Finance makes Apple and Google forced friends • Hacker News Board

Re: Finance makes Apple and Google forced friends

#51

Post by lern_too_spel » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 4:26 PM UTC

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #47

lern_too_spel wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they are exactly the same. Despite what Apple marketing would like you to believe, the search app collects the same information when you perform the same actions on both devices.

"the search app" Genuinely - what's this on iOS? I don't recall ever having used a "search app" on my iPhone.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google/id284815942?mt=8

Just as there is a Google search app on Android (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...) there is a Google search app on iOS. They collect the same information when you perform the same actions, though many irrationally believe otherwise.

Similarly, the Google search web app collects exactly the same information on both platforms.

Re: Finance makes Apple and Google forced friends

#52

Post by _xnmw » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 4:27 PM UTC

mricketson wrote: post #14

Isn’t this kind of a hyperbolic comparison? This is revenue, and should be compared to total revenue, not profit. By this measure, if two people pay me $1, and I have $1 in costs, then both people are responsible for 100% of my $1 profits.

But the payment is pure profit because there’s no cost associated with setting Google as the default search engine.

Re: Finance makes Apple and Google forced friends

#53

Post by gumby » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 4:28 PM UTC

Apple isn't dependent on Google though; Google is paying that much because there are others willing to pay. That's all money they are paying to buy the >85% of revenues that advertising constitutes (would be higher if they hadn't moved Nest onto the P/L.

I have often criticized google for not producing any new products (aggregated, the motley assortment of other revenue streams barely crack 14%) since Adwords & Adsense almost 20 years ago, but I have to admit the purchase of Android has really paid off: if it weren't for Android, Google would probably be paying 4x or 5x what they are now to Apple.

Re: Finance makes Apple and Google forced friends

#54

Post by S4M » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 4:30 PM UTC

guyzero wrote: post #49

SteveGregory wrote: post #30

I've wondered what would happen if Apple acquired DuckDuckGo. In theory, Apple could overpay a lot and still make a ridiculous return by using it as their default search engine. The usage would multiply overnight. It would also reinforce Apple's position on privacy, and make Apple less dependent on Google for revenue.

How would Apple make any return? Do you think DDG's ads are as profitable as Google's?

Would they need to make a return directly? If they could buy it and put significant resources on it, they'll have a direct competitor against Google, with the advantages of coming by default on Apple devices and of being privacy friendly. Just that might scare Google to pay them more to leave the Search space and put back Google as their default search engine.

Re: Finance makes Apple and Google forced friends

#55

Post by jlarocco » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 4:30 PM UTC

Aditya_Garg wrote: post #33

SteveGregory wrote: post #30

I've wondered what would happen if Apple acquired DuckDuckGo. In theory, Apple could overpay a lot and still make a ridiculous return by using it as their default search engine. The usage would multiply overnight. It would also reinforce Apple's position on privacy, and make Apple less dependent on Google for revenue.

DuckDuckGo is not it's own search engine. It's an aggregator of other search engines (mostly Bing).

I can't believe can't even do the tiniest bit of research.

DDG isn't an aggregator, and it doesn't use Bing any more than it uses Google, Wikipedia, StackOverflow or anything else.

https://duck.co/forum/thread/4350/did-you-know-that-duckduck...

Re: Finance makes Apple and Google forced friends

#56

Post by ambicapter » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 4:32 PM UTC

tomc1985 wrote: post #40

dantheman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many who don't want the government involved in 'net neutrality.' The FCC under Obama was acting in an antidemocratic manner when they claimed authority to enforce net neutrality. The executive expanding its power without the interaction of congress is far more anti-democratic than a vote that turned out a way that you didn't like. There are many who think the net is evolving in a great way and want to limit…

According to the ratio of public comments accepted by the FCC, the "many" who think the net is evolving are something like 3%

I think it was actually 0.3% when you took out duplicated comments. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fcc+comments+99.7&t=ffsb&ia=web

