1. All Apple did was giving users a choice (and they should've done that ages ago). If users didn't mind being tracked, or liked the "more relevant adverts" tracking provides, they would not have opted out.
2. Google is subject to exactly the same rules as Facebook is. Their apps have to ask for permission to track as Facebook's do, and Safari (which enforces privacy in many ways, too) is the same for google.com as for facebook.com.
They pay Apple for being search provider in Safari and Siri the same way they pay Mozilla, because searches mean data and displayed adverts.
https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/02/apple-personalized-ads-target...
Not saying tracking shouldn’t be stopped. But remember Apple is much less privacy aware when it’s their wallet.
Why would all data used to personalize ads have to be tracking? It could also be things like purchase data from the very service that's advertising to you. Halting collection—not use for ad personalization, but collection—of that would go beyond what even I would consider tracking (and I think most of what goes on in the ad world today should simply be illegal). It would be possible to personalize ads only based on this kind of thing—in fact, that's what the article seems to imply is going on, at least in part.
So there are at least two ways that setting might mean something different from one that disables tracking.
It is entirely possible that the settings do totally different things, so the different language isn't some kind of trick. I think it's likely that picking either of those phrases and using it for both would result in the description of the respective settings being less accurate.
Swap the one that applies to applications to "disable personalized ads", rather than "disable tracking".
But it doesn't do that—does it? It disables (a certain kind of) tracking. The tracking may not even be used for ads. Apple has no way to guarantee that. You may still see personalized ads based on other data.
Make the Apple one "disable tracking" rather than "disable personalized ads". But the setting might not do that at all, while still disabling personalization. In fact, the ad personalization may not have been based on tracking in the first place, and even if it were, disabling personalization could very well leave the tracking in place.
The accusation was that Apple's describing the same thing two ways to give themselves an advantage, but I'd say the settings very likely do not do the same thing.
>>>
What do you do for a living?
"I track animals."
Oh, cool, like you're a hunter or in animal control or something? Trekking all over the wilds, keen eye for detail, grand adventures, lots of mud and amazing stories?
"No, I manage a zoo. I track the zoo animals in a spreadsheet. I sit in an office."
>>>
AFAIK Apple means the hunting kind, when they write "tracking". As in following a user around and watching them while they use services & apps that you don't operate.
If I go to my bodega once a month to spend $80 on sticks of $2 incense, it's because I'm buying drugs.
And ads definitely show up in YouTube and such.
If what FB is saying is true then the move by Apple helps Google. There's more or less two options for online advertising. So if companies spend less on FB then they're probably going to spend those dollars with Google
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google/id284815942
Google search, in an iOS app. Not everyone uses it, sure, but has over 341k reviews. Facebook, as a point of comparison, only has about 4x more reviews at 1.2M. 4x is a lot, but it's also a lot less than I'd expect over something primarily used in the browser.
Click on the dev's name and it shows everything that dev has published.
Google has 17 apps for Apple devices.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google-one/id1451784328
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/screenwise-meter/id1455562397
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google/id284815942
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/notable-women-ar/id1425071635
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/just-a-line-draw-in-ar/id13672...
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google-tasks-get-things-done/i...
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/looker-mobile/id1533498070
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google-podcasts/id1398000105
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google-stadia/id1471900213
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google-fit-activity-tracker/id...
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google-fi/id1413936031
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/grasshopper-learn-to-code/id13...
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/youtube-music/id1017492454
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google-keep-notes-and-lists/id...
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google-maps/id585027354
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/youtube-tv/id1193350206
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/youtube-kids/id936971630
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/youtube-watch-listen-stream/id...
The choice existed for a long time. What Apple did was make that choice front and centre for everyone, as opposed to being buried in a settings menu for privacy-conscious people to hunt down.
I assure you Google are paying Apple to be the default search engine exactly because it's basically a licence to print money.
It has nothing to do with display ads.
