• Goronmon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    164
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    So, Google is clearly paying lots of money directly to maintain their lead in the search engine market.

    Bad look for Apple as well. They say they take privacy seriously, but are selling their user’s data to Google, one of the last companies you would want getting your information if you were concerned about privacy.

    • KrummsHairyBalls@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      They say they take privacy seriously, but are selling their user’s data to Google

      Only idiots think Apple is privacy friendly lol.

      I don’t link to news sites, but if you look up Apple Let Contractors Listen To Private Voice Recordings you’ll see that in 2019 they were sending voice clips to contractors.

      Apple has everyone fooled. They act like they are so privacy focused because they do processing locally on your device instead of in the cloud, which means nothing. Google also has been moving a vast majority of things to local processing on their Pixel devices for years now. Is Google now privacy focused?

      • HMN@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Only idiots think Apple is privacy friendly lol.

        Apple has everyone fooled.

        Apple are privacy-focused insofar as they will privately sell your data, sneakily.

        • interceder270@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          They had a big billboard in LA that said “Apple knows privacy” or some shit.

          I guarantee all of them ate that up without a second thought.

      • k2helix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Aren’t almost all (at least photo editing ones) new Pixel 8 & Pixel 8 Pro features in the cloud? What things do you mean when you say Google is moving to local processing?

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      IOS is closed source and doesn’t allow side loading, it shouldn’t be considered in privacy discussions

      • interceder270@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why not? Isn’t apple able to push whatever they want to user’s phones without their permission, like they were paid to do with the U2 album?

    • OR3X@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      My guy, there are plenty worse companies than Google to have your data. Let’s not get too hyperbolic.

        • OR3X@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, you’re right. That’s not a good excuse but being overly dramatic over it doesn’t really do anything productive either. At the end of the day it’s just a default option that can easily be changed. Not really a conspiracy by Google and Apple to steal your personal data.

      • Goronmon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The issue with Google is the scale of the data they can collect and their ability to use that data. Between Chrome, Search, Android, Waymo, Google Fi, etc they have a lot of ways to gather and use data on users.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          And Google VPN.

          Google’s entire recent business direction seems to be “protect your data from everyone else so our copy of your data is worth more”.

      • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah, there’s only one Apple user, she just posts a lot online under pseudonyms and buys a continuous stream of products.

    • Companion1666@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      selling their user’s data to Google

      Oh no my gmail address already sold. My mailbox, my searches :'(

  • LetMeEatCake@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Paying over a third of all revenue generated from searches on Apple’s platform. That’s incredible. Not a lawyer so I have no idea how this will work out legally, but I have a hard time parsing such an enormous pay-share as anything other than an aggressive attempt to stymie competition. Flat dollar payments are easier to read as less damning, but willingly giving up that much revenue from the source suggests the revenue of the source is no longer the primary target. It’s the competitive advantage of keeping (potential) competitors from accessing that source.

    • realharo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, 30% is what Apple charges for regular apps and all in-app purchases/subscriptions too.

      • Ape550@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s also a pretty standard margin for most retail stores as well. 30-40% at that scale isn’t surprising at all.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    For the DOJ—which has made the Google-Apple deal the center of its case alleging that Google maintains an illegal monopoly over search—this detail confirms how valuable default placements on iPhones are to the search leader.

    Previously, sources told The New York Times that Google paid Apple approximately $18 billion in 2021 for the deal, but the exact amount of revenue sharing remained unknown until Monday.

    The DOJ’s trial also recently revealed that Google paid $26 billion in total for default contracts, which are ostensibly responsible for driving up its search advertising revenue that is right now rapidly climbing.

    In total, across all those default deals, Digital Content Next CEO Jason Kint estimated in a post on X that it’s possible that Google derives “at least $90 billion of its current annual revenue.”

    "We’re continuing to focus on making AI more helpful for everyone; there’s exciting progress and lots more to come,” Pichai said in a statement reported by Search Engine Land.

    Judge Amit Mehta, presiding over the antitrust trial, has said that the Google-Apple default deal is the “heart” of the DOJ’s case against Google.


    The original article contains 716 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • jay9@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      1 year ago

      This summary literally strips out the most important part 😂

      Google’s default search deal with Apple is worth so much to the search giant that Google pays 36 percent of its search advertising revenue from Safari to keep its search engine set as the default in Apple’s browser, Bloomberg reported.

        • jay9@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          “36% cut of safari deal”

          is very different to

          “Google pays 36 percent of its search advertising revenue from Safari to keep its search engine set as the default in Apple’s browser”

          The former implies some sort of fixed cost arrangement.

          The latter implies a revenue share based on traffic and volume of advertising. It could even include all search revenue for ads displayed in Safari via Google owned ad networks - even if the ad placement did not originate from a google search.