8 ms·

Google pays Apple 36% of the revenue it earns from searches in Safari

248 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

Animats 3y ago
It's amazing how much Google is paying for traffic. The alternatives to Google are not that great. They're terrified of competition.
- gpas 3y ago
  In my day to day life Google as a search engine has completely failed. What once was a place to find informations is now a jungle full of traps. DDG is my default, but GPT on Bing is the future. The alternatives are there, even doing better for some tasks.
YetAnotherNick 3y ago
It's 36% of revenue not even profit. Why would Google do such a deal?
- thrill 3y ago
  Because they believe it's in their financial interest to not have Apple's traffic go elsewhere. Even if they broke even on the deal, it starves the competition.
  - olliej 3y ago
    Which is why this is coming up in an antitrust trial. People do talk about how “Google is legitimately better than the competition”[1] while ignoring the competition that never happens because there’s no path to profitability due to googl’s entrenched position. [1] which isn’t even necessarily true anymore: Google’s search results are awful these days and have been for years, because Google’s no longer competing on search it’s competing on ads.
    - xvilka 3y ago
      > Google’s search results are awful these days. Absolutely agree. One of the reasons I switched to Kagi.
      - kiwijamo 3y ago
        Same here although I went to DDG.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      It absolutely is. Even bing/ddg is better now. Though I find I use search very little now. If I just want to know something I don't Google it anymore, I just ask chatgpt. Because it will give me an actual answer instead of a long list of clickbait sites I have to sift through to find my answer. The only time search still makes sense to me is when I need to find an actual website which is actually not all that often.
- mcphage 3y ago
  Because it motivates Apple to not develop their own search engine.
  - crossroadsguy 3y ago
    As in Google thinks Apple, a company that hasn’t been able to run a first rate (no make it second rate) software service after years - not one, will be able to make something that replaces Google Search? That’s a bit difficult to believe. But then I believe Google wasn’t thinking Apple could do it well at all. I think Google is sure of - is the typical Apple customer base that will just gobble up whatever Apple shoves down their throat, heartily. Yeah, I think it’s this one :)
    - fooker 3y ago
      OTOH Apple could easily buy a company that has a good search product. And it could even rival Google if they don't have to optimize for increasing ad revenue.
      - chias 3y ago
        Please, please no. In the last six months I have finally found an independent search engine I actually like. Don't you dare take it away from me.
      - anukin 3y ago
        Have they not done the same with ML/AI and have very little to show for it. What makes you think the result would be different in search?
        fooker 3y ago
        One is a research problem, the other is a an engineering problem. Sure search was a research problem 30 years ago, but most competent undergrads can design a search engine now. You need engineering power to scale it and admins to keep it running.
    - 3y ago
- JCM9 3y ago
  Because most users don’t switch the default search settings on their phone and Google’s search revenue would plummet if they lost iPhone traffic. Basically Google depends on paying another company to make sure a bunch of people accidentally use their core product. Yes, that’s a pretty crappy spot for Google to be in but they’ve not had much luck in any business outside search so they’re sorta stuck.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Google's core product is advertising, not search.
    - lancesells 3y ago
      With most of that advertising revenue coming from their search engine. If Bing was the default Google ad revenue would go down by billions.
    - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      Search ads
    - EricE 3y ago
      And just how do you think they deliver the bulk of their advertising?!?
- taspeotis 3y ago
  Because it’s worth 36% of revenue? Google is not unsophisticated, if it was worth less they would pay less.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > Google is not unsophisticated, if it was worth less they would pay less. That isn't how relationships work, regardless of sophistication. There was a link yesterday about bug bounties, so here's a story from my time handling bug bounties: 1. A major website published a policy setting out their payment schedule for various types of vulnerabilities. 2. A particular researcher submitted an issue which he plausibly characterized as falling into a high-value class of vulnerabilities. He received an award based on that classification. 3. The same guy continued to find vulnerabilities on that platform. He would always include a discussion of how to use his new vulnerability to implement an attack in the high-value category. There was an obvious reason for this: his typical vulnerability was a bog-standard cross site scripting attack, and XSS was specifically listed in the payment schedule as less valuable than the attack type this researcher wanted to be paid for. 4. Every time one of these reports came in, I would forward it to the company with the note "This is a standard cross-site scripting attack, and your policy specifies that it is worth a bounty of $XXX. The researcher notes that this vulnerability can be used to implement an attack with effect Y, and he is correct, but this is true of all cross-site scripting attacks on your site." 5. Then the company would pay out the higher-value bounty. So this is an example of the value of the report being set unambiguously in public, and a large, "sophisticated" company deliberately ignoring that because they didn't want to adjust their relationship with one particular researcher. (Other researchers reporting identical vulnerabilities didn't know the magic words; they got the listed payout for XSS.)
- mdasen 3y ago
  Because if Google doesn't, then it could see its search monopoly evaporate. The vast majority of rich people in the world use iPhones. In the US/Canada/UK/Australia/Japan and many more rich countries, the iPhone is the most common device - and even within those countries, the iPhone's demographics skew wealthier. iPhone users are a ton more valuable to advertisers than Android users - they have more money and they're willing to pay for premium things. Let's say Apple switched to Bing. Most users won't know how to change their search settings so Bing will now get 90%+ of iPhone search traffic (and the most valuable search traffic). This puts rocket fuel into Bing's ad business. Advertisers don't just think Google and nothing else. Suddenly, Bing is potentially more important since iPhone (and Mac) users that they want to reach are going through Bing. This has big implications for Google's ad business beyond just traffic loss. When we're talking about bidding, more bidders push up the price. It's not just about losing the iPhone's traffic. It's also about losing the ad bidders on the other side. If you're a monopoly on search ads and you lose 30% of your search traffic to a competitor, you are probably losing a lot more than 30% of your revenue. This is because part of your revenue exists due to people getting outbid. Let's say that you and I are bidding for the "laptop" keyword. You bid $1 and I bid $2 to outbid you. Google gets $2. If I decide to move my bidding over to Bing, you get the laptop keyword for $1 and Google's revenue is halved for that keyword - and they're only getting 70% as much traffic on top of that. As traffic shifts, bidders will shift. As bidders shift, the amount paid for the traffic still coming to Google could decline in addition to their traffic declining. So it's not just the loss of Apple-device traffic. It's the loss of bidders that drive up the price of ads even when they lose. And this has knock-on effects for Google's businesses. If Bing's search ads get this rocket fuel, they start getting the attention to take on Google's ad business for publishers. Google has been steering searches to their properties, but all of a sudden Bing could start steering searches to Microsoft owned properties. Maybe LinkedIn figures out how to get people to post videos in a YouTube-competitive way - and with the most valuable traffic being steered toward those videos. Yea, LinkedIn is supposed to be professional, but it's kinda lost a lot of that over time with random click bait already. Being the default search engine is a powerful position. You might say that you'd use Google no matter what and we're on HN so you probably know how to change the default search engine. Most people would just end up going along with whatever the default is. Google rose to prominence via their search results, but people aren't feeling as happy about Google's search today. Google has kept their dominance by paying to be the default search engine for almost everyone - either by paying Apple and Mozilla or by paying engineers to create Chrome (and putting a lot of marketing money behind it).
- quickthrowman 3y ago
  Because iOS users are substantially more valuable than Android users, 6-8x more valuable. I’m positive that Google comes out ahead on this by selling ads to iOS users.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cyclecount 3y ago
