Apple Maps recently? It's great. I switched
| over a few month ago.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| OSM is still way way better than both.
|
| When I walk in the mountains here I am walking in a big
| empty green square according to Google :S Same with
| Apple.
|
| Meanwhile OSM knows every little trail including surface
| and gradients <3 It's amazing. And I can turn on layers
| so I only se the things I need and not everything else.
| utopcell wrote:
| Didn't they try this already with a _much_ easier problem ?
| How's apple maps doing these days ?
| ben_w wrote:
| > What if Apple would put all that money back into developing
| its own search engine?! That would be beating Google with its
| own money!
|
| Apple Maps 2: Information Superhighway edition
| justrealist wrote:
| They would need an entire ad ecosystem to monetize that search,
| to make the $18 billion back.
|
| That's a lot of work, likely far more work than building decent
| search in the first place. They'd rather let Google get their
| hands dirty, claim the moral hight ground, and take the rent.
| matthewfelgate wrote:
| Surprise, New York Times article that says nothing at all.
|
| Might as well have been a one line "I hate Google".
|
| Who's afraid of AI when you have drivel like this written by
| "journalists".
| robg wrote:
| Impressed that Apple pockets $18 Billion and still mostly
| protects privacy with reasonable UX choices. Nothing is perfect,
| but denying Google more data about me is one reason I'll always
| stick with iOS over Android and why I'll ditch my Fitbit when it
| forces a Google account in 2025.
| vik0 wrote:
| If you think Apple cares more about you and your privacy than
| Google, I have a bridge to sell you.
|
| Sure, it probably does deny Google some data, but you really
| think Apple doesn't collect data for itself?
|
| It's the world's most valuable company, its iOS is not open
| source, and by extension we can't verify that it doesn't do
| shady stuff with our data - and given that it's a pretty big
| megacorp, experience says to be cautious, to say the least.
| PlutoIsAPlanet wrote:
| Apple isn't a data selling company. Google is.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| Google does not sell your data. They're valuable because
| their hoard the data for themselves and charge advertisers
| _but doesn't give them the data_.
| xnx wrote:
| Google sells your attention, not your data.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> Apple isn't a data selling company. Google is._
|
| Microsoft also wasn't a data selling company, but that
| didn't stop them pivoting into one when they realized that
| Google was making more money from Windows users than they
| were.
|
| At some point in the future Apple's growth will plateau,
| Tim Cook will retire, another CEO will be appointed, while
| shareholders will always demand more growth, so guess where
| that growth will come from.
|
| Companies always change with time, they never stay the
| same, otherwise Woz would still be working there. Which is
| why I trust no big company in the world and why you
| shouldn't either, no matter how shiny their products are.
| PlutoIsAPlanet wrote:
| That's so Microsoft can make money from non-corporate
| Windows users, which it makes very little from otherwise.
|
| Apple makes billions off hardware and it's cut in
| ecosystem sales and has a brand image of privacy which
| helps those sales.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| That's a good point. Although, Apple's HW sales, both Mac
| and iPhone, could also plateau in the future as people
| upgrade much less often.
| babypuncher wrote:
| > that didn't stop them pivoting into one when they
| realized that Google was making more money from Windows
| users than they were.
|
| That's the thing, Microsoft was making peanuts from
| Windows users, especially after they started offering
| upgrades for free. Microsoft sells Windows licenses at a
| discount to OEMs, and OEMs sell the laptops where the
| real money is made.
|
| Apple doesn't have this problem. They make a buttload of
| money from macOS users because they sold the (very
| expensive) hardware it runs on. Apple's incentive is to
| keep those users happy, so they keep buying $1200-$4000
| laptops every few years. Sacrificing $100-$200 worth of
| data/ad revenue to keep those big purchases coming makes
| sense. It's why when you set up a new mac, you aren't
| bombarded with ads for candy crush.
| greentea23 wrote:
| Apple doesn't sell your data, they force you to give it
| away yourself.
|
| They are fundamentally an anti-freedom company, and you
| need freedom to protect yourself.
| delfinom wrote:
| Google doesn't sell your data. They sell ads based on your
| data. They also go buy up your data from data brokers that
| sell it wholesale...like Mastercard, Lol
| marricks wrote:
| They are not an advertising company who doesn't need to
| uniquely target you for a billion different ads. And no,
| their app store ads are not the same as Googles ads in
| search, gmail, maps, YouTube, and...
|
| Stop saying everyone is equally bad with zero evidence to the
| contrary.
|
| There's a comment like yours every time Apple is called out
| as having a better business model here.
| robg wrote:
| This, Apple is not _primarily_ an advertising company. I
| buy quality products from them that last, still using a
| 2013 iMac that has never had any issues. Even original
| AirPods work so well, I replace them as the battery
| degrades.
| beej71 wrote:
| But they will still push to maximize revenue across all
| divisions, right?
| Terretta wrote:
| The ads aren't to maximize their own revenue; that's
| marketing expense, not ad revenue.
|
| The ads that drive their ad revenue are product placement
| within their store, like Walmart charging for a higher
| place on a shelf, or featuring a product in a sign at the
| end of an aisle, or offering it for free at a tasting
| booth.
|
| Walmart doesn't make meaningfully more money when you buy
| product A or B (not counting their store brand), both are
| on the shelf, so their motivations are different.
| user_named wrote:
| Apple IS am advertising company. $4b and growing from ads.
