News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Apple's privacy feature costs ad companies millions. Parent comment

Re:Apple's privacy feature costs ad companies millions by appachai2 on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @06:22PM (#16111123)
DuckDuckGo isn't public right? So, this question doesn't apply to them.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apple's privacy feature costs ad companies millions by losteric on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @06:53PM (#16111314)
Why not? They are a competitor in the search space... Public, private, doesn't matter.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apple's privacy feature costs ad companies millions by lwansbrough on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @10:09PM (#16112289)
Well.. are they profitable?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apple's privacy feature costs ad companies millions by skullum on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @12:28AM (#16112750)
Yes, quite profitable since 2014. Turns out it doesn't take many engineers to make a search engine that doesn't track you: https://www.quora.com/Will-DuckDuckGo-get-profitable-anytime...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apple's privacy feature costs ad companies millions by losteric on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @12:22AM (#16112735)
According to the founder, they have been profitable since 2014.

Anecdotally, I've been seeing more and more success getting friends to switch over to DDG. This feels like early mass-adoption. It's rather exciting.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apple's privacy feature costs ad companies millions by lurr on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @07:51PM (#16120561)
Well, except for chrome using their near monopoly on search to shove a browser in your face that further cements their place in search. and bundling it with the OS on mobile.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apple's privacy feature costs ad companies millions by losteric on Monday January 15, 2018 @07:21PM (#16154724)
That's not a stable situation. The EU forced Microsoft / IE to unbundle - Google's day of reckoning approaches.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apple's privacy feature costs ad companies millions by sjwright on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @08:37PM (#16111908)
It's demonstrating a viable business model. Their corporate structure doesn't affect the demonstration.
[ Parent | on HN ]