The biggest potential outcome of this trial is that the Google-Apple deal is deemed illegal and maybe that forces Apple to buy or build their own search engine. There is clearly no real competition in search, and just because Google’s stagnant product is currently the “best” doesn’t excuse the ways in which it continues to degrade in quality and become more user-hostile.
- r00fus 3y ago
  Apple is not going into search any time soon. It could mean they take a greater interest in DDG, Bing, etc.
  - franczesko 3y ago
    DDG is Bing. They use their API
  - emmet 3y ago
    DDG is dreadful if you aren’t in America. They have to be content with ruining search results for the rest of the world, which I somehow doubt.
    - kelipso 3y ago
      I'm in the US and DDG is my default because privacy or something but pretty much any remotely complex query, I end up switching to google and get way better results.
    - kiwijamo 3y ago
      I am in New Zealand and I find DDG works well. I switched from Google several years ago and whenever I accidently use Google (e.g. on a new device) I must say I wasn't impressed with the quality of Google's results -- DDG is easily on par or even better.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    Worth mentioning Kagi. I’m a paying customer and it’s routinely better than Google, it’s now my default. If it wasn’t for maps I’m not sure how much I would use Google at all any more.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
What a headline! > Google pays Apple Inc. 36% of the revenue it earns from search advertising made through the Safari browser Very different story.
- frumper 3y ago
  To be honest, that's what I read the headline as meaning.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    Yeah, I get it too after learning the actual context but it was absolutely not the first meaning I got. It’s like how Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  “Google sees nearly 3x ROI from paying to be the default search engine on Safari”
  - hollerith 3y ago
    That's not even close to the actual meaning of return on investment.
    - hotnfresh 3y ago
      It’s for-sure at least close. To the meaning, anyway. (You’re right that putting it through the proper formula, the figure that comes out is more like a 2x return—I was a bit hasty. The total value is 3x, not what Google sees)
      - hollerith 3y ago
        Investment has a precise meaning in accounting, and the money Google pays Apple does not satisfy that definition. You can tell because Google did not receive any stocks, equity shares, notes or bonds in exchange for the money given. It is a marketing expense is not an investment. Whether it helpful to Google's bottom line for Google to incur the expense depends on all the other expenses entailed in pursuing the revenue opportunity. Programmer salaries for instance. Investments don't have that quality where the attractiveness of the investment depends on many other investment amounts. Financial accounting is not hard to learn. It is not quantum physics. Is it too much to ask that if you have not yet learned it, then please do not use terms with technical meanings such as "return on investment" or ROI?
r00fus 3y ago
From Google's point of view - this is a worthwhile origination fee. If you lose the entire "default" iOS population, you could lose a generation of minds in a key market (US mobile users). The more people dissociate "search" with "google it", the less Google makes on their larger non-iOS search revenue.
- doctorpangloss 3y ago
  The ad ecosystem is pretty complex. While you and I have opinions about it, and Google's business model, the problem with the DoJ is: it does NOT have opinions about advertising. It doesn't seem to have a coherent grip on the WHY behind this stuff at all, it seems to forget that courts legislate all the time, that opinions matter. Maybe instead of courtroom antics and bullshit about making Google look bad; and maybe instead of narrowly focusing on the case law and quote enquote winnable that's-how-the-law-works arguments... they should go and pitch a persuasive opinion on why any of this shit matters. Because they're leaving an intellectual vacuum to be filled by fucking podcasters, all but guaranteeing the DoJ will lose.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    You think the Department of Justice should launch a propaganda campaign instead of using legal argument in a trial?
mpalczewski 3y ago
I've always had the sense that Google was really bad at negotiating.
- repelsteeltje 3y ago
  Close enough to the regular 30% Apple tax. Plus a 6% cherry on top — because Google has enough to spend; especially since search is their core business.
  - hightrix 3y ago
    Ads are their core business today. Search is only there to serve more ads. Google stopped being a search company when they bought/merged with double click. Google without ads is an unprofitable company that constantly makes bad technology bets and cancels projects more often than they release anything useful.
- modeless 3y ago
  And in court. It wouldn't be surprising to me if they lost to Epic after Apple won, despite actually already allowing sideloading and alternative app stores.
  - d3w4s9 3y ago
    You are dreaming and there is no way that will happen.
- sdwr 3y ago
  Goes along with the "don't be evil" mantra. They started as pure tech and found a money geyser, no reason to upset the applecart when they're already making out like bandits.
- msoad 3y ago
  iPhone users won’t change anything if their “googling” experience is not powered by Google
- majani 3y ago
wnevets 3y ago
[flagged]
- HumblyTossed 3y ago
  huh?
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    Google paid Apple to be the default search so that Google gets your search queries. Apple can be bought.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
LastTrain 3y ago
Seems like a decent incentive for them to continue investing in Android
- isodev 3y ago
  Why? They already have all users on Android with Google search by default.
  - samsonradu 3y ago
    To get Apple's users to switch to Android probably.
  - gpm 3y ago
    Because they earn 56.25% (1/0.64 - 1) more from any user they can attract to Android from iOS (at least with regards to search)
    - isodev 3y ago
      Google is an ad company. The products they make are just good enough to reach a certain number of users and only if they get good telemetry and behavioural signals out of it. Imagine how much more expensive (and risky) it would be to focus on products that would appeal to a larger user base. In the long term, 36% is nothing compared to the investment and costs of trying to make more people switch to Android.
    - Terretta 3y ago
      > they earn 56.25% (1/0.64 - 1) more from any user they can attract to Android from iOS Look at downloads versus spend (circa 2018 graphic, as this is an older deal): https://www.data.ai/en/insights/market-data/global-app-downloads-grew-15-and-consumer-spend-20-in-q2-2018-versus-a-year-ago/ https://www.data.ai/en/insights/market-data/global-app-downl... And check out concepts of share of wallet and size of wallet per user: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/share-of-wallet.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/share-of-wallet.asp I'm not debating your stat, I'm just saying it's more complicated than that, if you're looking at ad market pay for performance.
sidcool 3y ago
How is this not extortion?
- HumblyTossed 3y ago
  "What the market will bear..."
- isodev 3y ago
  Because Google wants it? They don’t have to be the default search…
- tedunangst 3y ago
  Huh? We've gone from being mad at Google for bribing Apple to being mad at Apple for charging too much?
  - amf12 3y ago
    > Huh? We've gone from being mad at Google for bribing Apple to being mad at Apple for charging too much? Isn't accepting a bribe also as bad as offering it? Apple is a gate keeper of a huge segment. There can only be one default. You either come to an agreement with them or lose. If the general consensus is that Google is is abusing monopoly in this case, what should the resolution be? - Google isn't allowed to pay Apple, but other search engines are. - Nobody is allowed to pay Apple, and Apple should pick one without getting anything in return. - Apple is forced to offer a choice on startup. But which search engines would be at the top of this list? And how should Apple decide that? The first option seems unfair to Google (in a lawsuit about "fairness"). The second and third a loss for Apple more than Google.
- meepmorp 3y ago
  Turn that around - would you, please, explain how this is extortion. It sounds like both parties benefit from the arrangement, and they've renewed the agreement numerous times. Monopolistic or anti-competitive, I could see that, but I'm not sure I follow your point about it being extortion.
filipeherculano 3y ago
this makes me wonder if the "Here's what I found on the web." from Siri is intentional and not due lack of ability to parse and provide an appropriate response.
paweladamczuk 3y ago
https://archive.li/h9tHz https://archive.li/h9tHz
jasode 3y ago