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/apple-is-an-ad-company-now/
| Terretta wrote:
| Perhaps "ad company" is reductive, as there are different
| ways to make money for offering visibility.
|
| Arguably the same definition of "advertising company" as
| Walmart, by charging those selling products in its store
| for placement, display ads, inclusion in promotional
| materials, etc.
|
| Arguably not the same definition as ClearChannel, who
| will take money from anyone to make every drive in
| America less scenic by plastering them with billboards.
| (And who combine data from third parties to understand
| who is seeing which billboards when.)
|
| Apple is a first party supermarket that lets sellers
| self-promote, Google is operator of third party
| billboards at scale that reaches and watches all the
| traffic.
|
| That said, I agree with the thread above that Apple
| taking great pains to anonymize things like maps trips,
| while selling user searching priority wholesale to
| Google, is hypocritical.
|
| TL;DR: I don't understand why Apple doesn't acquire Kagi,
| put Kagi basic in iCloud and Kagi Ultimate into Apple
| One, and go from there.
| n40487171 wrote:
| Don't doubt that Walmart tracks users/shoppers in depth:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-04/walmar
| t-s...
| Jensson wrote:
| > Apple is a first party supermarket that lets sellers
| self-promote
|
| Apple works hard to change that though. Apple made 26% of
| their revenue from services last quarter, it was less
| than 10% 8 years ago, that is where most of their growth
| is coming from.
|
| They did use to make most of their money selling
| products, but now they started to exploit their platform
| dominance to make money from all other areas of it as
| well. Apple today isn't the Apple you bought into 10
| years ago.
|
| Source of services being $21.21b / $81.8bn = 26%:
|
| https://musically.com/2023/08/04/apples-services-revenue-
| gro...
|
| > TL;DR: I don't understand why Apple doesn't acquire
| Kagi, put Kagi basic in iCloud and Kagi Ultimate into
| Apple One, and go from there.
|
| Because they make more by taking money from Google. Why
| is that hard to understand? Apples goal is to make money.
| nullwarp wrote:
| I really don't get why people keep promoting this idea of
| Apple buying Kagi.
|
| People not invested in the Apple ecosystem also use Kagi
| and all it does is ostracize those people just like they
| did in the Dark Sky acquisition.
|
| It's a terribly selfish idea.
| turquoisevar wrote:
| It's been a while since I last saw someone mention that
| article during debates on this topic.
|
| Admittedly, it has a catchy headline, but the article
| doesn't contain much substance.
|
| Apple, for better or worse, doesn't publicly report
| granular-level revenue streams. So, I can't attribute
| much value to some "expert" doing back-of-the-napkin
| calculations to get their 15 minutes of spotlight.
|
| Does Apple sell ad space? Definitely. Is their ad revenue
| or even their profits from ads substantial enough to be
| their core product, therefore making them an ad company?
| Definitely not.
|
| It's because of this that people aren't worried by
| Apple's little venture in ads because it means that
| there's no incentive to turn their customers into their
| product.
|
| Additionally, again, for better or worse, Apple has
| adopted a very narrow definition of tracking. That
| definition is the sharing and co-mingling of collected
| data from different sources.
|
| Under this definition, Apple says it does not track
| people, which is true. Apple solely uses data they
| collect from its services and doesn't use other company's
| collected data, nor does it share its own.
|
| This means that if you like a Facebook post by a Facebook
| group of expectant mothers, Apple won't suddenly start
| advertising diapers to you.
|
| These might seem like distinctions without a difference,
| but for many people, it offers peace of mind.
| marricks wrote:
| Google has 280b (2022) in revenue mostly (entirely?) from
| ads.
|
| Apple's is 394b (2022), so you're talking about 1%...
| growing to, what? 1.1%?
|
| Everyone complains about overpriced Apple products and
| that's specifically because that is where they make their
| money. And services a bit now, but mostly products.
|
| It's so easy to be nihilist about this, there's plenty of
| things Apple sucks at. They're certainly not perfect on
| privacy either.
|
| But for the love of god don't act like they're "just as
| bad at privacy" as you are intentionally moving us to a
| world where literally no large company cares about
| privacy.
|
| *I forgot to mention my (least) favorite category of
| Google's ads! Banner ads.
| notarget137 wrote:
| Trust is a thing to be earned. Since Apple has anti-RtR and
| anti-consumer business models I have no other suspicion but
| Apple is treating my data with the same degree.
|
| Stop telling that Apple is not there to screw you where
| they can because they definately will and are if there are
| no repercussions.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Since Apple has anti-RtR_
|
| "Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering
| parts, manuals, and tools"
|
| * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38024573
| notarget137 wrote:
| They have a track record of being anti-repair and
| suddenly changing strategy is a bigger suspicion. Besides
| their repair manuals and tools are one of the most
| terrible ones. Technically they do offer some repair
| options but it is almost unusable so you are better off
| without it.
| zie wrote:
| They clearly are shifting this, but it takes time for a
| huge company to shift gears like this.
| sifar wrote:
| >> They are not an advertising company who doesn't need to
| uniquely target you for a billion different ads.
|
| Yet. Apple is running out of multi-billion dollar product
| ideas. To play the devil's advocate, if google can earn
| hundreds of billions from ads, one can argue that Apple is
| leaving that money on the table for a pittance.
