6 ms·
Facebook failed to pay the big money to Apple that they should have been paying for years. If Zuck had been handing Apple $5,000,000,000 per year as google doe
by 00000000005 5y ago
Facebook failed to pay the big money to Apple that they should have been paying for years.
If Zuck had been handing Apple $5,000,000,000 per year as google does, then Apple would never have kneecapped Facebook.
Larry and Sergei know how the protection racket works. You pay your dues to the local mob, you get to do business in their street corners.
What do google pay Apple $5b for? Ummm… to be in the search of Safari. Yeah right. They all know google simply pays Apple because they don’t want no trouble, so they say “Safari”, write a huge cheque, and google gets to keep doing business in Apple devices.
Tim is The Godfather. He who owns the platform owns the city. Everyone must respect and pay their dues, if they want to do business in this city.
Apple has sent Facebook to sleep with the fishes because zuck didn’t show no respect and didn’t pay no dues.
- GeekyBear 5y agoUsers have the same privacy options with Google's apps that they have with Facebook's apps.
- disgruntledphd2 5y agoBut Google are much, much less dependent on apps because they get all that sweet juicy search data from each iPhone (which they can then use to track you across their apps, potentially (this is possible to implement, I have no idea if they do it)).
- GeekyBear 5y agoSo antitrust regulators should break up Google?
- disgruntledphd2 5y agoThey should regulate them better, certainly. I'm agnostic on whether that means they should be broken up.
- nojito 5y agoHow so? Safari hides so much info from google search by default. The money google pays apple is strictly for marketing purposes.
- 00000000005 5y ago
- scim-knox-twox 5y agohttps://gizmodo.com/google-paid-apple-to-stay-out-of-the-search-business-l-1848306759 https://gizmodo.com/google-paid-apple-to-stay-out-of-the-sea...
- nojito 5y agoI know that story but safari iOS is not like safari on macOS.
- danpalmer 5y agoWhat would that payment be for from Facebook? Opinions aside, Google are paying for a thing, not just donating money. What would Facebook pay for? I'm not sure that them being a search engine makes sense, I don't think Apple would give up the position of iMessage in favour of Messenger. (Disclaimer, I work at Google, but don't have any inside info or opinion on the Apple/Google relationship.)
- 00000000005 5y ago> What would that payment be for from Facebook? To live. This is Tim’s town and if you think you’re doing business and cutting Tim out then you’ve got $10b concrete boots coming.
- gls2ro 5y agoI think Google as the default search engine on Safari is a big win. How is that just an excuse to hand over money? Do think that putting DuckDuckGo as default in Safari will not have any influence in either DuckDuckGo or Google market share?
- patrec 5y agoRight, like as without those 5B Apple would screw up its products by handing over all search to some guy with a Bing scraping Perl script cosplaying as a search engine.
- yokoprime 5y agoI'm not sure if you're shitposting or actually replying. Alphabet pays Apple to be the default search-engine in Safari. Thats it, Google are not exempt from Apples privacy policies. Google dragged their feed after the iOS 15 privacy changes, but in the end had to cave.
- Iolaum 5y agoApple's privacy policies are not set in stone. They are more like pray I don't alter the deal further. ATM only Apple can stop Apple from deciding they want no tracking done by search engine providers in iOS apps.
- Foivos 5y agoThen, why does google pay big money to Firefox?
- 00000000005 5y agoTo avoid a competition lawsuit from the justice department.
- xvector 5y agoIt's rackets all the way down!
- mattbrewsbytes 5y agoI think you mean: Its Webkits all the way down
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- samwillis 5y agoThere is an enormous deference between Search Ads (such as those in Google search results) and display advertising such as Facebook and Googles Display Network. I assure you Google are paying Apple to be the default search engine exactly because it's basically a licence to print money. It has nothing to do with display ads. If Facebook had a search engine they would bid against Google for that role, but as it appears to be the case there is a Google/Facebook gentlemens agreement to not compete in that area.