For those unaware of history, Google's "ad revenue share" deal with Apple is similar to the early "distribution deal" that ~2002 Google struck with America Online. The basic financial enticement is the same: use our search engine and we'll give you a cut of the ad revenue. I've not yet seen a legal explanation of why the Apple ad revenue share deal is now "illegal" and yet the AOL deal wasn't. Somewhat similar deals also happen with tv networks where they sign exclusive "distribution deals" with sports leagues and they share the money they get from tv commercials (the ads). "Put your NFL Monday game or college basketball tournament on our tv network and you get some of our ad revenue." I guess the difference now is that Google is really big. Ok. But is that really the only reason?
- lvzw 3y ago
  Exclusive deals can present antitrust issues, but the kicker is that this isn't even an exclusive deal, it's a default deal! Users can still can still use other search engines on iOS devices.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    Defaults matter. Google's internal communication indicates that they know this. Microsoft testified that defaults matter and that unless they (or anyone else) could put up more money than Google then they had no shot. You could innovate and make a better product and it doesn't matter because you can't outbid Google.
    - ion1c 3y ago
      In Europe Androids have had user decided default browser/search engine selection in the out of box set up for years. Google still wins massively because users know it is simply a superior product.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Part of the antitrust issue is that Apple never developed their own search engine because of these payments. Google paid Apple to not compete. I doubt that the same number of people willingly choose Google, otherwise they wouldn't be paying so much money to be the default. That's a lot of money to throw away.
Tao3300 3y ago
Is that what they pay Mozilla too? I know that that deal is one of the things keeping the lights on for them.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wmf 3y ago
  I'm guessing they pay Mozilla a lower percentage which is why they want the number kept secret.
choppaface 3y ago
> According to Bloomberg Law, Google attorney John Schmidtlein "visibly cringed" when Murphy revealed the confidential information, which Google had initially claimed needed to be kept secret because otherwise it “would unreasonably undermine Google’s competitive standing in relation to both competitors and other counterparties.” Well yes making that data public _will_ undermine Google's competitive standing. But that standing was obtained illegally through years of obstructing price discovery despite running a giant ad exchange with auctions that are supposed to be based upon honest numbers. But by now the market has probably already priced in the impact of these revelations?
- nickff 3y ago
  What price discovery has Google been obstructing, that of search ads, of browser defaults, or something else? I don't really understand how either of the first two would impact Google's popularity, so could you please explain that as well?
  - olliej 3y ago
    The price discovery of it in the browser, literally the thing that was accidentally leaked, that this article is about. What part of this article talking about payments to be the default search engine would imply search ads or popularity as being relevant?
    - nickff 3y ago
      The parent talked about “… through years of obstructing price discovery despite running a giant ad exchange with auctions…”, so I think it might be the price discovery of ads may be what they’re talking about, though I can’t be certain.
      - choppaface 3y ago
        Price discovery of everything Google has yet to disclose to investors. The deals suggest search is much less profitable than indicated in SEC filings. But also price discovery for competition and content. E.g. Google feeds a ton of Wikipedia content to iOS users through search results. If Wikipedia knew how large the private Apple-Google deal was, maybe they’d ask for a cut or throttle usage.
Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
Puts Apple's marketing in a new light, doesn't it? >We’re committed to keeping your personal information safe. That’s why we innovate ways to safeguard your privacy on your device, why we’re up front about how we personalize your experience, and why we equip developers with the best tools to protect your data.[0] Subtly left out that 36% cut they get from making a data collection company the first thing you see in thier app, huh? [0]https://www.apple.com/ge/privacy/approach-to-privacy/ https://www.apple.com/ge/privacy/approach-to-privacy/
- hn_version_0023 3y ago
  You know, I'm beginning to think this whole "Internet" thing was a bad idea
  - WesolyKubeczek 3y ago
    Humanity is a bad idea, look how many good for nothing humans have got produced and prospered so far…
    - acheron 3y ago
      In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
      - WesolyKubeczek 3y ago
        Exactly that reference.
  - bcrosby95 3y ago
    The internet is fine. Normalizing the pursuit of profit above all else is the problem. Companies have done way worse than this in the past 200 years.
  - glitchc 3y ago
    Nah, the internet will survive these goons.
internet2000 3y ago
I love Gruber's take: > All those developers complaining about Apple’s 70/30 split for App Store revenue should take note: even Google only gets a 64/36 split for search.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- danShumway 3y ago
  Isn't this kind of suggesting the opposite? Google's payments are being brought up in a trial where the government is suggesting that 36% is a massive amount of money to pay and is evidence of Google's willingness to pay billions of dollars and a massive percentage of their search revenue just to maintain a monopoly over iOS search. The followup question is, if 36% of Safari search revenue is the cost of buying a search monopoly on iPhone, and if that's considered to be such a large amount of money to pay that it's evidence of how much Google values being the default search on iOS, then are developers getting something equivalent for their 30%? App developers pay 30% of their iOS revenue and they get way fewer benefits. If 36% is the price of a monopoly, iOS has got developers paying 30% just for access to the platform. But maybe if devs paid an extra 6% Apple would install them by default on every iPhone? The iOS app store is a separate conversation and I don't think it should be compared to Google's payments. The context of both payment structures is different, and I don't want to act like they are directly comparable. But it is weird to me that anyone would suggest that comparing them somehow makes the app store payments look good. You're paying monopoly-level prices just to be listed on the store; if you're comparing the two then Google is getting a much better deal here than iOS developers are getting. I mean, heck, I'll pay Apple 36% of all iOS revenue I ever make if they're willing to make my apps the default out-of-the-box experience on every single phone that they sell.
readams 3y ago
Shows the value of a platform monopoly. Why is Google the one on trial and not Apple?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- gigel82 3y ago
  Shh, don't say that part out loud... Apple can do no evil! /s
- tebbers 3y ago
  It’s an interesting take and one I hadn’t considered yet - Apple makes Safari the only game in town on iOS to prevent Google from releasing a better browser and ensuring that Google has to pay them $26bn a year.
  - astrange 3y ago
    You can use the Google and Chrome apps if you want. I use it for image searching.
  - robertoandred 3y ago
    Except Google has had a browser on iOS for a long, long time.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Google can and does have a browser that defaults to a Google search on iOS. They don’t need a separate browser engine for that.
  - fastball 3y ago
    You can download other browsers on iOS.
- snowwrestler 3y ago
  Because “platform monopoly” is a made-up term with no legal import.
rvz 3y ago
Devastating leak for Google. Just given the upper hand to the DOJ on a silver plate. The clock is ticking to break up Google, and it is going to be a sight to behold.
- pavon 3y ago
  At no point was this being withheld from the DoJ or the judge, and was absolutely being used as evidence in the trial. It was previously sealed to prevent public disclosure as a trade secret.
- TriangleEdge 3y ago
  I think the US benefits from having tech monopolies in the global economy. I'm not convinced it's going to happen any time soon. I also don't see the incentive to break them up, whatever that means.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    It does seem like something that's bad for consumers in general, but good for the US in particular and its geopolitical goals.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wmf 3y ago
Am I the only one who thinks 36% customer acquisition cost is not crazy?
- spiderfarmer 3y ago
  I think it is crazy. Lots of businesses would be destroyed if it was that high.
- xnx 3y ago
  Definitely not the only one. Both Google and Apple (and their very highly paid economists, analysts, and CXOs) are betting that this deal is more beneficial to them than the alternatives.
  - nvy 3y ago
    >Both Google and Apple (and their very highly paid economists, analysts, and CXOs) are betting that this deal is more beneficial to them than the alternatives. That's tautological
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      Or consensus.