|
| It is not maximizing shareholder value. /s
| brookst wrote:
| I don't care what Apple or Google "cares" about; I am deeply
| skeptical that multi-billion-dollar companies even can "care"
| about anything.
|
| But if you look at track record and technical
| implementations, Apple has less incentive and less capability
| to abuse my personal info. Its just a pragmatic thing, no
| need to bring principles into it.
| user_named wrote:
| Apple doesn't have less incentive and their capabilities
| are catching up
| babypuncher wrote:
| > Sure, it probably does deny Google some data, but you
| really think Apple doesn't collect data for itself?
|
| You can read their privacy policy. It's possible they are
| lying about what data they collect, but that wouldn't make a
| lot of sense seeing as their business model is not built
| around it like Google's is.
| thewaywego wrote:
| "Apple sells there users searches to Google for $18 Billion"
|
| >[Apple] still mostly protects privacy
|
| >denying Google more data about me
|
| i would ask if we are reading the same news but I feel like we
| aren't even on the same planet...
| pierat wrote:
| The Apple Reality Distortion Field still definitely exists.
|
| Apple has an embedded advertiser ID, yet apple fanbois
| breathlessly exclaim that they don't track.
|
| There's tons of examples, up to and including terrible
| repairability and locking down components. Crazy stuff.
|
| But here we are.
| isodev wrote:
| Well since we're clarifying - it's a user opt-in to provide
| the advertiser ID to an app. That's why keeping Google apps
| away from your iPhone is how you stay safe!
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > The Apple Reality Distortion Field still definitely
| exists.
|
| Sure, but which side of it are _you_ on?
| echelon wrote:
| The side that doesn't cheer on trillion dollar market cap
| companies.
|
| Nobody should celebrate Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon,
| etc. They create barriers to competition that suck the
| air out of the small company and startup ecosystem.
|
| Smartphones should be a dead and withered technology.
| Instead they're wholly owned by two giants that sit atop
| them and tax them in perpetuity.
|
| We need to move on and forward, yet we're being leased
| old tech because the regulators haven't done anything to
| protect competition in decades.
|
| Apple isn't defending privacy. They're hoovering up
| information for themselves using their massive anti-
| competitive platform apparatus.
|
| Google isn't advancing web browser tech. They're
| extending their claws into every pane of glass and search
| interface for society, making themselves the gatekeepers
| of search intent commerce.
|
| Amazon isn't offering amazingly flexible and scalable
| cloud hosting. They're reaping fat profits off the back
| of open source, locking companies into years of bills
| that slice the fat off of their margins.
| csallen wrote:
| _> Smartphones should be a dead and withered
| technology... We need to move on and forward, yet we 're
| being leased old tech..._
|
| I'll bite. What technology should we be using that
| surpasses smartphones?
| fsflover wrote:
| A general-purpose pocket computer with phone
| functionality, like Librem 5 or Pinephone.
| ulfw wrote:
| If they were even semi-decent, people would use them.
| They don't as they aren't. Very simple market dynamics.
| fsflover wrote:
| I'm using it as a daily driver. And it's getting better
| every month. See also:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38002089
| echelon wrote:
| > Very simple market dynamics.
|
| Distorted by an anti-competitive duopoly.
|
| Separate hardware from software / platform.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Its not that those specific examples are good,
| holistically or not.
|
| Instead, the argument is that there are some good
| features about them.
|
| Those good features can be brought to the iPhone to make
| the iPhone better, even if the rest of the iPhone is
| better in certain ways.
| pierat wrote:
| To answer that, you have to understand what cell phones
| came from.
|
| Prior to the major smartphone push starting with Apple,
| cell phones were horrific devices that charged $5 per
| ringtone, apps were $30 or more and only per provider, no
| tethering, and basically were nasty little expensive
| locked down bricks.
|
| Apple did change that, with the initial strong-arming
| AT&T. And Iphone compared to prior was amazingly open.
| Had no app store yet, but had a real full-featured web
| browser and lots of useful tools.
|
| But, this was still very locked down to what the iPhone
| really is - a general purpose computer. The company still
| has say-so on everything on these devices. I'd argue that
| these are rentals, instead of a purchase.
|
| Android is a different beast. Google never created
| Android. They *BOUGHT* android, as a back-way in to the
| smartphone ecosystem. And they marketed it as "free", to
| get all the i-clones to use it. Of course, as Google
| does, it starts free, but you slowly pay more (with your
| data) and the noose slowly tightens. Now, we have locked
| bootloaders and PlayProtect and other invasive "root
| detection" garbage. And the platform becomes less and
| less hospitable.
|
| Forward? Im no fortune teller, but it seems that
| separating the actual physical interface from the compute
| would be a great start. And these *general purpose*
| computers need to be enforced as such. Tie-ins and
| cloudshit need to be unbundled or FTC enforced as
| rentals.
|
| The platforms we currently have are locked down. The
| first big steps are actual device ownership.
| appplication wrote:
| > "Apple sells there users searches to Google for $18
| Billion"
|
| I feel like this is worded in a misleading way. Apple does
| not sell user data or search information to Google. It sells
| Google the option to be the default search provider.
|
| Google will, of course, vacuum up as much data as possible
| from these searches. As would Bing if you select them.