If Facebook had a search engine they would bid against Google for that role, but as it appears to be the case there is a Google/Facebook gentlemens agreement to not compete in that area.
So we can conclude that neither building a successful social network nor building a successful search engine is easy :)
I assure you HN does not understand anything about Ads. Ever since I realise HN had some deep misunderstanding with Online ads, I have been stating this difference for over 3 years. The only thing I got on HN was all ads are evil. Targeting Ads, Tracking Ads, Search Ads, or the latest buzzword surveillance capitalism.
I think OP is right, it is pride that is holding Zuck back.
I wouldn't be so sure. Bing is an excellent counter example to that statement. And not just because (from my experience) it doesn't produce the same quality of results. It's also about user adoption. MS built a reasonable, if not clearly superior alternative to Google and spend enormous sums of money marketing it, making it the default option on the default browser installed on millions of new PC's each year, and is has single-digit market share.
Facebook doesn't have those inroads on the PC market to leverage. They'd have to build something so much better than Google that it would make Google look like Yahoo when Google first arrived on the scene. At which point Google could probably stop sandbagging their own search efforts that favor ads space over results and make up any lost ground pretty quickly.
I'm also not confident in Facebook's ability to create high quality new products anymore. The most recent big successes have come from acquisitions. I suppose they might be able to buy DDG, but they'd almost immediately lose all of its users. And unless the still wanted to build their own actual engine, they'd have to rely on the goodwill of MS to continue getting most results via Bing's engine.
As someone who chooses Apple partly because of the comparative privacy versus Android I'm actually quite happy that they bargain with other parties? It reminiscent of the working of efficient markets. I have a choice. No privacy (Google, Facebook), or a tidbit (Apple, G/F via Apple) or a lot (custom ROM options, drop all G/F/A). For a tidbit of privacy I pay more, but how much I pay more is lowered by the incoming cashflow at Apple due to these arrangements. So there is a cafateria model with a powerful party bargaining on my behalf and in line with my preferences. For me, that's glass half full.
Privacy is not achieved through brand loyalty, it can only be achieved through understanding what you've got and taking control of it. It dismays me to see attitudes like this so prevalent in today's privacy conversations, I feel it will be 10 years too late before we collectively realize what a mistake we're making.
It is abundantly clear that Apple loves locking people in, and also clear that they love taunting their advantages over their competitors. But I just don’t see how the better engineered platform protections for privacy have anything to do with the lock-in (no network effects, no switching costs)
My favorite example of this is the Find My network: did they totally screw Tile in their own competitive interests? Absolutely. Does their end-to end-encrypted Find My network have state of the art cryptographic design to minimize data collection? Absolutely.
Privacy also has concrete value for Apple. Apple made a fair argument that the Health app is HIPAA compliant because while the backend is nothing special, the syncing is end to end encrypted.
They do make mistakes, and they are a large self-interested corrupt terrible bad corporation, but I am happy that they are pushing the industry forward.
And I say this as a long time Apple user, both on macs and iPhones.
A choice about what? Your privacy? Privacy is not a choice, it's a right, so if that's what you mean I don't really understand.
Opinions aside, Google are paying for a thing, not just donating money. What would Facebook pay for? I'm not sure that them being a search engine makes sense, I don't think Apple would give up the position of iMessage in favour of Messenger.
(Disclaimer, I work at Google, but don't have any inside info or opinion on the Apple/Google relationship.)
It really does. Want to search for a local house cleaner or children's entertainer, include Facebook pages with web results. Want to search for things to do in a particular town, include Facebook events with web results about museums and such like.
This is just scratching the surface too. There are lots of possibilities here so I'd be very surprised if Facebook haven't explored this idea.
https://www.cnet.com/how-to/understanding-facebook-integrati...
To live.
This is Tim’s town and if you think you’re doing business and cutting Tim out then you’ve got $10b concrete boots coming.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
ATM only Apple can stop Apple from deciding they want no tracking done by search engine providers in iOS apps.
How is that just an excuse to hand over money?
