8 ms·

Ah, they joy of holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time! Like, Apple does not sell user data to third parties and Apple is sending all search traffic

Ah, they joy of holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time! Like, Apple does not sell user data to third parties and Apple is sending all search traffic to Google by default for $15b a year.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
techrat 5y ago
How does having a default web search engine equate to "[Company] is sending *all* search traffic to [other company]"? Users have preferences and may change the engines they search with, not use Safari at all or be already using Google anyway.
- ThePhysicist 5y ago
  95 % of users never touch predefined settings, so being the default almost always equates to being the "winner". What they should do instead is to let people select a search engine based on different criteria (including privacy friendliness). Most people would then still choose Google but the effect would be way less pronounced.
  - bko 5y ago
    Microsoft Edge would like to have a word with you. The only thing pointing people to DDG or some inferior search engine would be to frustrate non-technical people when their search results become "weird". Not all search engines are the same. I use DDG by default but I admit there is a huge difference between the two search engines and I use !g more than I'd like to admit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
    - KptMarchewa 5y ago
      >Microsoft Edge would like to have a word with you. The 95% statistic only works when you introduce new, hidden option. People used Chrome/Firefox/whatever before Edge, they are used to it, and it's their default.
- blocked_again 5y ago
  >Users have preferences and may change the engines they search with, not use Safari at all or be already using Google anyway. Well Google ofcourse clearly diasgree given they are willing to pay 15 billion dollars.
- ajkdhcb2 5y ago
  Some people will use it just because it's the default. Apple is paid because of that. So Apple is selling user data, i.e. violating privacy for money
  - techrat 5y ago
    some =/= all, which is the point I was addressing in my original comment.
SimeVidas 5y ago
“Apple makes is very easy to stop sending your user data to third parties.” Better?
bko 5y ago
What's the alternative? Should Safari choose a default search engine by random per user or per session? Google is undoubtedly the best search engine in nearly all cases. Should Apple subject its users to a weaker engine just because Google has a different privacy policy? You can also change the default search engine. Why wouldn't Apple accept a payment for bringing billions of dollars in traffic to Google?
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  Apple subjects it's user to a highest bidder. You can't seriously try to claim Apple is using Google as "best search engine" minute after seeing they are getting 15B for it.
  - bko 5y ago
    Google is by far the best search engine. Google pays Apple to set it as the default as its a positive sum to both sides. Google gets more than $15bn of value from the traffic and Apple gets $15bn for the obvious decision. Google could call Apple's bluff and refuse to pay, but Apple could pull through on their threat to replace default search with an inferior engine. They did it with Google Maps by replacing it with Apple Maps, which was a widely unpopular decision
    - selectodude 5y ago
      They did it with Google and replaced it with Bing awhile back.
- danielrpa 5y ago
  Weaker... According to whom? I particularly use DDG on my personal devices and only occasionally go to Google. Whenever I'm using a machine that use Google as the default, I often go back to DDG to get results unspoiled by the bias pushed by Google's agenda, SEO and paid ads. But answering your question, it could let the user choose their search engine as part of the onboarding experience while providing a random preselected default.
littlestymaar 5y ago
> Apple does not sell user data to third parties Oh, of course they do: > Apple’s Sharing of Personal Data > Apple may share personal data with service providers who act on our behalf, our partners, or others at your direction. Further, Apple does not share personal data with third parties for their own marketing purposes. > Partners. At times, Apple may partner with third parties to provide services or other offerings. For example, Apple financial offerings like Apple Card and Apple Cash are offered by Apple and our partners. Apple requires its partners to protect your personal data. They share it, they just don't share your data “with third parties for their own marketing purposes”, no additional privacy guarantees. source: https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/ https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/
- nulbyte 5y ago
  None of that describes selling data to third parties. The third parties that might receive data as described in this section are vendors or partners, not customers. Apple isn't making money off the sale of data here.
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    > Apple isn't making money off the sale of data here. There's zero mention of that in the aforementioned policy. This policy completely allows them to make money in their deals with their «partners» or even their «service providers» and you wouldn't know it. For instance, Apple pay is a payment service and I would be really surprised if they didn't get paid by their partner for every transaction made through them. (And yes, a transaction is «personal data»). And since they are a for profit company, they obviously intend to make money (even if it's not through their partner paying them directly but through indirect revenue sources like customer retention or acquisition) when making partnership, because otherwise they wouldn't make such partnerships!
  - readams 5y ago
    Google and Facebook also don't sell data. They keep the data and charge advertisers to take advantage of their ability to target using the data.
hyperbovine 5y ago
Well, Google is the best search engine, and Apple wants the best user experience. This has the feel of getting paid $15b to do something you were going to do anyways.
- funnyThing7 5y ago
  Makes me wonder why they have to pay 15b in the first place. If it’s indeed a no-brainer for apple, the deal could be made with far less money?
  - tnzm 5y ago
    I'd imagine with $15B Apple could bootstrap its own search engine.
    - julienfr112 5y ago
      There are getting 15B to NOT boostrap their search engine. If they bootstrap their own engine, they loose 15B on top of having to pay to build this own engine.
      - tnzm 5y ago
        Exactly. Plenty of risks involved - they could just fail like Microsoft did, or if they pull it off it could seriously upset the balance in the ecosystem. Better reach a mutually beneficial agreement with everyone's "favorite" search company instead. Coopetition lol
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - JiNCMG 5y ago
      Not worth it. It's not cheap maintaining a search engine. Apple could throw resources at it but what is the benefit? This is different than the Maps issue where Google refuse to provide new features for iPhone Maps. Apple used OpenStreetMaps (OSM) and created their own. By using OSM, it gave that project more visibility and others an alternative solution to Google Maps. A few years later Google suddenly makes it "not so free" for businesses displaying a map, they better put up a credit card.
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
"Like, Apple does not sell user data to third parties and Apple is sending all search traffic to Google by default for $15B a year." Or like, Mozilla is working to protect user privacy^1 and Mozilla is sending all search traffic to Google by default for [much less than $15B] a year. In each case, we can see two conflicting interests/objectives. Data collection versus privacy protection. Being honest, which is the one we can say is making the most progress at the expense of the other. How much data is being collected. How much data is off-limits. How much money is being "lost" by "tech" companies to privacy protection (user self-determination). Be honest. 1 And other noble causes, including maintaining a "healhty" web. Read: Ensuring online advertising does not die out.
- ComodoHacker 5y ago
  I'm sure it's net positive for users in both cases. Apple doesn't sell Google data of users' actions on other websites or in other apps. And Mozilla really did a lot for user privacy using that Google money.
- tyingq 5y ago
  >Mozilla is sending all search traffic to Google by default for...much less And not just much less overall... Mozilla is supposedly getting ~$400M/year. Which is $115M per percentage point of marketshare. The $15B for Apple is $804M per percentage point of marketshare. Which I suppose makes sense, as iPhone users probably automatically fall into a high income demographic. What I used for market share: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
  - unethical_ban 5y ago
    Even if a user pivots from Safari, keeping Google as the default is keeping it as the default in the minds of users as they move to a different browser.
HWR_14 5y ago
Apple makes it easy enough to switch the "search engine used from the URL bar" if you care to.
cronix 5y ago
It's kind of like how the NSA has deals with other countries like the UK to allow spying on Americans to get around constitutional issues. Hey, we didn't do the spying! We're privacy focused. We just make billions by allowing other companies to spy on you, and we make it the default position. Plausible deniability at the corporate level.