| Ultimately, I have a hard time seeing how the privacy problem
| in this is on Apple and not the search provider.
| fsflover wrote:
| > Apple does not sell user data or search information to
| Google
|
| Yes, it does, for people who don't know how to change their
| search engine.
| appplication wrote:
| By this same argument your router is selling the data of
| people who don't know how to connect to a VPN.
|
| At some point - probably almost immediately - you're
| going to use your phone to access a service or app
| outside of Apple's walled garden. You're going to connect
| to an open WiFi network, a secure WiFi network without a
| VPN, the wrong VPN, use Bluetooth, download an app, visit
| a website, make a search. At that point your user data is
| going to be collected by services Apple does not control.
|
| By all accounts Apple has and continues to implement
| increasingly aggressive privacy protecting measures on
| their devices to minimize the amount and type of data
| third party users can collect.
|
| I'm not an Apple apologist. But it's just funny to me how
| someone could see all these services collecting their
| data and see Apple as the problem. Apple cannot save you
| from yourself. If you want complete privacy, you need to
| jump through hoops to get it, and you need to know a lot
| about technology across all levels.
| fsflover wrote:
| > By this same argument your router is selling the data
| of people who don't know how to connect to a VPN.
|
| Is my router company getting money for this? If not, it's
| not selling. Apple knows very well why Google pays so
| much for the default search engine: to track Apple's
| users. This is intentional. Your Internet provider
| doesn't necessarily track you (at least outside of US)
| and you can't change any option in the router to affect
| that.
| riscy wrote:
| And for those people, the only thing that matters is
| having the best search engine as the default. Which other
| engine doesn't track user searches and can compete? I can
| only think of DuckDuckGo, but I don't think they're good
| enough.
| fsflover wrote:
| DuckDuckGo can be good enough, depending on your search
| habits. But in general, people who don't want to be
| tracked and don't know about alternatives are sold to
| Google.
| astrange wrote:
| That isn't "selling user data". They don't get personal
| identifiers unless you visit the search results page.
| cma wrote:
| Apple also prevents smaller upstart search engines from
| being established, maybe as part of the deal?
|
| > Apple does not allow users to set a default search engine
| that's not listed within the Safari settings.
|
| https://screenrant.com/change-default-search-engine-
| safari-i...
| nojito wrote:
| If you aren't logged into Google there's no information for
| google to glean from your iOS search.
| Philpax wrote:
| Well, they probably still fingerprint you and build a
| profile around that fingerprint - and when you do log in,
| they probably associate that fingerprint with your profile.
| zie wrote:
| Not true, Google has loads of ways to figure out who you
| are, logging in is just one of them.
| nojito wrote:
| Source?
| bl4kers wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_fingerprint
| robg wrote:
| Not going to respond to the ad hominem flame war comments but
| I'll just add, it's about relative choices, hence why I still
| use a Fitbit.
|
| I can see how each public company makes money and can examine
| their technical decisions. I've been working in wearables and
| healthcare, for instance, since 2010. Fitbit sends all data to
| the cloud _then_ updates your data in your app. Not a huge deal
| and provides nice API opportunities. But as soon as Google
| takes over that data explicitly, I expect it will be used to
| advertise to me, despite the assurances to the contrary on the
| acquisition.
|
| By contrast, Apple chose to develop a strong privacy model for
| health data on the Phone. They certainly didn't need to and
| could have readily chosen the same cloud-first implementation.
| But they didn't. And the APIs are harder to work with as a
| consequence. I respect and appreciate those decisions and so I
| buy their products more. You may choose differently.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > Apple chose to develop a strong privacy model for health
| data on the Phone
|
| never seen an ad related to my health on Google, despite
| using their software to keep track of it
| robg wrote:
| Yet. I choose to not give them that opportunity given their
| main revenue stream when Apple gives me better choices for
| my health data.
| issafram wrote:
| Just use Firefox... It isn't about operating systems
| greentea23 wrote:
| Firefox is just a skin on iOS because Apple forces Safari's
| web implementation on all iOS browsers via their draconian
| App Store. So it is very much about operating systems.
| issafram wrote:
| Sorry I should've been clearer. I was talking about
| Android. The reasoning to stick to iOS made no sense. The
| user isn't locked into Chrome.
| davars wrote:
| It boggles my mind that Apple's market position allows it to
| pocket $18 billion a year in pure rent for this real estate on
| its platform and the company paying is the one that gets an
| antitrust suit.
| isodev wrote:
| Google is the offender because they control both the search and
| the browser market. Imagine having to pay $18 billion and still
| coming on top.
|
| Folks hooked to Chrome seem to forget that whatever they do
| online is used to refine their ad profile and generate even
| more ad money for Google and you can't opt out.
| csallen wrote:
| We don't forget. We just don't care. I am in no way upset
| that Google is refining my ad profile and making money. Many
| billions of other people are also not upset by that.
| rgbrgb wrote:
| I have a hard time believing that many billions of people
| know about adtech surveillance in any way.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Of course they were being hyperbolic with the use of the
| word "billions". The point still stands though. The vast
| majority of people using Google's services do know about
| adtech surveillance, and just don't care.
| riscy wrote:
| Do you have a source for that claim? I think laypeople
| know google serves them custom ads, but don't understand
| how or the extent to which adtech is tracking and
| profiling them to select those ads.