- catach 5y agoHave to wonder if that agreement would have survived a competitive Google Plus.
- rob74 5y agoWell yeah, Google tried to build a social network (actually several) and failed; Facebook didn't try to build a search engine - that wouldn't fit into their business model of sucking you in and driving you to sign up to Facebook. I mean, after they bought Oculus, they even started requiring a FB account to use the device, but they couldn't have done that for a search engine, nobody would have used it. But lots of others did, and failed (or at least couldn't compete with Google). So we can conclude that neither building a successful social network nor building a successful search engine is easy :)
- thaway2839 5y agoYet Google tries really hard to get you to log in, to the point where if you log into the browser to be able to sync your bookmarks and settings, you will be logged into your Google search as well.
- bagacrap 5y agobut fb does have a search engine? Admittedly it only searches for content on their own site, but as you note the strategy has been to make the walled garden so expansive that users would never want to leave (or be able to --- see India). Building a general purpose web search engine would be to give up on the "own everything" strategy.
- wjnc 5y agoSince I detect sarcasm, I'm not sure how to respond. As someone who chooses Apple partly because of the comparative privacy versus Android I'm actually quite happy that they bargain with other parties? It reminiscent of the working of efficient markets. I have a choice. No privacy (Google, Facebook), or a tidbit (Apple, G/F via Apple) or a lot (custom ROM options, drop all G/F/A). For a tidbit of privacy I pay more, but how much I pay more is lowered by the incoming cashflow at Apple due to these arrangements. So there is a cafateria model with a powerful party bargaining on my behalf and in line with my preferences. For me, that's glass half full.
- politelemon 5y agoYou don't have a choice with Apple, and that's at the crux of the definition of privacy. What you're doing is justifying a specific choice that you've made, by assuming good faith and bad faith with certain companies - take a few minutes to read up on recent news and you can easily see that they do make anti-privacy choices. Their aim is not user privacy, but user lock-in. But convincing us that it's in our best interest is what's called marketing. There is no 'bargaining' going on, there is no cafetaria, nor are your best interests in anyone's minds. It's simply a gray area in which your data is the currency. Privacy is not achieved through brand loyalty, it can only be achieved through understanding what you've got and taking control of it. It dismays me to see attitudes like this so prevalent in today's privacy conversations, I feel it will be 10 years too late before we collectively realize what a mistake we're making.
- thaway2839 5y agoIt's really interesting to see certain Apple users justify how Apple's choices are always the right one (even when they are diametrically opposite to Apple's choice from a few months ago, at which point they also defended the Apple choice as the right one). And I say this as a long time Apple user, both on macs and iPhones.
- yladiz 5y ago> You don't have a choice with Apple A choice about what? Your privacy? Privacy is not a choice, it's a right, so if that's what you mean I don't really understand.
- caskstrength 5y agoDo you suggest that Google apps on iOS are somehow exempt from new privacy protections?
- shawabawa3 5y agoIt wouldn't be that straightforward Probably what OP is suggesting is that in return for that $5B, Apple will call up Google and say "hey we're adding these new privacy protections, will that be a problem?" and Google will have time in advance to get around them
- alwillis 5y agoFor Apple, which has a market cap of over $3 trillion, the $10B from Google is the equivalent of sofa cushion money. Apple isn’t going do any favors for Google for a measly $10B. It’s much more meaningful for Google and Google knows it. For them, it’s a bargain, as it gives its advertisers access to customers who actually spend money.
- nsenifty 5y agoYou're comparing income with market cap. Apple's net income in 2021 was around $100B of which $10B is a significant sum.
- throwawaythekey 5y agoGoogle has an easier time providing targeted ads via search keywords. Facebook users spend most of their time in their feeds which is a relatively weak signal for monetization. Note that google appears to be acting as though they are effected, you can see this in their push for FLOC/topics (but the impetus for this could be coming from android moreso than search)
- YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y agodang can you please enforce the rules more? In the last weeks hn is getting overrun with spammy troll accounts splattering conspiracy theories left and right.
