8 ms·
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
by davars 3y ago
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 3y agoGoogle 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 3y agoWe 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 3y agoI have a hard time believing that many billions of people know about adtech surveillance in any way.
- stronglikedan 3y agoOf 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 3y agoDo 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 3y ago> 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 3y agoNo. 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 3y ago> 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/ldv1ey/my_phone_is_listening_to_me_for_targeted_ads/ https://old.reddit.com/r/CasualConversation/comments/ldv1ey/...
- riscy 3y agoSince 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.
- fsflover 3y agoAny proof of "vast majority"? I have a different information: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35056857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35056857, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8751605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8751605
- bwanab 3y agoThat 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 3y agoThat 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 3y ago> 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 3y agoI 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 3y agoungoogled chromium my man
- albert180 3y agoIt'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
- i5-2520M 3y agoI use DNS level blocking, it syncs with everything I use, and has better compatibility and faster rendering performance (battery life). Don't want to use FF on Windows either due to the mentioned issues. On windows I have also found FF RAM usage is significantly higher.
- BugsJustFindMe 3y ago> 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 3y ago> 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 3y agoI would prefer that Apple pop up a list of all search engines and let users choose.
- randomdata 3y agoSounds like an unpleasant user experience.
- rstupek 3y agoApple has a settings screen where you can choose from 6 possible search engines. Mine is set to ddg
- Jensson 3y agoTell 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.
- mminer237 3y agoI think the problem is that Google Search doesn't have to pay Android $18 billion/year to make it the default option there.
- issafram 3y agoWell it would be the phone manufacturers at that point
- babypuncher 3y agoThe 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 3y agoI 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 3y agoI'm surprised, what brand is it?
- Jensson 3y agoWas 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 3y agoWhat 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?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- babypuncher 3y agoGoogle 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 3y agoIf 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-mulled-2016-billion-dollar-apple-investment-vp-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-28/microsoft...
- turquoisevar 3y agoIf 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 3y agoThe 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.