Ah, they joy of holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time! Like, Apple does not sell user data to third parties and Apple is sending all search traffic to Google by default for $15b a year.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

techrat 5y ago

How does having a default web search engine equate to "[Company] is sending *all* search traffic to [other company]"? Users have preferences and may change the engines they search with, not use Safari at all or be already using Google anyway.

ThePhysicist 5y ago
95 % of users never touch predefined settings, so being the default almost always equates to being the "winner". What they should do instead is to let people select a search engine based on different criteria (including privacy friendliness). Most people would then still choose Google but the effect would be way less pronounced.
- bko 5y ago
  Microsoft Edge would like to have a word with you. The only thing pointing people to DDG or some inferior search engine would be to frustrate non-technical people when their search results become "weird". Not all search engines are the same. I use DDG by default but I admit there is a huge difference between the two search engines and I use !g more than I'd like to admit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    >Microsoft Edge would like to have a word with you. The 95% statistic only works when you introduce new, hidden option. People used Chrome/Firefox/whatever before Edge, they are used to it, and it's their default.
blocked_again 5y ago
>Users have preferences and may change the engines they search with, not use Safari at all or be already using Google anyway. Well Google ofcourse clearly diasgree given they are willing to pay 15 billion dollars.
ajkdhcb2 5y ago
Some people will use it just because it's the default. Apple is paid because of that. So Apple is selling user data, i.e. violating privacy for money
- techrat 5y ago
  some =/= all, which is the point I was addressing in my original comment.

SimeVidas 5y ago

“Apple makes is very easy to stop sending your user data to third parties.” Better?

bko 5y ago

What's the alternative? Should Safari choose a default search engine by random per user or per session? Google is undoubtedly the best search engine in nearly all cases. Should Apple subject its users to a weaker engine just because Google has a different privacy policy? You can also change the default search engine. Why wouldn't Apple accept a payment for bringing billions of dollars in traffic to Google?