  - jayveeone 3y ago
    Framing the practice as customer acquisition is extremely generous.
- AuthError 3y ago
  it's not customer acquisition though, Google can most likely get lot of users off safari to chrome for cheaper but issue would be that Apple would then get incentive to build search (and like apple maps, they can just embed it into everything without option to change default) disclaimer: Googler here(not in search PA), this is my personal opinion.
  - jorvi 3y ago
mgh2 3y ago
I hope the DOJ breaks the deal so that Apple is forced to reveal its "secret" search engine, gain for consumers and the industry as a whole.
- wand3r 3y ago
  What do you mean by secret search engine?
  - keep_reading 3y ago
    Check your web server logs for AppleBot
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      It's not exactly secret: https://support.apple.com/en-jo/HT204683 https://support.apple.com/en-jo/HT204683 "Applebot is the web crawler for Apple. Products like Siri and Spotlight Suggestions use Applebot."
      - keep_reading 3y ago
        It's crawling things for me at work that I cannot imagine being used for Siri or Spotlight Suggestions, though
        gorbypark 3y ago
        Isn't the point of a crawler to crawl nearly everything? Of course they might weigh some things much heigher (recrawl wikipedia much more frequently, for example), but you don't know what might be interesting as a search result until you've crawled it!
        crazygringo 3y ago
        How is it possibly going to know whether something is appropriate for those unless it crawls them first?
bhaney 3y ago
Will Kevin be okay? Is he immune to retaliation from Google for letting that information slip?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- BeetleB 3y ago
  Why should he be? This isn't whistleblower territory. He was not compelled to provide the answer. He screwed up.
  - bhaney 3y ago
    > Why should he be? Because this seems like an honest mistake made by an academic who probably isn't used to the pressure of being a witness in a massive antitrust trial? It doesn't seem like he intentionally used his place on the stand to leak information that he knew he shouldn't or anything like that. But there's a good chance that mistake just made him an enemy in the form of a trillion dollar mega-corp, and I don't think it's unreasonable for some legal protections to be extended to him for it.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    This is a gross misunderstanding on multiple fronts. For starters, Kevin Murphy is an external expert witness and not on the payroll of Google. During trials like this, it is expected to hire outside expert witnesses to testify why party X’s thing is “good actually” and why party Y got it wrong. So Mr. Murphy will be fine. Secondly, witnesses, expert or otherwise, are indeed compelled to answer questions when on the stand. It would otherwise be quite useless to put them on the stand in the first place. What happens in cases like this, however, is that there are parts that occur only in front of the judge and the two parties for confidentiality reasons and parts that happen in public for everyone in the gallery to hear. It’s the job of the lawyers to pay attention to the questions asked to ensure that questions that could lead to answers with confidential information are answered behind closed doors. Witnesses aren’t expected to keep track of this when answering questions unless explicitly briefed by the court to save specific topics for the confidential part of the cross/direct examination. So the ones that screwed up are the lawyers, perhaps the court, but not the expert witness.
wkat4242 3y ago
Haha. Good that this leaked. These things should not be kept secret because they really put a different view on apple's privacy policies.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
warner25 3y ago
If not for this deal, what would be the default search engine in Safari? I feel like most normal people (not HN weirdos) would be angry if their browser defaulted to something other than Google when they tried to "Google something." Isn't this part of what so many people have complained about with Edge and Bing?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- gilgoomesh 3y ago
  I don't think those same "normal" people would notice if they "Google something" and the result page had a DuckDuckGo icon in the top-left.
  - xcdzvyn 3y ago
    Given the quality of DDG search results? I bet they would.
    - realusername 3y ago
      Even 5 years ago I would have said the same but Google search quality has degraded so much that I don't think changing to another one would-be noticeable to the average user.
    - SushiHippie 3y ago
      I don't think the search quality would be the problem. But they would miss these shopping ads and carousels, the restaurant reviews and direct link to google maps, and all that fuzz.
      - mrweasel 3y ago
        The shopping ads would be a huge lose to many, they are the only reason I ever visit Google these days. I feel like the shopping ads fit my queries much much better than the actual search results if I'm actively looking for a product to buy. Google as evolved into the number one product search engine. It's doesn't have ay advantage in actual search anymore. DDG, plain Bing and reskins/whitelabels like Ecosia deliver the exact same quality of result and often better, but I suspect that's because there's greater value manipulating Google results. What they can't do is compete with the search engine powering Google ads.
tapatio 3y ago
Makes you wonder why Google even makes the Pixel - nobody buys it.
- rossjudson 3y ago
  40 million people you don't know are keeping secrets from you.
  - joshuawithers 3y ago
    But they said no-one, surely 40 million people are wrong?!
- mrweasel 3y ago
  You have a point... Google just sold Google Domains to SquareSpace, even if it made them millions every year for very little effort. They must make a pretty nice profit on each device to be able to defend keeping the Pixel around, or have it be part of an overall strategy. The ongoing R&D cost for the Pixel line has to be much more than the cost of developing and running Google Domains.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
"According to Bloomberg Law, Google attorney John Schmidtlein "visibly cringed" when Murphy revealed the confidential information, which Google had initially claimed needed to be kept secret because otherwise it "would unreasonably undermine Google's competitive standing in relation to both competitors and other counterparties.""
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  Next you'll be saying that when the federal government says that information must be kept secret for national security reasons, they might not be telling the truth.
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
    Are you comparing Google with a democratically-elected national government.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
umeshunni 3y ago
Does anyone who if they minutes from the trial are publicly posted anywhere? Someone had posted this link earlier: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/772/1/united-states-of-america-v-google-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/772/1/united-s... but it doesn't have minutes.
yalogin 3y ago
It’s inline with the 30% fee apple takes for their App Store. Search from iOS is probably more valuable and a lot lot higher volume than any app. Essentially search is “installed” and used on all iOS devices in the world. So 36% seems ok
Mrirazak1 3y ago
I’m not surprised. But my question is isn’t this antithetical to the whole privacy stance? We don’t sell your data but we do allow companies to bargain you as a user for their products.
- chakintosh 3y ago
  Apple's Safari has built in anti-tracking tools. Apple's stance is still "we're not selling YOUR data", but they do allow your data to be anonymously shared and not point to you.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    > anti-tracking tools Do they help against fingerprinting?
    - whstl 3y ago
      Yeah, they're supposed to. One of the features is called "fingerprinting prevention" by Apple, which according to Apple's documentation hides some personalisations in the browser (like plugins, fonts, detailed OS info, etc) so that trackers can't use them to fingerprint.
      - fsflover 3y ago
        So tell us what these websites show to you: https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/, https://www.amiunique.org/ https://www.amiunique.org/.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        xctr94 3y ago
        Safari 17 on Sonoma, with advanced tracking protections activated (also outside of Private Windows). I've tried with and without adblockers. CoverYourTracks tells me I have strong browser protections but a unique fingerprint. In AmIUnique, I've a unique fingerprint too. I can see that Apple's claims to fingerprint-resistance are absolutely bogus, as the websites were able to list my fonts, plugins, etc., all things that should be protected against. I'm disappointed. I've tried all my other browsers and, in all of them, my fingerprint remains unique with plenty of information leaking.
roschdal 3y ago
As an Alphabet shareholder, I approve.
robblbobbl 3y ago
Interesting read
pantulis 3y ago
And... where does the remaining 64% come from?
niksmac 3y ago
Every time I hear “Google pays” it makes me feel good.