|
| In fact, because it's a common trope to say "they must
| have been listening to our conversation" when served an
| eerily specific ad, I'd wager people do not know about
| adtech at all.
| Jensson wrote:
| > In fact, because it's a common trope to say "they must
| have been listening to our conversation" when served an
| eerily specific ad, I'd wager people do not know about
| adtech at all.
|
| That meme is evidence you are wrong, so not sure why you
| brought it up. If people didn't believe they were being
| tracked they wouldn't have thought it listened on them.
| Listening on them is tracking.
|
| Now of course the device probably wasn't listening and it
| just suggested the ad for other tracking reasons, so they
| are wrong about the specifics but they do understand that
| they are being tracked.
| riscy wrote:
| No. The joke's humor is in the fact that it's such a
| strange coincidence that they were served the ad that
| something totally absurd, like their phone listening to a
| private conversation, is a possibility.
|
| Someone making a joke says nothing about what they
| believe to be true. Like the birds not being real.
| Jensson wrote:
| > The joke's humor is in the fact that it's such a
| strange coincidence
|
| No it isn't a joke, people know their phone is listening
| to them, smart assistants has made the world perfectly
| aware of how much they are monitored. So since they know
| the phone is listening, they think the phone showed them
| the ad since it listened to them. It isn't a joke, people
| think this, memes aren't always jokes they are just ideas
| that spread easily.
|
| Look at this thread for example, does this look like a
| joke to you? People think it is listening to everything
| and just give up and go on with their life, that is what
| typical people believe.
|
| "This has happened to me several times. Sadly, there is
| not much you can do about it. If your phone has a mic, it
| is listening to everything you say 24/7."
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/CasualConversation/comments/ldv1
| ey/...
| riscy wrote:
| Since before the age of the smartphone, people have
| thought their phone conversations are being recorded. And
| there's absolutely evidence that it's true. So too is
| evidence of UFOs and aliens.
|
| But that's a tangent. The claim I was seeking evidence
| for was:
|
| "The vast majority of people using Google's services do
| know about adtech surveillance, and just don't care."
|
| People who read HN are not the vast majority
| (thankfully).
|
| I still don't think the vast majority of people are aware
| of the depths of adtech because Google and Meta go to
| great lengths to control the narrative and keep people in
| the dark. They make people believe they're "in-control"
| of their privacy. If people were made aware of how much
| tracking still goes on then they would care.
| Jensson wrote:
| > People who read HN are not the vast majority
| (thankfully).
|
| I meant the reddit thread I linked. In all such threads
| I've seen people think that their phone is recording
| everything they say to show ads, no jokes about it.
|
| Here on HN people know that the phone doesn't do that,
| since we have people who looked at what code is activated
| on the phone and what it sends. But regular people
| doesn't know that, they think they are constantly being
| monitored and there is nothing to do about it, so all
| they can do is either stop caring or fall into despair,
| and most just choose to stop caring.
|
| Smart assistants were a great trick to get people used to
| the idea that they are constantly being monitored. Makes
| them less likely to put up a fight when you start
| monitoring everything for real.
| riscy wrote:
| Hm. Yeah I agree. I guess everyone really has given up
| and begrudgingly accepts it.
| acdha wrote:
| In support of your claim, look at how much effort
| companies like Google or Facebook have put into avoiding
| disclosure. If the general public was knowledgeable they
| wouldn't have fought things like privacy labels so
| strenuously.
| fsflover wrote:
| Any proof of "vast majority"? I have a different
| information:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35056857,
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8751605
| bwanab wrote:
| That is a Black Mirror sentiment if I've ever heard one.
| Unfortunately, it is very accurate to the extent that those
| billions understand the issue.
| prepend wrote:
| That ad revenue isn't free, it's a tax that increases the
| price of everything.
|
| You may not mind, but billions of people paying more for
| things would likely rather pay less.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| > Google is the offender because they control both the search
| a
|
| Wait, they do search? I go to their website and put in
| keywords, and it throws random unrelated shit at me.
| quonn wrote:
| I there evidence that Chrome currently sends anything beyond
| any other browser where I'm logged into Google Mail?
|
| In any case I have switched to Safari and it feels far less
| sluggish.
| RCitronsBroker wrote:
| ungoogled chromium my man
| albert180 wrote:
| It's also just a vastly inferior browser at least on Android
| compared to Firefox. Videos stop playing when you leave the
| tab, no AdBlockers. Don't know why anyone would use this
| voluntarily, if it wouldn't be preinstalled
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| > _Apple's market position allows it to pocket $18 billion a
| year in pure rent_
|
| Google's market position both allows and makes it financially
| beneficial to pay $18 billion to suppress one single source of
| competition. Nobody forces google to buy the default search
| spot.
| Jensson wrote:
| > Nobody forces google to buy the default search spot.
|
| Someone would pay Apple to be the default search, if Google
| didn't pay billions Microsoft would pay billions to make Bing
| the default search. Would you prefer that?
|
| Apple is auctioning it out to the highest bidder, I don't see
| how bidding in an auction is wrong.
| edgyquant wrote:
| I would prefer that Apple pop up a list of all search
| engines and let users choose.
| Jensson wrote:
| Tell that to Apple, Google doesn't have the power to give
| you that.