Do think that putting DuckDuckGo as default in Safari will not have any influence in either DuckDuckGo or Google market share?
Probably what OP is suggesting is that in return for that $5B, Apple will call up Google and say "hey we're adding these new privacy protections, will that be a problem?" and Google will have time in advance to get around them
Apple isn’t going do any favors for Google for a measly $10B.
It’s much more meaningful for Google and Google knows it. For them, it’s a bargain, as it gives its advertisers access to customers who actually spend money.
Note that google appears to be acting as though they are effected, you can see this in their push for FLOC/topics (but the impetus for this could be coming from android moreso than search)
How much does Facebook pay Apple?
It is an incentive crash. Apple tried iAds before and it didn't work as they couldn't do good personalised ads, this is them keeping the advantage just for them and getting good PR.
Apple is not a saint in this, not even a single bit.
As for the officially stated reason: do you really think that there is an alternative search engine provider that Apple would switch to if Google didn't pay them 10 figures a year? If so, which one(s)? If not, what are they actually paying for? To mitigate the risk of a second Apple Maps? But is the case for entering the search engine market really remotely as compelling as entering the mapping space?
I'm not saying it's an open and shut case, but the idea that Google essentially pays Apple money a) as a "good-will gesture" b) to give regulators the impression that the search engine market is more competitive than it is seems possible to me. Whereas one of the alternative scenarios proposed here, that Apple would pick duckduckgo otherwise, really does not.
Personally, if I were Sundar, I'd be way more worried about anti-trust or Apple siding too much with the privacy of their users or stepping otherwise on my toes than say duckduckduckgo becoming a serious competitor because Apple anointed them default search provider after I failed to fork over enough money. I'd probably even do my best to keep a bunch of minimally viable competitors around -- not viable enough to ever pose a threat, but viable enough to keep anti-trust at bay for a bit longer. And both duckduckgo and firefox seem to fit that bill perfectly.
https://wikiless.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory?lang=en
It's not a conspiracy when we know that GAFA works together: https://gizmodo.com/google-paid-apple-to-stay-out-of-the-sea...
Google the definition of conspiracy, before presenting your wrong opinion as fact.
Do you even get the irony of what you've just done and I'm sure have been doing for years? Probably not.
By your definition, it’s a conspiracy theory for me to say, “I’m sure JFK was shot!” Because I’m saying it as fact without source. But then it’s also a conspiracy theory to say, “I’m sure JFK was shot by aliens.”
The what is essential in defining a conspiracy theory.
> ... we believe those restrictions from Apple are designed in a way that carves out browsers from the tracking prompts Apple requires for apps. And so what that means is that search ads could have access to far more third-party data for measurement and optimization purposes than app-based ad platforms like ours.
> So when it comes to using data, you can think of it that it's not really apples-to-apples for us. And as a result, we believe Google Search ad business could have benefited relative to services like ours is based a different set of restrictions from Apple. And given that Apple continue to take billions of dollars a year from Google Search ads, the incentive clearly exists for this policy discrepancy to continue.
Facebook CFO on iOS change effects: advertising business is being driven to Google since they are mostly unaffected by the changes. This is the statement the article would be based on, but with most of the interesting parts left out.
Safari hides so much info from google search by default. The money google pays apple is strictly for marketing purposes.
If Zuck had been handing Apple $5,000,000,000 per year as google does, then Apple would never have kneecapped Facebook.
Larry and Sergei know how the protection racket works. You pay your dues to the local mob, you get to do business in their street corners.
What do google pay Apple $5b for? Ummm… to be in the search of Safari. Yeah right. They all know google simply pays Apple because they don’t want no trouble, so they say “Safari”, write a huge cheque, and google gets to keep doing business in Apple devices.
Tim is The Godfather. He who owns the platform owns the city. Everyone must respect and pay their dues, if they want to do business in this city.
Apple has sent Facebook to sleep with the fishes because zuck didn’t show no respect and didn’t pay no dues.