248 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

It's amazing how much Google is paying for traffic. The alternatives to Google are not that great. They're terrified of competition.

gpas 3y ago
In my day to day life Google as a search engine has completely failed. What once was a place to find informations is now a jungle full of traps. DDG is my default, but GPT on Bing is the future. The alternatives are there, even doing better for some tasks.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago

It's 36% of revenue not even profit. Why would Google do such a deal?

thrill 3y ago
Because they believe it's in their financial interest to not have Apple's traffic go elsewhere. Even if they broke even on the deal, it starves the competition.
- olliej 3y ago
  Which is why this is coming up in an antitrust trial. People do talk about how “Google is legitimately better than the competition”[1] while ignoring the competition that never happens because there’s no path to profitability due to googl’s entrenched position. [1] which isn’t even necessarily true anymore: Google’s search results are awful these days and have been for years, because Google’s no longer competing on search it’s competing on ads.
  - xvilka 3y ago
    > Google’s search results are awful these days. Absolutely agree. One of the reasons I switched to Kagi.
    - kiwijamo 3y ago
      Same here although I went to DDG.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    It absolutely is. Even bing/ddg is better now. Though I find I use search very little now. If I just want to know something I don't Google it anymore, I just ask chatgpt. Because it will give me an actual answer instead of a long list of clickbait sites I have to sift through to find my answer. The only time search still makes sense to me is when I need to find an actual website which is actually not all that often.
mcphage 3y ago
Because it motivates Apple to not develop their own search engine.
- crossroadsguy 3y ago
  As in Google thinks Apple, a company that hasn’t been able to run a first rate (no make it second rate) software service after years - not one, will be able to make something that replaces Google Search? That’s a bit difficult to believe. But then I believe Google wasn’t thinking Apple could do it well at all. I think Google is sure of - is the typical Apple customer base that will just gobble up whatever Apple shoves down their throat, heartily. Yeah, I think it’s this one :)
  - fooker 3y ago
    OTOH Apple could easily buy a company that has a good search product. And it could even rival Google if they don't have to optimize for increasing ad revenue.
    - chias 3y ago
      Please, please no. In the last six months I have finally found an independent search engine I actually like. Don't you dare take it away from me.
    - anukin 3y ago
      Have they not done the same with ML/AI and have very little to show for it. What makes you think the result would be different in search?
      - fooker 3y ago
        One is a research problem, the other is a an engineering problem. Sure search was a research problem 30 years ago, but most competent undergrads can design a search engine now. You need engineering power to scale it and admins to keep it running.
  - 3y ago
JCM9 3y ago
Because most users don’t switch the default search settings on their phone and Google’s search revenue would plummet if they lost iPhone traffic. Basically Google depends on paying another company to make sure a bunch of people accidentally use their core product. Yes, that’s a pretty crappy spot for Google to be in but they’ve not had much luck in any business outside search so they’re sorta stuck.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Google's core product is advertising, not search.
  - lancesells 3y ago
    With most of that advertising revenue coming from their search engine. If Bing was the default Google ad revenue would go down by billions.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    Search ads
  - EricE 3y ago
    And just how do you think they deliver the bulk of their advertising?!?
taspeotis 3y ago
Because it’s worth 36% of revenue? Google is not unsophisticated, if it was worth less they would pay less.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > Google is not unsophisticated, if it was worth less they would pay less. That isn't how relationships work, regardless of sophistication. There was a link yesterday about bug bounties, so here's a story from my time handling bug bounties: 1. A major website published a policy setting out their payment schedule for various types of vulnerabilities. 2. A particular researcher submitted an issue which he plausibly characterized as falling into a high-value class of vulnerabilities. He received an award based on that classification. 3. The same guy continued to find vulnerabilities on that platform. He would always include a discussion of how to use his new vulnerability to implement an attack in the high-value category. There was an obvious reason for this: his typical vulnerability was a bog-standard cross site scripting attack, and XSS was specifically listed in the payment schedule as less valuable than the attack type this researcher wanted to be paid for. 4. Every time one of these reports came in, I would forward it to the company with the note "This is a standard cross-site scripting attack, and your policy specifies that it is worth a bounty of $XXX. The researcher notes that this vulnerability can be used to implement an attack with effect Y, and he is correct, but this is true of all cross-site scripting attacks on your site." 5. Then the company would pay out the higher-value bounty. So this is an example of the value of the report being set unambiguously in public, and a large, "sophisticated" company deliberately ignoring that because they didn't want to adjust their relationship with one particular researcher. (Other researchers reporting identical vulnerabilities didn't know the magic words; they got the listed payout for XSS.)
mdasen 3y ago
Because if Google doesn't, then it could see its search monopoly evaporate. The vast majority of rich people in the world use iPhones. In the US/Canada/UK/Australia/Japan and many more rich countries, the iPhone is the most common device - and even within those countries, the iPhone's demographics skew wealthier. iPhone users are a ton more valuable to advertisers than Android users - they have more money and they're willing to pay for premium things. Let's say Apple switched to Bing. Most users won't know how to change their search settings so Bing will now get 90%+ of iPhone search traffic (and the most valuable search traffic). This puts rocket fuel into Bing's ad business. Advertisers don't just think Google and nothing else. Suddenly, Bing is potentially more important since iPhone (and Mac) users that they want to reach are going through Bing. This has big implications for Google's ad business beyond just traffic loss. When we're talking about bidding, more bidders push up the price. It's not just about losing the iPhone's traffic. It's also about losing the ad bidders on the other side. If you're a monopoly on search ads and you lose 30% of your search traffic to a competitor, you are probably losing a lot more than 30% of your revenue. This is because part of your revenue exists due to people getting outbid. Let's say that you and I are bidding for the "laptop" keyword. You bid $1 and I bid $2 to outbid you. Google gets $2. If I decide to move my bidding over to Bing, you get the laptop keyword for $1 and Google's revenue is halved for that keyword - and they're only getting 70% as much traffic on top of that. As traffic shifts, bidders will shift. As bidders shift, the amount paid for the traffic still coming to Google could decline in addition to their traffic declining. So it's not just the loss of Apple-device traffic. It's the loss of bidders that drive up the price of ads even when they lose. And this has knock-on effects for Google's businesses. If Bing's search ads get this rocket fuel, they start getting the attention to take on Google's ad business for publishers. Google has been steering searches to their properties, but all of a sudden Bing could start steering searches to Microsoft owned properties. Maybe LinkedIn figures out how to get people to post videos in a YouTube-competitive way - and with the most valuable traffic being steered toward those videos. Yea, LinkedIn is supposed to be professional, but it's kinda lost a lot of that over time with random click bait already. Being the default search engine is a powerful position. You might say that you'd use Google no matter what and we're on HN so you probably know how to change the default search engine. Most people would just end up going along with whatever the default is. Google rose to prominence via their search results, but people aren't feeling as happy about Google's search today. Google has kept their dominance by paying to be the default search engine for almost everyone - either by paying Apple and Mozilla or by paying engineers to create Chrome (and putting a lot of marketing money behind it).
quickthrowman 3y ago
Because iOS users are substantially more valuable than Android users, 6-8x more valuable. I’m positive that Google comes out ahead on this by selling ads to iOS users.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cyclecount 3y ago

