6 ms·

The author doesn't seem to know there's no "Safari" division at Apple. It's not like Apple depends on Google exclusively to fund Safari. Apple's revenue last f

The author doesn't seem to know there's no "Safari" division at Apple. It's not like Apple depends on Google exclusively to fund Safari. Apple's revenue last fiscal year was $391 billion dollars; I think they'll be okay without Google's $18 billion. It's way more critical for Mozilla—Google's payment is what pays for Firefox.

ThrowawayR2 1y ago
> "Apple's revenue" Revenue != profit. $18 billion for something they have to maintain anyway is 100% profit.
- 3vidence 1y ago
  Was going to say this, I can't remember the exact figure but it was something crazy like 20% of net profit was from that deal. TODO: find a link to the original article that mentioned it.
  - alwillis 1y ago
    I’m aware of the difference between revenue and profit. As a percentage of profit, the $20 billion was 17.5% of Apple’s operating profit in 2022. I don’t think that has any material impact on something as established and as important as Safari.
linguae 1y ago
I agree. Safari will be fine, and Microsoft has the resources to devote to browser development. I wonder, though, about Firefox and a post-divestiture Chrome. Browsers are labor-intensive to develop due to their complexity, and the Web keeps changing. Moreover, people expect browsers to be free of charge; it’s been a long time since the days when people paid for Netscape Navigator and Opera. Without outright subsidizing development, Web browsers need to be either community-supported, ad-funded, or subscription-based in order to fund development.
dfabulich 1y ago
Author here. I'm well aware that there's no "Safari" financial division. And, yes, Apple will be just fine without Google's $18 billion, but that's because Apple can and will be incentivized to focus their investments on their own proprietary platforms. Right now, if an Apple executive asks, "How does Apple make money working on Safari?" the answer is really clear: "Google pays us $18 billion annually." After that money is cut off, an executive at Apple has to ask the question: "Why should we keep investing in Safari, instead of SwiftUI and Xcode?" I'm sure we'd all love the answer to be, "We have plenty of money, so we should invest heavily in both," but that's not really how the world works, and certainly not how Apple works. Executives make hard choices about what to prioritize. This will be one of them.
- asimpleusecase 1y ago
  Seems clear they have not been investing much of that 18B on Safari. Wow, can you imagine what Safari would be if Apple had invested a large fraction of that income on Safari?
  - dgreensp 1y ago
    Yeah, it's a funny argument because while Apple has certainly put a lot of money into WebKit and JavaScriptCore over the years in absolute terms, they already don't prioritize Safari or treat web technologies as an alternative to native app development.
- Arnt 1y ago
  Apple has considered that same question for most other apps. Garage Band, for example, and Apple Mail. I don't think you should listen to anyone's ideas about why Apple does what it does. But if you want to hear my unfounded speculation: Apple wants to control the out-of-the-box experience for its shiny hardware and therefore includes a variety of apps that >x% of the customers are presumed to use on the first day they have their new shiny hardware, where x is some number and "day" may mean "week" or… well, really, this is unfounded speculation, it doesn't have to be precise.
- alwillis 1y ago
ars 1y ago
Mozilla wastes way too much money: https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-investigating-the-bizarre-finances-of-mozilla https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-invest... This loss of funding will be good for them, they can focus on a browser instead of stupid things.
- sitkack 1y ago
  They won't. They never really did. The OG firefox was a rebel creation that they latched onto, that then itself became the old guard. Firefox still has tone deaf usability bugs that are 10, 15 and 20 years old.
- eimrine 1y ago
  They are the crew of activists now, they can tell us that the stupid thing is the browser.
- thayne 1y ago
  With current management, I doubt it.
bushbaba 1y ago
That’s 18 billion in near 100% profit margin. Which will be painful to loose.

ThrowawayR2 1y ago

> "Apple's revenue" Revenue != profit. $18 billion for something they have to maintain anyway is 100% profit.

3vidence 1y ago
Was going to say this, I can't remember the exact figure but it was something crazy like 20% of net profit was from that deal. TODO: find a link to the original article that mentioned it.
- alwillis 1y ago
  I’m aware of the difference between revenue and profit. As a percentage of profit, the $20 billion was 17.5% of Apple’s operating profit in 2022. I don’t think that has any material impact on something as established and as important as Safari.

linguae 1y ago

I agree. Safari will be fine, and Microsoft has the resources to devote to browser development. I wonder, though, about Firefox and a post-divestiture Chrome. Browsers are labor-intensive to develop due to their complexity, and the Web keeps changing. Moreover, people expect browsers to be free of charge; it’s been a long time since the days when people paid for Netscape Navigator and Opera. Without outright subsidizing development, Web browsers need to be either community-supported, ad-funded, or subscription-based in order to fund development.

dfabulich 1y ago

Author here. I'm well aware that there's no "Safari" financial division. And, yes, Apple will be just fine without Google's $18 billion, but that's because Apple can and will be incentivized to focus their investments on their own proprietary platforms. Right now, if an Apple executive asks, "How does Apple make money working on Safari?" the answer is really clear: "Google pays us $18 billion annually." After that money is cut off, an executive at Apple has to ask the question: "Why should we keep investing in Safari, instead of SwiftUI and Xcode?" I'm sure we'd all love the answer to be, "We have plenty of money, so we should invest heavily in both," but that's not really how the world works, and certainly not how Apple works. Executives make hard choices about what to prioritize. This will be one of them.

asimpleusecase 1y ago
Seems clear they have not been investing much of that 18B on Safari. Wow, can you imagine what Safari would be if Apple had invested a large fraction of that income on Safari?
- dgreensp 1y ago
  Yeah, it's a funny argument because while Apple has certainly put a lot of money into WebKit and JavaScriptCore over the years in absolute terms, they already don't prioritize Safari or treat web technologies as an alternative to native app development.
Arnt 1y ago
Apple has considered that same question for most other apps. Garage Band, for example, and Apple Mail. I don't think you should listen to anyone's ideas about why Apple does what it does. But if you want to hear my unfounded speculation: Apple wants to control the out-of-the-box experience for its shiny hardware and therefore includes a variety of apps that >x% of the customers are presumed to use on the first day they have their new shiny hardware, where x is some number and "day" may mean "week" or… well, really, this is unfounded speculation, it doesn't have to be precise.
alwillis 1y ago

ars 1y ago

Mozilla wastes way too much money: https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-investigating-the-bizarre-finances-of-mozilla https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-invest... This loss of funding will be good for them, they can focus on a browser instead of stupid things.

sitkack 1y ago
They won't. They never really did. The OG firefox was a rebel creation that they latched onto, that then itself became the old guard. Firefox still has tone deaf usability bugs that are 10, 15 and 20 years old.
eimrine 1y ago
They are the crew of activists now, they can tell us that the stupid thing is the browser.
thayne 1y ago
With current management, I doubt it.

bushbaba 1y ago

That’s 18 billion in near 100% profit margin. Which will be painful to loose.