3 ms·

The fact that Google would find it to be convenient for the line to be blurry doesn't mean that anybody looking at it in good faith sees the line as blurry.

kccqzy 1y ago
But some people in good faith can see the line as blurry. Others perhaps not. It's subjective and opinion-based. HN people just like to live in their own bubble thinking no other opinion is valid other than their own.
sheepscreek 1y ago
Google is an advertising company. Apple is a consumer hardware company. Who would you trust more with your data? It’s that simple (irrespective of the ground truth, simply referring to the optics of it).
- ajross 1y ago
  Google sells hardware and Apple sells ads, in great quantity in both cases. Not sure "it's that simple" at all.
  - dasil003 1y ago
    What percentage of revenue do ads and hardware contribute to the bottom line in Apple and Google? That answer will tell you more about leadership incentives than just hand-waving away the discussion based on the fact that big tech companies tend to dip their toes in a lot of pools.
    - fsflover 1y ago
      It's expanding, which is all that matters: https://www.macrumors.com/2024/11/19/apple-now-directly-selling-ads-in-news-app/ https://www.macrumors.com/2024/11/19/apple-now-directly-sell...
    - ogurechny 1y ago
      All of you have joined an argument that is completely fictional. I am amazed that someone can still fall for “Apple is a hardware company” bait. Both Google and Apple control enormous number of devices, the data on them (or data collected by them), their software, and their users. They make money by selling you tiny bit of access to that, directly or indirectly. End of story. Should I remind you how much being special to privacy restrictions costs Facebook?
      - transcriptase 1y ago
        Take advertising away from both. Which one would crumble vs contend with a few worse than expected quarters. Google is something like 75% ad revenue, <5% hardware. Apple is something like 75% hardware, <5% ad revenue.
- potatoproduct 1y ago
  Apple is an advertising company. https://ads.apple.com/ https://ads.apple.com/ Generates billions for Apple and is growing rapidly, since they implemented increasingly aggressive "privacy features" to block their competitors.
  - pdpi 1y ago
    Apple has an advertising business. That’s materially different from having advertising as your core revenue stream. Likewise, Google has a consumer electronics business, but they’re not a consumer electronics company.
    - red-iron-pine 1y ago
      billions of dollars means it is a core revenue stream
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- sheepscreek 1y ago
  > irrespective of the ground truth, simply referring to the optics of it I thought I was being clear when I said that. My comment was referring to the general perception among masses. Google's reputation is further tainted by a certain sneakiness. Like being caught using private data for AI training - despite people opting out of it. All because of cleverly worded legal language that allowed other Google subsidiaries unfettered access.[1] [1]: Google Can Train Search AI With Web Content After AI Opt-Out https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-03/google-can-train-search-ai-with-web-content-even-after-opt-out https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-03/google-ca...
pc86 1y ago
The fact that someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're operating in bad faith.
- transcriptase 1y ago
  It does when it that person is taking a charitable view of anything Google has done since about 2011.
  - pc86 1y ago
    That may mean they're stupid but it still doesn't constitute bad faith. Do you know what "bad faith" means in this context?
    - transcriptase 1y ago
      Bad faith typically encompasses willful blindness and deliberate ignorance. There’s a reason why courts can equate not knowing something when you should have and chose not to, with actually knowing it.
- michaelt 1y ago
  At first I thought the fact the advertising-and-tracking company needed access to their competitor's encrypted messenger was related to the tracking that is their core business model. But it's unfair to assume bad faith like that. Perhaps they merely need access to the encrypted messages in order to provide a better user experience, by serving more relevant and better personalised adverts?
  - jchw 1y ago
    I'm not going to argue there's any bar too low for Google to not clear, but also, it really is possible that it's just for the stupid AI feature they say it is. Just because it's something Google could feasibly do doesn't mean they will. I'm very confident they have never used Google Public DNS for advertising or tracking. It's one thing to treat funneling data "to the cloud" with suspicion out of principle, but personally I think it's counterproductive to go a step further and just assume everything is always being maximally abused. The fact that it could be is an issue, but that doesn't mean it is.