The biggest potential outcome of this trial is that the Google-Apple deal is deemed illegal and maybe that forces Apple to buy or build their own search engine. There is clearly no real competition in search, and just because Google’s stagnant product is currently the “best” doesn’t excuse the ways in which it continues to degrade in quality and become more user-hostile.

r00fus 3y ago
Apple is not going into search any time soon. It could mean they take a greater interest in DDG, Bing, etc.
- franczesko 3y ago
  DDG is Bing. They use their API
- emmet 3y ago
  DDG is dreadful if you aren’t in America. They have to be content with ruining search results for the rest of the world, which I somehow doubt.
  - kelipso 3y ago
    I'm in the US and DDG is my default because privacy or something but pretty much any remotely complex query, I end up switching to google and get way better results.
  - kiwijamo 3y ago
    I am in New Zealand and I find DDG works well. I switched from Google several years ago and whenever I accidently use Google (e.g. on a new device) I must say I wasn't impressed with the quality of Google's results -- DDG is easily on par or even better.
- CPLX 3y ago
  Worth mentioning Kagi. I’m a paying customer and it’s routinely better than Google, it’s now my default. If it wasn’t for maps I’m not sure how much I would use Google at all any more.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago

What a headline! > Google pays Apple Inc. 36% of the revenue it earns from search advertising made through the Safari browser Very different story.

frumper 3y ago
To be honest, that's what I read the headline as meaning.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  Yeah, I get it too after learning the actual context but it was absolutely not the first meaning I got. It’s like how Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...
hotnfresh 3y ago
“Google sees nearly 3x ROI from paying to be the default search engine on Safari”
- hollerith 3y ago
  That's not even close to the actual meaning of return on investment.
  - hotnfresh 3y ago
    It’s for-sure at least close. To the meaning, anyway. (You’re right that putting it through the proper formula, the figure that comes out is more like a 2x return—I was a bit hasty. The total value is 3x, not what Google sees)
    - hollerith 3y ago
      Investment has a precise meaning in accounting, and the money Google pays Apple does not satisfy that definition. You can tell because Google did not receive any stocks, equity shares, notes or bonds in exchange for the money given. It is a marketing expense is not an investment. Whether it helpful to Google's bottom line for Google to incur the expense depends on all the other expenses entailed in pursuing the revenue opportunity. Programmer salaries for instance. Investments don't have that quality where the attractiveness of the investment depends on many other investment amounts. Financial accounting is not hard to learn. It is not quantum physics. Is it too much to ask that if you have not yet learned it, then please do not use terms with technical meanings such as "return on investment" or ROI?

r00fus 3y ago

From Google's point of view - this is a worthwhile origination fee. If you lose the entire "default" iOS population, you could lose a generation of minds in a key market (US mobile users). The more people dissociate "search" with "google it", the less Google makes on their larger non-iOS search revenue.

doctorpangloss 3y ago
The ad ecosystem is pretty complex. While you and I have opinions about it, and Google's business model, the problem with the DoJ is: it does NOT have opinions about advertising. It doesn't seem to have a coherent grip on the WHY behind this stuff at all, it seems to forget that courts legislate all the time, that opinions matter. Maybe instead of courtroom antics and bullshit about making Google look bad; and maybe instead of narrowly focusing on the case law and quote enquote winnable that's-how-the-law-works arguments... they should go and pitch a persuasive opinion on why any of this shit matters. Because they're leaving an intellectual vacuum to be filled by fucking podcasters, all but guaranteeing the DoJ will lose.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  You think the Department of Justice should launch a propaganda campaign instead of using legal argument in a trial?

mpalczewski 3y ago

I've always had the sense that Google was really bad at negotiating.

repelsteeltje 3y ago
Close enough to the regular 30% Apple tax. Plus a 6% cherry on top — because Google has enough to spend; especially since search is their core business.
- hightrix 3y ago
  Ads are their core business today. Search is only there to serve more ads. Google stopped being a search company when they bought/merged with double click. Google without ads is an unprofitable company that constantly makes bad technology bets and cancels projects more often than they release anything useful.
modeless 3y ago
And in court. It wouldn't be surprising to me if they lost to Epic after Apple won, despite actually already allowing sideloading and alternative app stores.
- d3w4s9 3y ago
  You are dreaming and there is no way that will happen.
sdwr 3y ago
Goes along with the "don't be evil" mantra. They started as pure tech and found a money geyser, no reason to upset the applecart when they're already making out like bandits.
msoad 3y ago
iPhone users won’t change anything if their “googling” experience is not powered by Google
majani 3y ago

wnevets 3y ago

[flagged]

HumblyTossed 3y ago
huh?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  Google paid Apple to be the default search so that Google gets your search queries. Apple can be bought.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

LastTrain 3y ago

Seems like a decent incentive for them to continue investing in Android

isodev 3y ago
Why? They already have all users on Android with Google search by default.
- samsonradu 3y ago
  To get Apple's users to switch to Android probably.
- gpm 3y ago
  Because they earn 56.25% (1/0.64 - 1) more from any user they can attract to Android from iOS (at least with regards to search)
  - isodev 3y ago
    Google is an ad company. The products they make are just good enough to reach a certain number of users and only if they get good telemetry and behavioural signals out of it. Imagine how much more expensive (and risky) it would be to focus on products that would appeal to a larger user base. In the long term, 36% is nothing compared to the investment and costs of trying to make more people switch to Android.
  - Terretta 3y ago
    > they earn 56.25% (1/0.64 - 1) more from any user they can attract to Android from iOS Look at downloads versus spend (circa 2018 graphic, as this is an older deal): https://www.data.ai/en/insights/market-data/global-app-downloads-grew-15-and-consumer-spend-20-in-q2-2018-versus-a-year-ago/ https://www.data.ai/en/insights/market-data/global-app-downl... And check out concepts of share of wallet and size of wallet per user: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/share-of-wallet.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/share-of-wallet.asp I'm not debating your stat, I'm just saying it's more complicated than that, if you're looking at ad market pay for performance.

sidcool 3y ago

How is this not extortion?

HumblyTossed 3y ago
"What the market will bear..."
isodev 3y ago
Because Google wants it? They don’t have to be the default search…
tedunangst 3y ago
Huh? We've gone from being mad at Google for bribing Apple to being mad at Apple for charging too much?
- amf12 3y ago
  > Huh? We've gone from being mad at Google for bribing Apple to being mad at Apple for charging too much? Isn't accepting a bribe also as bad as offering it? Apple is a gate keeper of a huge segment. There can only be one default. You either come to an agreement with them or lose. If the general consensus is that Google is is abusing monopoly in this case, what should the resolution be? - Google isn't allowed to pay Apple, but other search engines are. - Nobody is allowed to pay Apple, and Apple should pick one without getting anything in return. - Apple is forced to offer a choice on startup. But which search engines would be at the top of this list? And how should Apple decide that? The first option seems unfair to Google (in a lawsuit about "fairness"). The second and third a loss for Apple more than Google.
meepmorp 3y ago
Turn that around - would you, please, explain how this is extortion. It sounds like both parties benefit from the arrangement, and they've renewed the agreement numerous times. Monopolistic or anti-competitive, I could see that, but I'm not sure I follow your point about it being extortion.

filipeherculano 3y ago

this makes me wonder if the "Here's what I found on the web." from Siri is intentional and not due lack of ability to parse and provide an appropriate response.