|
| Edit: Also Google would love a law enforcing that, since
| now they don't have to pay all of these billions of
| dollars and most people would pick Google in that choice
| anyway. The main players that doesn't want that are Apple
| and the others that auctions out default search.
|
| So Google convincing the judges to stop Apple from
| auctioning out default search would be a Google win.
| turquoisevar wrote:
| Google might not have the power to give you that, but
| they certainly have the power to prevent Apple from
| giving you that
|
| Or do you really think Google is paying billions without
| stipulating that Apple can't offer a choice during setup?
|
| > Also Google would love a law enforcing that, since now
| they don't have to pay all of these billions of dollars
| and most people would pick Google in that choice anyway
|
| I need you to square this circle for me. If Google were
| so confident that people would pick Google of their own
| volition, why would they bother spending billions?
| Jensson wrote:
| > Or do you really think Google is paying billions
| without stipulating that Apple can't offer a choice
| during setup?
|
| If you do get a choice at startup then there is nothing
| to sell since there is no default. So yes, if Apple isn't
| selling the product then they don't get any money.
|
| But Google paying Apple has nothing to do with it, Apple
| would make billions selling the default to Microsoft
| otherwise, they wouldn't give you a choice at startup.
| The only thing that would give you that choice is if laws
| ban Apple from selling the default search provider spot.
|
| > I need you to square this circle for me. If Google were
| so confident that people would pick Google of their own
| volition, why would they bother spending billions?
|
| Because otherwise Microsoft would spend those billions
| and now Bing would be the default. Defaults matters, but
| if you force the user to make a choice they would pick
| Google due to brand recognition.
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-28/micros
| oft...
| randomdata wrote:
| Sounds like an unpleasant user experience.
| wombat-man wrote:
| Yeah... I wonder would they actually make Bing the default
| though?
| wodenokoto wrote:
| The way Mozilla did it with Yahoo seemed very palatable,
| honestly. They asked Yahoo to make a special search page,
| that had most crap removed and if I remember correctly they
| also had demands on response time.
| mminer237 wrote:
| I think the problem is that Google Search doesn't have to pay
| Android $18 billion/year to make it the default option there.
| issafram wrote:
| Well it would be the phone manufacturers at that point
| babypuncher wrote:
| The phone manufacturers don't have much of a choice unless
| they are willing to ditch support for all the proprietary
| Google parts of Android. People probably won't buy android
| phones without play store access.
| Jensson wrote:
| I just bought an android, there was no default search on
| it and playstore works. As I booted it up it asked me
| what search engine I wanted, Google wasn't on top or
| preselected.
|
| So yes, phone manufacturers have a choice here, they
| don't have to make Google the default.
| babypuncher wrote:
| I'm surprised, what brand is it?
| Jensson wrote:
| Was a Xiaomi Redmi.
|
| I wouldn't recommend it for privacy, but them giving me
| the choice means manufacturers can do this if they want.
| beebeepka wrote:
| What android brand would you recommend "for privacy"?
|
| I agree Xiaomi loves their data collection to the point
| of selling pole fan that require an app to operate - I
| saw that one in one of their stores.
|
| So what else is there?
| jsnell wrote:
| It's likely not about the brand, but about the location.
| As a result of the Android anti-trust lawsuit in EU,
| Google has shown a search engine choice screen at initial
| setup since (I think) 2018. They also unbundled Chrome
| and Search from the other proprietary apps.
|
| See https://www.android.com/choicescreen/
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| I'm not sure why one would think that. Google absolutely does
| pay Android phone makers too.
| https://www.notebookcheck.net/Google-to-pay-Samsung-
| US-3-5-b...
| babypuncher wrote:
| Google is the one with the monopoly, and they pay that "rent"
| to protect that monopoly.
|
| If there's something wrong with money being exchanged to be a
| default search provider, that wrong probably still lies with
| Google.
| Jensson wrote:
| If Google didn't pay Microsoft would, we know this since
| Microsoft has already talked about it with Apple. Apple is
| the one selling this, if Google didn't buy someone else
| would, so stopping Google from buying wouldn't change
| anything except now default search would be Bing on iphones.
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-28/microsoft.
| ..
| turquoisevar wrote:
| If Microsoft would be the one paying, then it might not
| lead to antitrust issues, because Microsoft doesn't have a
| near monopoly on the search market.
|
| On the other hand, it might also create antitrust issues if
| the market definition were to be broadened.
|
| Either way, the _who_ is just as important as the _what_ in
| cases like this. Your attempt to equate the two seems to be
| a fallacy
| Jensson wrote:
| The argument is that you can't ban market leaders from
| participating in fair auctions. Google isn't using its
| market dominance to force Apple to make them the default
| search engine, they are just paying money and aren't
| applying any other sort of pressure.
|
| So my argument is that there isn't an antitrust issue
| here, not that Microsoft paying would lead to antitrust
| issues. Winning fair auctions isn't an antitrust issue.
| Antitrust is when you issue abusive contracts such as
| "You get a discount if you only sell our products and no
| products from out competitors", but that isn't a fair
| auction since you use your dominance to change the deal
| and pressure the vendor to stop selling others products.
| In this case Google just bid higher than the competitors,
| there is no other reason for Apple to use them as the
| default.
|
| You would need to show that Google pays more than they
| earn for the default search engine spot, or that they
| used some other means to force Apple to accept the deal.
