8 ms·

People scratch their heads about how "just a default setting" can be worth an annual $20 billion payment from Google. It makes more sense if it's actually for a

People scratch their heads about how "just a default setting" can be worth an annual $20 billion payment from Google. It makes more sense if it's actually for a raft of wildly illegal under-the-table measures this. Imagine what it would cost Google's bottom line if Apple was truly user-focused and enabled ad-blocking on desktop, mobile and embedded safari views by default. Someone do the napkin math please!

gruez 2y ago
This conspiracy theory doesn't make sense because safari's content blockers (ie. the nerfed version of adblock) block most ads just fine, especially from google ads. The only ads that get through are first party ads (eg. youtube), but as of a few years ago adblockers could block those as well, so it's a moot point.
- jorvi 2y ago
  Yup. I understand that nerfing adblocking is definitely a big draw for Google, but Apple went the ManifestV3 route many years before, specifically to increase extension performance and privacy. Back then there was a big uproar too, but mostly because Safari extension developers charged for a new version because they had to rewrite the entire thing.
  - zarzavat 2y ago
    > specifically to increase extension performance and privacy This reasoning is so bogus that it’s hard to believe anybody could believe it in good faith. Ad blockers are essential for performance and user privacy and security. If Apple truly bought into this reasoning then they’d integrate an ad blocker like Brave does. Follow the money.
    - jorvi 2y ago
      It is not bogus. It does increase privacy because the extension no longer sees what pages you load or your web content. And it is indeed more performant. And Apple does care because later on they started to allow blockers to spread blocking rules over multiple sub-extensions. Initially they were limited on... 15 000 rules? Can't quite remember.
- TechBro8615 2y ago
  Safari content blockers are not enabled in embedded Web Views.
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    Neither is uBlock Origin.
    - connicpu 2y ago
      I get uBlock origin whenever apps open a browser view that uses my default android browser (Firefox) e.g. when I click links in the reddit app.
- basisword 2y ago
  Safari content blockers are awful compared to UBlock and I’m a Safari user. Not only does YouTube either get through or cause weird issues, YouTube now blocks you until you completely disable the extension. Content blockers often block cookie banners too which can often result in broken functionality - a nightmare when you’re trying to buy tickets to something and have to “reload without blockers” for the website to work.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Not only does YouTube either get through or cause weird issues, YouTube now blocks you until you completely disable the extension Works fine on my machine. You might need to update your filter lists or try another content blocker app. >Content blockers often block cookie banners too which can often result in broken functionality - a nightmare when you’re trying to buy tickets to something and have to “reload without blockers” for the website to work. So don't enable the filter lists that try to block cookie banners?
    - epiecs 2y ago
      Can you recommend a blocker? I have one (adblock pro), but I cant seem to find where to update the lists and sometimes YT does weird things :)
      - gruez 2y ago
        https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adguard-adblock-privacy/id1047223162 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adguard-adblock-privacy/id1047... There's also a new extension that was posted on hn a few weeks that's free and claims to have scriptlets to block youtube ads as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43204406#43208085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43204406#43208085
      - dredmorbius 2y ago
        Bypass the YT website entirely. You can perform video search through DuckDuckGo, Invidious, or Piped. The latter two are often blocked themselves, copy the video URL and feed to mpv to play through your preferred video player on the command-line: <https://mpv.io/ https://mpv.io/>
- wkat4242 2y ago
  For me the element blockers are the most important of all. It's not just about blocking ads. It's about making websites more usable. Ads are only one of those detrimental points. Many websites bombard you with big photos of their articles. I block all that with custom blocklists so the end result is a lot more like here at hacker news.