kccqzy 1y ago

But some people in good faith can see the line as blurry. Others perhaps not. It's subjective and opinion-based. HN people just like to live in their own bubble thinking no other opinion is valid other than their own.

sheepscreek 1y ago

Google is an advertising company. Apple is a consumer hardware company. Who would you trust more with your data? It’s that simple (irrespective of the ground truth, simply referring to the optics of it).

ajross 1y ago
Google sells hardware and Apple sells ads, in great quantity in both cases. Not sure "it's that simple" at all.
- dasil003 1y ago
  What percentage of revenue do ads and hardware contribute to the bottom line in Apple and Google? That answer will tell you more about leadership incentives than just hand-waving away the discussion based on the fact that big tech companies tend to dip their toes in a lot of pools.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    It's expanding, which is all that matters: https://www.macrumors.com/2024/11/19/apple-now-directly-selling-ads-in-news-app/ https://www.macrumors.com/2024/11/19/apple-now-directly-sell...
  - ogurechny 1y ago
    All of you have joined an argument that is completely fictional. I am amazed that someone can still fall for “Apple is a hardware company” bait. Both Google and Apple control enormous number of devices, the data on them (or data collected by them), their software, and their users. They make money by selling you tiny bit of access to that, directly or indirectly. End of story. Should I remind you how much being special to privacy restrictions costs Facebook?
    - transcriptase 1y ago
      Take advertising away from both. Which one would crumble vs contend with a few worse than expected quarters. Google is something like 75% ad revenue, <5% hardware. Apple is something like 75% hardware, <5% ad revenue.
potatoproduct 1y ago
Apple is an advertising company. https://ads.apple.com/ https://ads.apple.com/ Generates billions for Apple and is growing rapidly, since they implemented increasingly aggressive "privacy features" to block their competitors.
- pdpi 1y ago
  Apple has an advertising business. That’s materially different from having advertising as your core revenue stream. Likewise, Google has a consumer electronics business, but they’re not a consumer electronics company.
  - red-iron-pine 1y ago
    billions of dollars means it is a core revenue stream
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
sheepscreek 1y ago
> irrespective of the ground truth, simply referring to the optics of it I thought I was being clear when I said that. My comment was referring to the general perception among masses. Google's reputation is further tainted by a certain sneakiness. Like being caught using private data for AI training - despite people opting out of it. All because of cleverly worded legal language that allowed other Google subsidiaries unfettered access.[1] [1]: Google Can Train Search AI With Web Content After AI Opt-Out https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-03/google-can-train-search-ai-with-web-content-even-after-opt-out https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-03/google-ca...

pc86 1y ago

The fact that someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're operating in bad faith.

transcriptase 1y ago
It does when it that person is taking a charitable view of anything Google has done since about 2011.
- pc86 1y ago
  That may mean they're stupid but it still doesn't constitute bad faith. Do you know what "bad faith" means in this context?
  - transcriptase 1y ago
    Bad faith typically encompasses willful blindness and deliberate ignorance. There’s a reason why courts can equate not knowing something when you should have and chose not to, with actually knowing it.
michaelt 1y ago
At first I thought the fact the advertising-and-tracking company needed access to their competitor's encrypted messenger was related to the tracking that is their core business model. But it's unfair to assume bad faith like that. Perhaps they merely need access to the encrypted messages in order to provide a better user experience, by serving more relevant and better personalised adverts?
- jchw 1y ago
  I'm not going to argue there's any bar too low for Google to not clear, but also, it really is possible that it's just for the stupid AI feature they say it is. Just because it's something Google could feasibly do doesn't mean they will. I'm very confident they have never used Google Public DNS for advertising or tracking. It's one thing to treat funneling data "to the cloud" with suspicion out of principle, but personally I think it's counterproductive to go a step further and just assume everything is always being maximally abused. The fact that it could be is an issue, but that doesn't mean it is.