- throwaway4good 5y agoThis is unfortunately a remarkably well-documented conspiracy theory.
- trollied 5y agoSomething isn't a conspiracy theory just because it's an opinion that you do not like. I personally found the OPs take interesting, though obviously written a little tongue-in-cheek.
- throwaway4good 5y agoThe relationship between Google and Apple is outrageous, criminal even. Yet for some reason it hasn't dawned on the Economist. Maybe some clear spoken shitposts on a popular tech site is what it takes.
- YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y agoit's a conspiracy theory because he presents it as facts without providing sources for his statements. it's about how not what. yikes.
- scim-knox-twox 5y ago> A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. https://wikiless.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory?lang=en https://wikiless.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory?lang=en It's not a conspiracy when we know that GAFA works together: https://gizmodo.com/google-paid-apple-to-stay-out-of-the-search-business-l-1848306759 https://gizmodo.com/google-paid-apple-to-stay-out-of-the-sea...
- ksec 5y agoIt isn't $5B, it is $10B+. Google's TAC in 2021 was $13B.
- 00000000005 5y agoOK so Google pays Apple around $13,000,000,000 per year. How much does Facebook pay Apple?
- ksec 5y agoA tiny bit with their in App revenue split which Facebook tries to avoid. Although I doubt paying for it make much difference. You can tell Tim Cook and Apple, just like HN hate Facebook and Ads ( Which they have to backtrack and state they dont hate ads ). It is an ideology crash.
- actuator 5y agoNo, it is not an ideology crash. Apple is perfectly fine serving their own ads for which they are building a targeting profile. It is an incentive crash. Apple tried iAds before and it didn't work as they couldn't do good personalised ads, this is them keeping the advantage just for them and getting good PR. Apple is not a saint in this, not even a single bit.
- throwaway4good 5y ago5B? Nah, champ. The price is 15B ...
- xvector 5y agoThis is amazing! I love HN.
- tarsinge 5y agoOnly true in the US though.
- d12bb 5y agoThis is double bullshit: 1. All Apple did was giving users a choice (and they should've done that ages ago). If users didn't mind being tracked, or liked the "more relevant adverts" tracking provides, they would not have opted out. 2. Google is subject to exactly the same rules as Facebook is. Their apps have to ask for permission to track as Facebook's do, and Safari (which enforces privacy in many ways, too) is the same for google.com as for facebook.com. They pay Apple for being search provider in Safari and Siri the same way they pay Mozilla, because searches mean data and displayed adverts.
- oarsinsync 5y ago> 1. All Apple did was giving users a choice (and they should've done that ages ago). If users didn't mind being tracked, or liked the "more relevant adverts" tracking provides, they would not have opted out. The choice existed for a long time. What Apple did was make that choice front and centre for everyone, as opposed to being buried in a settings menu for privacy-conscious people to hunt down.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- treis 5y agoGoogle doesn't really have apps though. Their users see ads through the browser and so, from what I understand, are unaffected by the change.
- falcolas 5y agoNot counting gmail, calendar, or the docs/drive suite, Google has >12 applications on the app store. Apple's "search" is pretty crappy WRT seeing what a dev has released (or at least the Google LLC "dev"), hence the range. And ads definitely show up in YouTube and such.
- reaperducer 5y agoApple's "search" is pretty crappy WRT seeing what a dev has released Click on the dev's name and it shows everything that dev has published. https://apps.apple.com/us/developer/google-llc/id281956209 https://apps.apple.com/us/developer/google-llc/id281956209
- bla3 5y agoThis suggests Google should charge FB a few billion per year, lest they implement the same feature in Android. They could spin it as a research partnership to investigate the social effects of platform tracking. As long as partners keep paying, the research can continue, but once they stop paying it's time to act on the research results...
- anovikov 5y agoThing is on Android, hardly anyone pays for everything. No money from iOS, no money... Many people i know say that Facebook ads simply stopped working. You pour in $100K and... nothing happens.