  - gruez 2y ago
    If you're talking about element blocking, that's still doable in manifest v3 with injected css elements. That's how it was done in manifest v2.
    - wkat4242 2y ago
      Is it? I didn't realise. I always use Firefox anyway. So which part isn't possible now? JavaScript injection? Ps changed the term to avoid confusion, thanks!
      - gruez 2y ago
        >So which part isn't possible now? The webRequestBlocking api, which allows the extension to inspect all request/responses in real time and act on them. With manifest v3 the extension can only supply a list of expressions to block, and the expressions that can be used is very limited.
  - gear54rus 2y ago
    Taking this as an opportuinty to pitch an extension I developed to do that and more: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/web-defuser/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/web-defuser/ The main difference between this and current element blockers is that Web Defuser allows you to block annoying behaviors (by modifying requests/responses in flight) in addition to elements. At the moment it's a bit lacking in the UI department, I'd appreciate early adopter feedback (you can contact me at gmail with my username).
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  You're downvoted so much that I can't even read your text without copy and pasting it. But you're right. When I'm using Safari with 1Blocker, I don't even notice that I'm not using Chrome with uBlock Origin. And it accomplishes that with static rules instead of with an API that reads every request.
jonas21 2y ago
It's a revenue share deal where Google pays Apple 36% of the search revenue they get from Safari users [1]. In other words, Google pays Apple ~$20B per year to be default search engine because they make ~$53B in revenue from those searches. This is profitable for both Apple and Google -- no "wildly illegal under-the-table measures" required. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/apple-gets-36percent-of-google-search-revenue-from-safari-alphabet-witness.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/apple-gets-36percent-of-goog...
- 1oooqooq 2y ago
  ah the advertising ecosystem. even when an outsider tries to think of the nastiest scam, an insider shows up to explain the boring day to day is already worse.
- roywiggins 2y ago
  How much would Google even lose if Apple didn't make Google the default search engine? People would almost certainly just use Google anyway. If Apple switched to Bing most people would use it once, get pissed off, and then switch it back to Google. It's not that weird that people are a bit suspicious that it's really worth Google $20B/year.
  - selcuka 2y ago
    That's a fair question, but even if Google makes an extra $21B/year because of that default setting it's still a good deal for Google.
  - genewitch 2y ago
    I use ddg, have basically since it was released, what's wrong with bing?
    - eru 2y ago
      Back when I tried both more extensively a few years ago, Google was a lot better giving me results relevant in Europe and Asia. Bing and duck duck go used to be very US only focused. Which made me go back to Google. I don't know if or how much that's changed.
Mawr 2y ago
Oh, people just don't understand the value of default settings. It's a constant theme even on this forum.
- tharkun__ 2y ago
  It's really surprising but also not. Defaults is exactly how Microsoft has been getting away with everything they did for forever. Anti-trust investigations? Irrelevant if you can just make it configurable but the default is Microsoft. Most people don't change default settings unless prompted and guided. And adding a setting shuts up most of "us" coz we'll just change it. The only reason they're remove the ability to configure something would've been if too many of us change the settings for too many of our friends and relatives for it to register negatively on their end and they'd try to get away with not allowing it to be configured / hiding it as much as possible until they actually get anti-trust investigated // convicted (Re: requiring Windows to ask if you want to install other browsers than Internet Explorer).
- wruza 2y ago
  Heh, sometimes you feel pressed between “but it’s just a default” and “who uses settings anyway”. Because the first group is blind and deaf to network effects of a default and the second to the fact that workflows and preferences differ.

