4 ms·

The $20 billion is categorized as "advertising" on Apple's Balance Sheet. I seem to recall so many commenters on HN whatabouting on the topic of advertising an

The $20 billion is categorized as "advertising" on Apple's Balance Sheet. I seem to recall so many commenters on HN whatabouting on the topic of advertising and privacy when it comes to iPhones versus android smartphones. Is that line item the justification for people to imagine, whole cloth, that Apple has an advertising incentive, and therefore is no better than Google? Wouldn't it be ironic for folks trying to equivocate Apple and Google's advertising agenda to find out that the only reason Apple has revenue from "advertising" is because Google pays them to? > The big DOJ antitrust trial over Google Search revealed last week that Big G pays Apple $20 billion a year to be the default search on iOS. That’s over 20 percent of the “services” revenue Tim Cook loves to talk about on earnings calls, but hey, where is all that money on the balance sheet? > BI’s Peter Kafka found out: Apple categorizes it as “advertising.” -- https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/6/24150326/well-thats-an-interesting-name-for-it https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/6/24150326/well-thats-an-int...

jsnell 2y ago
> The $20 billion is categorized as "advertising" on Apple's Balance Sheet No it isn't. First, that's not what a balance sheet is. A balance sheet is the list of assets and liabilities. How those assets were gained isn't tracked. What you're thinking of is the income statement. Not understanding the difference is fine, but understanding the difference would have made it clear that your source is trash Second, there is no "advertising" line item in Apple's financials. Not in the balance sheet (where it would make no sense) nor in the income statement (it is under services, but not broken out further). The rest of your post is basically fanfic, since it is based on this invalid claim.
- eutropia 2y ago
  I was hoping for this very response (one that bothered to fact check apple's released statements): yeah, balance sheet is the incorrect technical term. And yes, obviously they haven't broken it out beyond "services" income on an income statement -- otherwise it would have been news prior to the court fact findings becoming public record. > But each year, in Apple's annual report, when it breaks down each of its business lines, Apple does say: "The Company's advertising services include third-party licensing arrangements." -- https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-advertising-google-search-services-filings-2024-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-advertising-google-sea... > Apple does have a traditional advertising business...$5.4 billion last year. That being said, what's fanfic about posing a question and proposing a hypothetical? My primary point is that there are so many adtech apologists looking to drag Apple's claims of privacy, user-focused into the same realm as the ad-surveillance business: wouldn't it be deeply ironic if the vast majority of that "advertising" business (roughly 80% of it) was just payments from the biggest adtech giant of all? Which is a conditional statement: IF(advertising=google money) -> ironic situation. IF we can trust the business insider reporter's reading of income statements: > "The Company's advertising services include third-party licensing arrangements." Like renting out its search exclusivity to Google. Then it would be ironic indeed for people trying to paint them as no better than google. But my guess is that most people would just shrug and suggest that taking money for default search engine placement is the same as monetizing the entire web.
  - jsnell 2y ago
    You weren't actually posing a hypothetical though, but presenting this line item as a fact (and then imagining how that'd invalidate a bunch of criticism of Apple, which is the part that seemed to go into fanfic).

jsnell 2y ago

> The $20 billion is categorized as "advertising" on Apple's Balance Sheet No it isn't. First, that's not what a balance sheet is. A balance sheet is the list of assets and liabilities. How those assets were gained isn't tracked. What you're thinking of is the income statement. Not understanding the difference is fine, but understanding the difference would have made it clear that your source is trash Second, there is no "advertising" line item in Apple's financials. Not in the balance sheet (where it would make no sense) nor in the income statement (it is under services, but not broken out further). The rest of your post is basically fanfic, since it is based on this invalid claim.

eutropia 2y ago
I was hoping for this very response (one that bothered to fact check apple's released statements): yeah, balance sheet is the incorrect technical term. And yes, obviously they haven't broken it out beyond "services" income on an income statement -- otherwise it would have been news prior to the court fact findings becoming public record. > But each year, in Apple's annual report, when it breaks down each of its business lines, Apple does say: "The Company's advertising services include third-party licensing arrangements." -- https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-advertising-google-search-services-filings-2024-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-advertising-google-sea... > Apple does have a traditional advertising business...$5.4 billion last year. That being said, what's fanfic about posing a question and proposing a hypothetical? My primary point is that there are so many adtech apologists looking to drag Apple's claims of privacy, user-focused into the same realm as the ad-surveillance business: wouldn't it be deeply ironic if the vast majority of that "advertising" business (roughly 80% of it) was just payments from the biggest adtech giant of all? Which is a conditional statement: IF(advertising=google money) -> ironic situation. IF we can trust the business insider reporter's reading of income statements: > "The Company's advertising services include third-party licensing arrangements." Like renting out its search exclusivity to Google. Then it would be ironic indeed for people trying to paint them as no better than google. But my guess is that most people would just shrug and suggest that taking money for default search engine placement is the same as monetizing the entire web.
- jsnell 2y ago
  You weren't actually posing a hypothetical though, but presenting this line item as a fact (and then imagining how that'd invalidate a bunch of criticism of Apple, which is the part that seemed to go into fanfic).