Re: Finance makes Apple and Google forced friends

#57

Post by rayvy » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

johannes1234321 wrote: post #39

parthdesai wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At least in the West, I'd say democracy has generally been fairly stable Preface: I'm happy to be corrected, since i'm not very well-versed in this topic. In the US, is it even a democracy when a new party can't come up and win an election? You can legally lobby for a party which in reality is just a fancy word for a bribe, so how do you expect either of these parties to have a common's person best interest in mind…

The question is: Why can't a new party come up? Is it due to the system itself or the "will of the people"? The other question is: How democratic are those parties? - he primaries seem as such ...

> The question is: Why can't a new party come up? Is it due to the system itself or the "will of the people"?

I honestly and genuinely don't think that's much of a question.

I encourage you to read Lawrence Lessig's "Republic, Lost"[1] - which talks about how the big money behind campaign financing makes average Joe's feel as if they're choosing a politician based on their will, which turns out to not really be the case. Rather, they're choosing from a select group of politicians already rubber stamped "OK" by deep pocketed donors.

A good quote (not verbatim) from the book is basically how deep pocket donors have a sense of: "Let me choose the potential candidate options, and I don't really care who wins".

So it's the "will of the people" only so far as the people's will aligns with something they have 0 control over - the intentions/ambitions of those with money - which doesn't sound much like free will.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Version-Lawrence-Lessig...

Re: Finance makes Apple and Google forced friends

#58

Post by Qwertystop » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

guyzero wrote: post #49

SteveGregory wrote: post #30

I've wondered what would happen if Apple acquired DuckDuckGo. In theory, Apple could overpay a lot and still make a ridiculous return by using it as their default search engine. The usage would multiply overnight. It would also reinforce Apple's position on privacy, and make Apple less dependent on Google for revenue.

How would Apple make any return? Do you think DDG's ads are as profitable as Google's?

DDG's ads wouldn't need to be as profitable as Google's, they'd only need to be as profitable as what Google pays Apple to use Google as the default search engine, which is likely less than what Google makes on ads on searches from Macs.

Re: Finance makes Apple and Google forced friends

#59

Post by chongli » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 4:38 PM UTC

johannes1234321 wrote: post #39

parthdesai wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At least in the West, I'd say democracy has generally been fairly stable Preface: I'm happy to be corrected, since i'm not very well-versed in this topic. In the US, is it even a democracy when a new party can't come up and win an election? You can legally lobby for a party which in reality is just a fancy word for a bribe, so how do you expect either of these parties to have a common's person best interest in mind…

The question is: Why can't a new party come up? Is it due to the system itself or the "will of the people"? The other question is: How democratic are those parties? - he primaries seem as such ...

It's due to the voting system. Plurality voting systems tend towards two-party rule. This observation is known as Duverger's law [1].

Now, if the US switched to a radically different voting system today, we probably wouldn't see a flourishing of outside parties tomorrow; it could take a little while. But people sympathetic to outside parties such as the Greens or the Libertarians would be far less reluctant to vote for them if it didn't mean splitting their vote and causing the "lesser of two evils" to lose their local district.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

Re: Finance makes Apple and Google forced friends

#60

Post by nicoburns » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 4:45 PM UTC

johannes1234321 wrote: post #39

parthdesai wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At least in the West, I'd say democracy has generally been fairly stable Preface: I'm happy to be corrected, since i'm not very well-versed in this topic. In the US, is it even a democracy when a new party can't come up and win an election? You can legally lobby for a party which in reality is just a fancy word for a bribe, so how do you expect either of these parties to have a common's person best interest in mind…

The question is: Why can't a new party come up? Is it due to the system itself or the "will of the people"? The other question is: How democratic are those parties? - he primaries seem as such ...

It's due to the first past the post system strongly favouring two or few parties per constituency (otherwise if you have two parties that are closer to each other politically, then they're at a disadvantage against the third one.