gruez 2y ago

This conspiracy theory doesn't make sense because safari's content blockers (ie. the nerfed version of adblock) block most ads just fine, especially from google ads. The only ads that get through are first party ads (eg. youtube), but as of a few years ago adblockers could block those as well, so it's a moot point.

jorvi 2y ago
Yup. I understand that nerfing adblocking is definitely a big draw for Google, but Apple went the ManifestV3 route many years before, specifically to increase extension performance and privacy. Back then there was a big uproar too, but mostly because Safari extension developers charged for a new version because they had to rewrite the entire thing.
- zarzavat 2y ago
  > specifically to increase extension performance and privacy This reasoning is so bogus that it’s hard to believe anybody could believe it in good faith. Ad blockers are essential for performance and user privacy and security. If Apple truly bought into this reasoning then they’d integrate an ad blocker like Brave does. Follow the money.
  - jorvi 2y ago
    It is not bogus. It does increase privacy because the extension no longer sees what pages you load or your web content. And it is indeed more performant. And Apple does care because later on they started to allow blockers to spread blocking rules over multiple sub-extensions. Initially they were limited on... 15 000 rules? Can't quite remember.
TechBro8615 2y ago
Safari content blockers are not enabled in embedded Web Views.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  Neither is uBlock Origin.
  - connicpu 2y ago
    I get uBlock origin whenever apps open a browser view that uses my default android browser (Firefox) e.g. when I click links in the reddit app.
basisword 2y ago
Safari content blockers are awful compared to UBlock and I’m a Safari user. Not only does YouTube either get through or cause weird issues, YouTube now blocks you until you completely disable the extension. Content blockers often block cookie banners too which can often result in broken functionality - a nightmare when you’re trying to buy tickets to something and have to “reload without blockers” for the website to work.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Not only does YouTube either get through or cause weird issues, YouTube now blocks you until you completely disable the extension Works fine on my machine. You might need to update your filter lists or try another content blocker app. >Content blockers often block cookie banners too which can often result in broken functionality - a nightmare when you’re trying to buy tickets to something and have to “reload without blockers” for the website to work. So don't enable the filter lists that try to block cookie banners?
  - epiecs 2y ago
    Can you recommend a blocker? I have one (adblock pro), but I cant seem to find where to update the lists and sometimes YT does weird things :)
    - gruez 2y ago
      https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adguard-adblock-privacy/id1047223162 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adguard-adblock-privacy/id1047... There's also a new extension that was posted on hn a few weeks that's free and claims to have scriptlets to block youtube ads as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43204406#43208085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43204406#43208085
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      Bypass the YT website entirely. You can perform video search through DuckDuckGo, Invidious, or Piped. The latter two are often blocked themselves, copy the video URL and feed to mpv to play through your preferred video player on the command-line: <https://mpv.io/ https://mpv.io/>
wkat4242 2y ago
For me the element blockers are the most important of all. It's not just about blocking ads. It's about making websites more usable. Ads are only one of those detrimental points. Many websites bombard you with big photos of their articles. I block all that with custom blocklists so the end result is a lot more like here at hacker news.
- gruez 2y ago
  If you're talking about element blocking, that's still doable in manifest v3 with injected css elements. That's how it was done in manifest v2.
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    Is it? I didn't realise. I always use Firefox anyway. So which part isn't possible now? JavaScript injection? Ps changed the term to avoid confusion, thanks!
    - gruez 2y ago
      >So which part isn't possible now? The webRequestBlocking api, which allows the extension to inspect all request/responses in real time and act on them. With manifest v3 the extension can only supply a list of expressions to block, and the expressions that can be used is very limited.
- gear54rus 2y ago
  Taking this as an opportuinty to pitch an extension I developed to do that and more: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/web-defuser/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/web-defuser/ The main difference between this and current element blockers is that Web Defuser allows you to block annoying behaviors (by modifying requests/responses in flight) in addition to elements. At the moment it's a bit lacking in the UI department, I'd appreciate early adopter feedback (you can contact me at gmail with my username).
hombre_fatal 2y ago
You're downvoted so much that I can't even read your text without copy and pasting it. But you're right. When I'm using Safari with 1Blocker, I don't even notice that I'm not using Chrome with uBlock Origin. And it accomplishes that with static rules instead of with an API that reads every request.

jonas21 2y ago

It's a revenue share deal where Google pays Apple 36% of the search revenue they get from Safari users [1]. In other words, Google pays Apple ~$20B per year to be default search engine because they make ~$53B in revenue from those searches. This is profitable for both Apple and Google -- no "wildly illegal under-the-table measures" required. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/apple-gets-36percent-of-google-search-revenue-from-safari-alphabet-witness.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/apple-gets-36percent-of-goog...

1oooqooq 2y ago
ah the advertising ecosystem. even when an outsider tries to think of the nastiest scam, an insider shows up to explain the boring day to day is already worse.
roywiggins 2y ago
How much would Google even lose if Apple didn't make Google the default search engine? People would almost certainly just use Google anyway. If Apple switched to Bing most people would use it once, get pissed off, and then switch it back to Google. It's not that weird that people are a bit suspicious that it's really worth Google $20B/year.
- selcuka 2y ago
  That's a fair question, but even if Google makes an extra $21B/year because of that default setting it's still a good deal for Google.
- genewitch 2y ago
  I use ddg, have basically since it was released, what's wrong with bing?
  - eru 2y ago
    Back when I tried both more extensively a few years ago, Google was a lot better giving me results relevant in Europe and Asia. Bing and duck duck go used to be very US only focused. Which made me go back to Google. I don't know if or how much that's changed.

Mawr 2y ago

Oh, people just don't understand the value of default settings. It's a constant theme even on this forum.

tharkun__ 2y ago
It's really surprising but also not. Defaults is exactly how Microsoft has been getting away with everything they did for forever. Anti-trust investigations? Irrelevant if you can just make it configurable but the default is Microsoft. Most people don't change default settings unless prompted and guided. And adding a setting shuts up most of "us" coz we'll just change it. The only reason they're remove the ability to configure something would've been if too many of us change the settings for too many of our friends and relatives for it to register negatively on their end and they'd try to get away with not allowing it to be configured / hiding it as much as possible until they actually get anti-trust investigated // convicted (Re: requiring Windows to ask if you want to install other browsers than Internet Explorer).
wruza 2y ago
Heh, sometimes you feel pressed between “but it’s just a default” and “who uses settings anyway”. Because the first group is blind and deaf to network effects of a default and the second to the fact that workflows and preferences differ.