| But I have seen no evidence of that.
| turquoisevar wrote:
| I believe the argument counter to yours is that antitrust
| is more than just abusive contracts.
|
| It also encompasses behavior facilitated by market
| dominance that makes it impossible or too difficult for
| new market entrants to compete, including behavior that,
| under different circumstances, would be completely fine.
|
| A generic example of something that would be completely
| fine in many situations would be a merger & acquisition.
| It's the best example of what you describe as "winning a
| fair auction". Companies B, C, and D might all make an
| offer to buy company A, and since company B made the
| highest bid, they win, and all is fine.
|
| If, however, company B is a huge conglomerate and the M&A
| of company A would consolidate even more power into
| Company B, perhaps even increase their monopoly position
| to the point that company B ends up being the sole
| company in multiple verticals, then this might prove to
| be an antitrust issue even though no abusive contract is
| in play.
|
| Because this can have undesirable outcomes in terms of
| competition with unwanted effects downstream for
| consumers, we, as a society, have decided to put some
| guardrails in place in the form of antitrust legislation.
|
| Circling back to the situation at hand, the argument at
| hand by the DOJ seems to be that Google has gained a
| significant market leader position and that deals such as
| the one made with Apple make it impossible for other
| competitors to compete effectively. Even more so when it
| pertains to search engines because they seem to rely
| heavily on usage data to be able to improve.
|
| At face value, that argument isn't much different than
| the argument behind preventing M&As that are deemed
| antitrust issues.
|
| The DOJ's arguments go further, however, in stating that
| it is the market leader position combined with the deep
| pockets funded by Google's other divisions that make it
| possible for them to offer billions in the first place.
| Which, within the antitrust context, adds a deeper
| dimension beyond just the "you're big, you shouldn't get
| bigger" argument I mentioned above.
|
| You seem to touch upon this a little in this part of your
| comment:
|
| > You would need to show that Google pays more than they
| earn for the default search engine spot [...] But I have
| seen no evidence of that.
|
| We will be unlikely to see evidence of that, assuming it
| exists, because the parties and the judge would discuss
| that under seal, and only they will get to see those
| numbers (unless someone does a whoopsie and forgets to
| redact it before uploading it to the docket).
| stale2002 wrote:
| Ok, so then I guess we need a law to force Apple to not sell
| access to iPhone users.
|
| Instead, the law should be that the iPhone has no default
| search provider, and the user gets to choose, and no money
| exchanges hands.
|
| So, basically the same thing that microsoft was forced to do,
| with IE.
|
| Problem solved!
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > Google is expected to begin a three-week presentation of its
| defense in the lawsuit's monthslong trial on Thursday.
|
| Implicit here is that prosecution's case has rested. How about
| all those bombshells that dominated the news for months and
| months? /s /s
|
| There IS a case to be made, but I don't think they made it.
| Expect the verdict to be a mild slap on the wrist and a (empty)
| promise from Google to sin no more.
| nmilo wrote:
| > Google quietly planned to put a lid on Apple's search
| ambitions. The company looked for ways to undercut Spotlight by
| producing its own version for iPhones and to persuade more iPhone
| users to use Google's Chrome web browser instead of Apple's
| Safari browser, according to internal Google documents reviewed
| by The New York Times.
|
| So their top secret plan is to.. make a competing product? AKA
| what all companies always do with their competition?
| simonw wrote:
| The next sentence is more interesting:
|
| > At the same time, Google studied how to pry open Apple's
| control of the iPhone by leveraging a new European law intended
| to help small companies compete with Big Tech.
| xrjskflgcp wrote:
| wow, look that hero image [1]. animation of google logo as worm
| infecting apple logo. apples get worms, get it? some powerful,
| visceral, subconscious propaganda. disciples of bernays are alive
| and well. prob unfair but brilliant. [2]
|
| [1] https://ibb.co/zZZYjdM
|
| [2] throwaway account + obfuscated writing style because paranoid
| Terretta wrote:
| _Google studied how to pry open Apple's control of the iPhone by
| leveraging a new European law intended to help small companies
| compete with Big Tech._
|
| _Last fall, Google executives met to discuss how to reduce the
| company's reliance on Apple's Safari browser and how best to use
| a new law in Europe to undermine the iPhone maker..._
|
| _Google, which the law will force to allow more competition in
| search, explored ways to lobby E.U. regulators to crack open
| Apple's tightly controlled software ecosystem so Google could
| siphon users from Safari and Spotlight..._
|
| Curious about HN's stance on carrying Google's water in these
| skirmishes advocating a forced dismantling of Apple's vertical
| integration consumers continue to deliberately choose, in service
| of enabling the deepening of Google's moat in collecting and
| profiling their (your) behavioral data exhaust in a way consumers
| don't understand.
|
| Stepping back...
|
| I believe engineering should pay the _hard_ price to make user
| use _easy_ , and privacy easy. I believe the hard work for
| achieving that ease makes users happy and engineers wealthy.
|
| Apple should be allowed to benefit from the sweat they invested
| and sell a mobile console appliance, while others should be
| allowed to make build-your-own mobile compute. Put another way,
| there's room for an iPad Pro 13 and a Frame.work Laptop 13. None
| of these should be forced to break their model to accommodate one
| of the others'.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| I have no problem with "carrying Google's water" in this case.
