9 ms·
Apple’s deal with Google is lucrative, but it's hard to square with its values
- iamgopal 5y ago15 billion a year is not enough for google to create a competing rival ?
- diskzero 5y agoGoogle has created a competing rival to Apple in the mobile market called Android. Am I not understandng your question?
- jahnu 5y agoIt would be a lot more than 15 if Android didn't exist
- robotresearcher 5y agoGoogle 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 5y ago> Google doesn't sell a workstation and big screen. And does not sell in person customer support.
- robotresearcher 5y agoThey are in that business too, just starting recently: https://store.google.com/magazine/locations https://store.google.com/magazine/locations
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jsnell 5y agoGoogle owns Fitbit now, so they've got a lot of first-party smartwatches.
- Jyaif 5y agoI don't really understand what is going on with Google. They are paying Apple more than what they are spending on Android.
- Nasrudith 5y agoSimple - 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.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- samfisher83 5y ago>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.
- eplanit 5y agoYes, and that "squares with its values". Thinking that Apple (FAANG) have "values" other than that are falling for the marketers illusion.
- politelemon 5y agoI 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.
- ramesh31 5y ago>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 5y agoFunny, 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.
- echelon 5y agoApple 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 5y ago>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-privacy-settings-from-smartphone-users https://www.techradar.com/news/google-accused-of-hiding-priv...
- floren 5y agoIt is possible to condemn Apple without implicitly praising Google.
- GeekyBear 5y agoOn 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-now-tracks-your-credit-card-purchases-and-connects-them-to-its-online-profile-of-you/ 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-value-of-surveillance/ https://longreads.com/2019/09/05/how-google-discovered-the-v...
- LatteLazy 5y agoI 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.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Tagbert 5y agoThe 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 5y agoSeriously. 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 https://www.nytimes.com › google-pentagon-project-maven
- im3w1l 5y agoApple 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.
- laurex 5y agoI 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 5y ago> they all feed off each other due to the fundamental driver of "shareholder value." Kudos for not resorting to hand-wavey statements yourself.
- wayneftw 5y ago> 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 5y agoI 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 5y agoPersonally 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 5y agoMay 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 5y ago[deleted]
- utopcell 5y agoApple'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-since-2005/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267728/apples-net-income...
- jsnell 5y agoNote 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.
- istingray 5y agoWow I had no idea. "Follow the money" really does turn up some interesting data. Really makes me question Apple's "privacy" work even more deeply.
- pope_meat 5y agoIt's good that our tech giants are competing, and not colluding.
- ramesh31 5y agoThey 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.
- jtsiskin 5y agoThat’s presumably what this deal is partially to prevent. This deal makes Apple’s cost of doing that now $15 billion more “expensive”
- sverhagen 5y agoIsn't there a question about what technical abilities Safari offers for advanced tracking of users? I'm on no one's side here. But why couldn't they (even theoretically) sell the search engine no. 1 choice to Google while still tightly controlling the browser API as to avoid tracking abuses (presumable for all search engines alike)?
- wutbrodo 5y agoTo narrowly answer the question "why": Anything that made tracking meaningfully worse would reduce the aggregate value of Google searches on Safari, which would reduce the expected amount Google would be willing to pay them to be the default search engine. It's essentially the same question as "why couldn't they just make DDG the default search on Safari": because it would hurt their pocketbook
- hnaccount_rng 5y agoI don’t get that reasoning. The value of the searches doesn’t come from the abilities google has with them. At least not primarily. It comes from the ability of iPhone _users_ to pay for purchases. It is this purchase power that makes the searches valuable to advertisers (and hence google). iPhone searches are valuable because iPhone users tend to have higher disposable income^. Additionally I’d say that the number of users switching over the search results of google vs DDG is approximately zero ;) ^ Of course in second order there is an added value of being able to subdivide iPhone users in smaller segments which might add some value (to google). But I’d bet that loosing out on >95% of those searches would be bad for google. Especially strategically as a significant fraction of their former income would then fund someone else’s search engine development. This sounds eerily like Intel’s refusal to build the chips Apple wanted, which pretty much funded TSMC’s technical advantage. And back then nobody knew that those would go into a >200bn$/year product with 30% margins.
- wutbrodo 5y ago> The value of the searches doesn’t come from the abilities google has with them I don't follow you here. Is the claim that Google's tracking of users is not for the purposes of increasing revenue? Why else would they be doing it, particularly given the PR cost? > iPhone searches are valuable because iPhone users tend to have higher disposable income I don't understand how this is relevant. IPhone users do indeed have higher ARPUs for this reason. Why would that make them immune to the assumed increase in per-user revenue that tracking provides to Google? Ie, the effect you're describing (disposable income of user) is orthogonal to the one I'm describing (tracking techniques used on user), and both are inputs to the ARPU equation.
- runjake 5y agoApple’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.
- hamburgerwah 5y agoYou are sorely mistaken if you think Apples values are anything other than separating suckers from their money as efficiently as possible while instilling the sense that being a sucker somehow makes them better than everyone else. Sent from my iPhone