KptMarchewa 5y ago
Apple subjects it's user to a highest bidder. You can't seriously try to claim Apple is using Google as "best search engine" minute after seeing they are getting 15B for it.
- bko 5y ago
  Google is by far the best search engine. Google pays Apple to set it as the default as its a positive sum to both sides. Google gets more than $15bn of value from the traffic and Apple gets $15bn for the obvious decision. Google could call Apple's bluff and refuse to pay, but Apple could pull through on their threat to replace default search with an inferior engine. They did it with Google Maps by replacing it with Apple Maps, which was a widely unpopular decision
  - selectodude 5y ago
    They did it with Google and replaced it with Bing awhile back.
danielrpa 5y ago
Weaker... According to whom? I particularly use DDG on my personal devices and only occasionally go to Google. Whenever I'm using a machine that use Google as the default, I often go back to DDG to get results unspoiled by the bias pushed by Google's agenda, SEO and paid ads. But answering your question, it could let the user choose their search engine as part of the onboarding experience while providing a random preselected default.

littlestymaar 5y ago

> Apple does not sell user data to third parties Oh, of course they do: > Apple’s Sharing of Personal Data > Apple may share personal data with service providers who act on our behalf, our partners, or others at your direction. Further, Apple does not share personal data with third parties for their own marketing purposes. > Partners. At times, Apple may partner with third parties to provide services or other offerings. For example, Apple financial offerings like Apple Card and Apple Cash are offered by Apple and our partners. Apple requires its partners to protect your personal data. They share it, they just don't share your data “with third parties for their own marketing purposes”, no additional privacy guarantees. source: https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/ https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/

nulbyte 5y ago
None of that describes selling data to third parties. The third parties that might receive data as described in this section are vendors or partners, not customers. Apple isn't making money off the sale of data here.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  > Apple isn't making money off the sale of data here. There's zero mention of that in the aforementioned policy. This policy completely allows them to make money in their deals with their «partners» or even their «service providers» and you wouldn't know it. For instance, Apple pay is a payment service and I would be really surprised if they didn't get paid by their partner for every transaction made through them. (And yes, a transaction is «personal data»). And since they are a for profit company, they obviously intend to make money (even if it's not through their partner paying them directly but through indirect revenue sources like customer retention or acquisition) when making partnership, because otherwise they wouldn't make such partnerships!
- readams 5y ago
  Google and Facebook also don't sell data. They keep the data and charge advertisers to take advantage of their ability to target using the data.

hyperbovine 5y ago

Well, Google is the best search engine, and Apple wants the best user experience. This has the feel of getting paid $15b to do something you were going to do anyways.

funnyThing7 5y ago
Makes me wonder why they have to pay 15b in the first place. If it’s indeed a no-brainer for apple, the deal could be made with far less money?
- tnzm 5y ago
  I'd imagine with $15B Apple could bootstrap its own search engine.
  - julienfr112 5y ago
    There are getting 15B to NOT boostrap their search engine. If they bootstrap their own engine, they loose 15B on top of having to pay to build this own engine.
    - tnzm 5y ago
      Exactly. Plenty of risks involved - they could just fail like Microsoft did, or if they pull it off it could seriously upset the balance in the ecosystem. Better reach a mutually beneficial agreement with everyone's "favorite" search company instead. Coopetition lol
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - JiNCMG 5y ago
    Not worth it. It's not cheap maintaining a search engine. Apple could throw resources at it but what is the benefit? This is different than the Maps issue where Google refuse to provide new features for iPhone Maps. Apple used OpenStreetMaps (OSM) and created their own. By using OSM, it gave that project more visibility and others an alternative solution to Google Maps. A few years later Google suddenly makes it "not so free" for businesses displaying a map, they better put up a credit card.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

"Like, Apple does not sell user data to third parties and Apple is sending all search traffic to Google by default for $15B a year." Or like, Mozilla is working to protect user privacy^1 and Mozilla is sending all search traffic to Google by default for [much less than $15B] a year. In each case, we can see two conflicting interests/objectives. Data collection versus privacy protection. Being honest, which is the one we can say is making the most progress at the expense of the other. How much data is being collected. How much data is off-limits. How much money is being "lost" by "tech" companies to privacy protection (user self-determination). Be honest. 1 And other noble causes, including maintaining a "healhty" web. Read: Ensuring online advertising does not die out.

ComodoHacker 5y ago
I'm sure it's net positive for users in both cases. Apple doesn't sell Google data of users' actions on other websites or in other apps. And Mozilla really did a lot for user privacy using that Google money.
tyingq 5y ago
>Mozilla is sending all search traffic to Google by default for...much less And not just much less overall... Mozilla is supposedly getting ~$400M/year. Which is $115M per percentage point of marketshare. The $15B for Apple is $804M per percentage point of marketshare. Which I suppose makes sense, as iPhone users probably automatically fall into a high income demographic. What I used for market share: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  Even if a user pivots from Safari, keeping Google as the default is keeping it as the default in the minds of users as they move to a different browser.

HWR_14 5y ago

Apple makes it easy enough to switch the "search engine used from the URL bar" if you care to.

cronix 5y ago

It's kind of like how the NSA has deals with other countries like the UK to allow spying on Americans to get around constitutional issues. Hey, we didn't do the spying! We're privacy focused. We just make billions by allowing other companies to spy on you, and we make it the default position. Plausible deniability at the corporate level.