paweladamczuk 3y ago

https://archive.li/h9tHz https://archive.li/h9tHz

jasode 3y ago

For those unaware of history, Google's "ad revenue share" deal with Apple is similar to the early "distribution deal" that ~2002 Google struck with America Online. The basic financial enticement is the same: use our search engine and we'll give you a cut of the ad revenue. I've not yet seen a legal explanation of why the Apple ad revenue share deal is now "illegal" and yet the AOL deal wasn't. Somewhat similar deals also happen with tv networks where they sign exclusive "distribution deals" with sports leagues and they share the money they get from tv commercials (the ads). "Put your NFL Monday game or college basketball tournament on our tv network and you get some of our ad revenue." I guess the difference now is that Google is really big. Ok. But is that really the only reason?

lvzw 3y ago
Exclusive deals can present antitrust issues, but the kicker is that this isn't even an exclusive deal, it's a default deal! Users can still can still use other search engines on iOS devices.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  Defaults matter. Google's internal communication indicates that they know this. Microsoft testified that defaults matter and that unless they (or anyone else) could put up more money than Google then they had no shot. You could innovate and make a better product and it doesn't matter because you can't outbid Google.
  - ion1c 3y ago
    In Europe Androids have had user decided default browser/search engine selection in the out of box set up for years. Google still wins massively because users know it is simply a superior product.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      Part of the antitrust issue is that Apple never developed their own search engine because of these payments. Google paid Apple to not compete. I doubt that the same number of people willingly choose Google, otherwise they wouldn't be paying so much money to be the default. That's a lot of money to throw away.

Tao3300 3y ago

Is that what they pay Mozilla too? I know that that deal is one of the things keeping the lights on for them.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wmf 3y ago
I'm guessing they pay Mozilla a lower percentage which is why they want the number kept secret.

choppaface 3y ago

> According to Bloomberg Law, Google attorney John Schmidtlein "visibly cringed" when Murphy revealed the confidential information, which Google had initially claimed needed to be kept secret because otherwise it “would unreasonably undermine Google’s competitive standing in relation to both competitors and other counterparties.” Well yes making that data public _will_ undermine Google's competitive standing. But that standing was obtained illegally through years of obstructing price discovery despite running a giant ad exchange with auctions that are supposed to be based upon honest numbers. But by now the market has probably already priced in the impact of these revelations?

nickff 3y ago
What price discovery has Google been obstructing, that of search ads, of browser defaults, or something else? I don't really understand how either of the first two would impact Google's popularity, so could you please explain that as well?
- olliej 3y ago
  The price discovery of it in the browser, literally the thing that was accidentally leaked, that this article is about. What part of this article talking about payments to be the default search engine would imply search ads or popularity as being relevant?
  - nickff 3y ago
    The parent talked about “… through years of obstructing price discovery despite running a giant ad exchange with auctions…”, so I think it might be the price discovery of ads may be what they’re talking about, though I can’t be certain.
    - choppaface 3y ago
      Price discovery of everything Google has yet to disclose to investors. The deals suggest search is much less profitable than indicated in SEC filings. But also price discovery for competition and content. E.g. Google feeds a ton of Wikipedia content to iOS users through search results. If Wikipedia knew how large the private Apple-Google deal was, maybe they’d ask for a cut or throttle usage.

Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago

Puts Apple's marketing in a new light, doesn't it? >We’re committed to keeping your personal information safe. That’s why we innovate ways to safeguard your privacy on your device, why we’re up front about how we personalize your experience, and why we equip developers with the best tools to protect your data.[0] Subtly left out that 36% cut they get from making a data collection company the first thing you see in thier app, huh? [0]https://www.apple.com/ge/privacy/approach-to-privacy/ https://www.apple.com/ge/privacy/approach-to-privacy/

hn_version_0023 3y ago
You know, I'm beginning to think this whole "Internet" thing was a bad idea
- WesolyKubeczek 3y ago
  Humanity is a bad idea, look how many good for nothing humans have got produced and prospered so far…
  - acheron 3y ago
    In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
    - WesolyKubeczek 3y ago
      Exactly that reference.
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  The internet is fine. Normalizing the pursuit of profit above all else is the problem. Companies have done way worse than this in the past 200 years.
- glitchc 3y ago
  Nah, the internet will survive these goons.

internet2000 3y ago

I love Gruber's take: > All those developers complaining about Apple’s 70/30 split for App Store revenue should take note: even Google only gets a 64/36 split for search.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
danShumway 3y ago
Isn't this kind of suggesting the opposite? Google's payments are being brought up in a trial where the government is suggesting that 36% is a massive amount of money to pay and is evidence of Google's willingness to pay billions of dollars and a massive percentage of their search revenue just to maintain a monopoly over iOS search. The followup question is, if 36% of Safari search revenue is the cost of buying a search monopoly on iPhone, and if that's considered to be such a large amount of money to pay that it's evidence of how much Google values being the default search on iOS, then are developers getting something equivalent for their 30%? App developers pay 30% of their iOS revenue and they get way fewer benefits. If 36% is the price of a monopoly, iOS has got developers paying 30% just for access to the platform. But maybe if devs paid an extra 6% Apple would install them by default on every iPhone? The iOS app store is a separate conversation and I don't think it should be compared to Google's payments. The context of both payment structures is different, and I don't want to act like they are directly comparable. But it is weird to me that anyone would suggest that comparing them somehow makes the app store payments look good. You're paying monopoly-level prices just to be listed on the store; if you're comparing the two then Google is getting a much better deal here than iOS developers are getting. I mean, heck, I'll pay Apple 36% of all iOS revenue I ever make if they're willing to make my apps the default out-of-the-box experience on every single phone that they sell.

readams 3y ago

Shows the value of a platform monopoly. Why is Google the one on trial and not Apple?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gigel82 3y ago
Shh, don't say that part out loud... Apple can do no evil! /s
tebbers 3y ago
It’s an interesting take and one I hadn’t considered yet - Apple makes Safari the only game in town on iOS to prevent Google from releasing a better browser and ensuring that Google has to pay them $26bn a year.
- astrange 3y ago
  You can use the Google and Chrome apps if you want. I use it for image searching.
- robertoandred 3y ago
  Except Google has had a browser on iOS for a long, long time.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Google can and does have a browser that defaults to a Google search on iOS. They don’t need a separate browser engine for that.
- fastball 3y ago
  You can download other browsers on iOS.
snowwrestler 3y ago
Because “platform monopoly” is a made-up term with no legal import.

rvz 3y ago

Devastating leak for Google. Just given the upper hand to the DOJ on a silver plate. The clock is ticking to break up Google, and it is going to be a sight to behold.

pavon 3y ago
At no point was this being withheld from the DoJ or the judge, and was absolutely being used as evidence in the trial. It was previously sealed to prevent public disclosure as a trade secret.
TriangleEdge 3y ago
I think the US benefits from having tech monopolies in the global economy. I'm not convinced it's going to happen any time soon. I also don't see the incentive to break them up, whatever that means.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  It does seem like something that's bad for consumers in general, but good for the US in particular and its geopolitical goals.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

wmf 3y ago

Am I the only one who thinks 36% customer acquisition cost is not crazy?

