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 ye

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.