| They have as much right to computing freedom as we do. They
| should totally get to enjoy that freedom on Apple devices. As
| should we.
|
| This is completely independent from Google's surveillance
| capitalism problem. We should deal with that separately by
| turning personal information into massive liability. Society
| should make it so it costs them literal truckloads of money to
| know even a single bit of information about any human being.
| They should be scrambling to forget all about us the second
| we're done transacting with them.
|
| > sell a mobile console appliance
|
| Nope. I personally don't believe such things should be allowed
| to exist at all. Computers should always be _real_ computers at
| all times. This "appliance" nonsense is everything that is
| wrong with computing today. Infinite potential, wasted.
| tempodox wrote:
| > They have as much right to computing freedom as we do.
|
| Except they tirelessly work on taking computing freedom away
| from you.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| You sure about that? Google's been one of the better
| companies when it comes to free and open source work. Their
| phones are significantly more free than their competition.
| It's ironic, they sell the easiest phones to install custom
| operating systems on. They even put in work into open
| firmware for their chromebook laptops. It's certainly
| something I've come to appreciate about them, despite their
| surveillance capitalism.
| saurik wrote:
| This is a false dichotomy: we should be aggressively
| dismantling both of these companies for having distortional
| market power.
| JustifyContent wrote:
| Powerful technology corporations are good for American hard
| and soft power. Also, they can create crucial technology.
| OpenAI would be nowhere without the transformer.
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| That's not great for us 95% of people who don't live in the
| US.
| pvarangot wrote:
| It's also not clear if it's good for most of us in the
| U.S. so yeah I get you
| kobalsky wrote:
| > a forced dismantling of Apple's vertical integration
| consumers continue to deliberately choose
|
| "deliberately choose" is too strong when you are picking the
| lesser evil.
|
| > Apple should be allowed to benefit from the sweat they
| invested and sell a mobile console appliance, while others
| should be allowed to make build-your-own mobile compute. Put
| another way, there's room for an iPad Pro 13 and a Frame.work
| Laptop 13. None of these should be forced to break their model
| to accommodate one of the others'.
|
| Is the sweat of the literal biggest company in the world by
| market cap more important than the sweat of the users paying
| thousands of dollars for devices they can't control? These guys
| don't need protection of their vertical integration, they are
| not selling hardware at a loss.
|
| I don't like Google nor Apple, so I'm not picking between them,
| I'm picking the users side. What I'd like is to be able to put
| a different OS on my phone. We've seen what happened with Asahi
| Linux and the M Macs, if the iPhone were not locked down we
| would have a proliferating open source OS community around it
| and everyone would benefit directly and indirectly.
| vanjajaja1 wrote:
| > .. everyone would benefit directly and indirectly.
|
| The question here for me is does this 'everyone' include the
| entity that made, invested & owns the device in question (im
| assuming no), and if its acceptable to force them to do
| something against their wishes for something they own then
| why don't we just force them to hand over billions of dollars
| directly to users as well (both forms of theft to me.)
| choppaface wrote:
| > Curious about HN's stance on carrying Google's water
|
| Well if you search for things like "Google anti-trust docs"[1]
| you can see HN is ostensibly less interested than the rest of
| the media in Google's lawyer's scorched-earth blockade of
| public access to the trial documents and testimony. A lot of
| the actual material benefits that Google extracted from its
| anti-competitive schemes have been redacted or explained in
| closed-door testimony. Curious readers show know that stories
| like the OP are ones that Google's lawyers _want_ you to focus
| on rather than what 's not being shown. As bad as OP looks, it
| must be seen in the context of Google hiding other information
| for the public.
|
| e.g.
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
| Gunax wrote:
| If even Alphabet cannot get a toehold on Apple devices, then
| other competitions have no chance.
|
| In this case, I strongly favour opening the IPhone. Not because
| I care about Google, but because I care about completion at
| large.
|
| 25 years ago we said Microsoft was a monopoly _just for
| including IE_. They never stopped you from installing anything
| else. I don 't understand why the same rule doesn't apply to
| Apple.
| danShumway wrote:
| iOS is not a feasible long-term solution to browser
| monoculture. It's just not. And the (heavy quotes)
| "equilibrium" between Chrome and Safari is not really want we
| want, we don't want 2 giant corporate browsers, we want
| diversity.
|
| Google is currently involved a potentially historic antitrust
| lawsuit in the United States. You don't have to pick a winner
| and loser and decide whether you're going to carry Apple's
| water or Google's water. You can just break them both up and
| force both of the companies to stop doing anticompetitive crap.
|
| It's so dystopian to look at the current browser duopoly and to
| say, "well, which of these two companies do I want to rule over
| me, I have to pick one of them." We are capable of better.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/business/google-antitrust...
|
| Google's defense in this case is absurd. If bigger isn't better
| then let's shrink Google and see what happens. Let's share the
| index as public data (which it is) and see what others, less
| "briliant", can do with it. Let the best ingenuity and effort
| win.
|
| But the court may in fact be persuaded by Google's showmanship.
| jldugger wrote:
| > Let's share the index as public data
|
| Common crawl[1] data has been in AWS for over a decade.
|
| [1]: https://commoncrawl.org
| neonate wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20231026173416/https://www.nytim...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-26 23:01 UTC)