spiderfarmer 3y ago
I think it is crazy. Lots of businesses would be destroyed if it was that high.
xnx 3y ago
Definitely not the only one. Both Google and Apple (and their very highly paid economists, analysts, and CXOs) are betting that this deal is more beneficial to them than the alternatives.
- nvy 3y ago
  >Both Google and Apple (and their very highly paid economists, analysts, and CXOs) are betting that this deal is more beneficial to them than the alternatives. That's tautological
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Or consensus.
- jayveeone 3y ago
  Framing the practice as customer acquisition is extremely generous.
AuthError 3y ago
it's not customer acquisition though, Google can most likely get lot of users off safari to chrome for cheaper but issue would be that Apple would then get incentive to build search (and like apple maps, they can just embed it into everything without option to change default) disclaimer: Googler here(not in search PA), this is my personal opinion.
- jorvi 3y ago

mgh2 3y ago

I hope the DOJ breaks the deal so that Apple is forced to reveal its "secret" search engine, gain for consumers and the industry as a whole.

wand3r 3y ago
What do you mean by secret search engine?
- keep_reading 3y ago
  Check your web server logs for AppleBot
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    It's not exactly secret: https://support.apple.com/en-jo/HT204683 https://support.apple.com/en-jo/HT204683 "Applebot is the web crawler for Apple. Products like Siri and Spotlight Suggestions use Applebot."
    - keep_reading 3y ago
      It's crawling things for me at work that I cannot imagine being used for Siri or Spotlight Suggestions, though
      - gorbypark 3y ago
        Isn't the point of a crawler to crawl nearly everything? Of course they might weigh some things much heigher (recrawl wikipedia much more frequently, for example), but you don't know what might be interesting as a search result until you've crawled it!
      - crazygringo 3y ago
        How is it possibly going to know whether something is appropriate for those unless it crawls them first?

bhaney 3y ago

Will Kevin be okay? Is he immune to retaliation from Google for letting that information slip?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
BeetleB 3y ago
Why should he be? This isn't whistleblower territory. He was not compelled to provide the answer. He screwed up.
- bhaney 3y ago
  > Why should he be? Because this seems like an honest mistake made by an academic who probably isn't used to the pressure of being a witness in a massive antitrust trial? It doesn't seem like he intentionally used his place on the stand to leak information that he knew he shouldn't or anything like that. But there's a good chance that mistake just made him an enemy in the form of a trillion dollar mega-corp, and I don't think it's unreasonable for some legal protections to be extended to him for it.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  This is a gross misunderstanding on multiple fronts. For starters, Kevin Murphy is an external expert witness and not on the payroll of Google. During trials like this, it is expected to hire outside expert witnesses to testify why party X’s thing is “good actually” and why party Y got it wrong. So Mr. Murphy will be fine. Secondly, witnesses, expert or otherwise, are indeed compelled to answer questions when on the stand. It would otherwise be quite useless to put them on the stand in the first place. What happens in cases like this, however, is that there are parts that occur only in front of the judge and the two parties for confidentiality reasons and parts that happen in public for everyone in the gallery to hear. It’s the job of the lawyers to pay attention to the questions asked to ensure that questions that could lead to answers with confidential information are answered behind closed doors. Witnesses aren’t expected to keep track of this when answering questions unless explicitly briefed by the court to save specific topics for the confidential part of the cross/direct examination. So the ones that screwed up are the lawyers, perhaps the court, but not the expert witness.

wkat4242 3y ago

Haha. Good that this leaked. These things should not be kept secret because they really put a different view on apple's privacy policies.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

warner25 3y ago

If not for this deal, what would be the default search engine in Safari? I feel like most normal people (not HN weirdos) would be angry if their browser defaulted to something other than Google when they tried to "Google something." Isn't this part of what so many people have complained about with Edge and Bing?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gilgoomesh 3y ago
I don't think those same "normal" people would notice if they "Google something" and the result page had a DuckDuckGo icon in the top-left.
- xcdzvyn 3y ago
  Given the quality of DDG search results? I bet they would.
  - realusername 3y ago
    Even 5 years ago I would have said the same but Google search quality has degraded so much that I don't think changing to another one would-be noticeable to the average user.
  - SushiHippie 3y ago
    I don't think the search quality would be the problem. But they would miss these shopping ads and carousels, the restaurant reviews and direct link to google maps, and all that fuzz.
    - mrweasel 3y ago
      The shopping ads would be a huge lose to many, they are the only reason I ever visit Google these days. I feel like the shopping ads fit my queries much much better than the actual search results if I'm actively looking for a product to buy. Google as evolved into the number one product search engine. It's doesn't have ay advantage in actual search anymore. DDG, plain Bing and reskins/whitelabels like Ecosia deliver the exact same quality of result and often better, but I suspect that's because there's greater value manipulating Google results. What they can't do is compete with the search engine powering Google ads.

tapatio 3y ago

Makes you wonder why Google even makes the Pixel - nobody buys it.

rossjudson 3y ago
40 million people you don't know are keeping secrets from you.
- joshuawithers 3y ago
  But they said no-one, surely 40 million people are wrong?!
mrweasel 3y ago
You have a point... Google just sold Google Domains to SquareSpace, even if it made them millions every year for very little effort. They must make a pretty nice profit on each device to be able to defend keeping the Pixel around, or have it be part of an overall strategy. The ongoing R&D cost for the Pixel line has to be much more than the cost of developing and running Google Domains.

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

"According to Bloomberg Law, Google attorney John Schmidtlein "visibly cringed" when Murphy revealed the confidential information, which Google had initially claimed needed to be kept secret because otherwise it "would unreasonably undermine Google's competitive standing in relation to both competitors and other counterparties.""

thaumasiotes 3y ago
Next you'll be saying that when the federal government says that information must be kept secret for national security reasons, they might not be telling the truth.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  Are you comparing Google with a democratically-elected national government.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

umeshunni 3y ago

Does anyone who if they minutes from the trial are publicly posted anywhere? Someone had posted this link earlier: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/772/1/united-states-of-america-v-google-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/772/1/united-s... but it doesn't have minutes.

yalogin 3y ago

It’s inline with the 30% fee apple takes for their App Store. Search from iOS is probably more valuable and a lot lot higher volume than any app. Essentially search is “installed” and used on all iOS devices in the world. So 36% seems ok

Mrirazak1 3y ago

I’m not surprised. But my question is isn’t this antithetical to the whole privacy stance? We don’t sell your data but we do allow companies to bargain you as a user for their products.

chakintosh 3y ago
Apple's Safari has built in anti-tracking tools. Apple's stance is still "we're not selling YOUR data", but they do allow your data to be anonymously shared and not point to you.
- fsflover 3y ago
  > anti-tracking tools Do they help against fingerprinting?
  - whstl 3y ago
    Yeah, they're supposed to. One of the features is called "fingerprinting prevention" by Apple, which according to Apple's documentation hides some personalisations in the browser (like plugins, fonts, detailed OS info, etc) so that trackers can't use them to fingerprint.
    - fsflover 3y ago
      So tell us what these websites show to you: https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/, https://www.amiunique.org/ https://www.amiunique.org/.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - xctr94 3y ago
        Safari 17 on Sonoma, with advanced tracking protections activated (also outside of Private Windows). I've tried with and without adblockers. CoverYourTracks tells me I have strong browser protections but a unique fingerprint. In AmIUnique, I've a unique fingerprint too. I can see that Apple's claims to fingerprint-resistance are absolutely bogus, as the websites were able to list my fonts, plugins, etc., all things that should be protected against. I'm disappointed. I've tried all my other browsers and, in all of them, my fingerprint remains unique with plenty of information leaking.

roschdal 3y ago

As an Alphabet shareholder, I approve.

robblbobbl 3y ago

Interesting read

pantulis 3y ago

And... where does the remaining 64% come from?

niksmac 3y ago

Every time I hear “Google pays” it makes me feel good.