Adam Kos No one likes lawsuits – at least the companies involved in them. It's different if someone is suing someone and different if anything is being handled by the Antitrust Authority. But thanks to this, we learn information that would otherwise remain hidden forever. Now it's about how much money and for what Google is paying Apple.
These two companies look like great rivals, but without each other, they would be somewhere completely different than they are now. Of course, this applies not only in the field of operating systems, when one copies a given function from another, but also in the more narrowly focused one, such as simple search. It can simply be said that Apple collects billions of dollars a year from Google just for not changing anything.
Gallery
Google pays Apple 18-20 billion a year just to make its search engine the default one in Safari. At the same time, however, Google pays Apple an additional 36% of the revenue generated by this search in Safari. It can be seen that money still comes first for both Apple and Google. This symbiosis obviously benefits both parties, no matter how hostile they may be to each other and no matter what policy Apple maintains with regard to the privacy of its users, when Google, on the other hand, tries to obtain as much information as possible about them.
What follows from this? That Apple beats its chest about how it cares about the well-being of user privacy, but makes money by getting money from Google for the data it gives it about users using Google's search engine in Safari. Something stinks here, I would like to add to it.
It could be interest you
Amaya Toman Google pays like crazy
If the antitrust authority were to tear up this alliance, it would mean a significant loss of regular funding for Apple, while Google would lose a huge number of users. At the same time, neither of them has to do much in their current state so that it still pays off for both. Apple will offer users the most popular search engine, so why would they change it themselves, Google in turn profits from users it would not otherwise have if they are not using its Android.
But Apple is not the only one to whom Google improves with a "small" financial injection to its business. For example, it paid Samsung $8 billion over four years for its Galaxy devices to use Google search, the voice assistant and the Google Play store by default. Meanwhile, Samsung has its Bixby assistant and the Galaxy Store.
All this proves the legitimacy of the case, because it clearly shows mutual agreements in which no one else can figure, even if they wanted to. How everything will turn out is currently not entirely clear, but there are reports that it could force Apple to finally develop its own search engine, which has been talked about for quite some time and kick Google in the ass. But the money is really tempting. Of course, it would be best for both companies if everything remained as it was.
Hello Adam, some of your articles are childishly naive.
Apple significantly limit the possibility of tracking the site visitor. This dramatically reduced Google's income and thus also secondarily its 36%.
So to write that his privacy is in his ass is not good journalism at all.
You write articles without any deeper knowledge. :(
How do you know? Because Cook said so? 😀 It just annoys you that he's right.
Not Paul. I know this because anyone can turn the feature on on their iPhone. That is, if there is no amber.
And also because you can easily read about the brutal drop in the effectiveness of advertising on Google and Facebook in any professional literature. :)
To present the article in the style: Apple believes in privacy, but at the same time sells it to Google, is quite superficial and misleading. Every application collects personal information in a certain way. Not to mention the registration details to most of them.
However, the user can decide for himself how to set his privacy, whether he will only work in incognito mode, or whether he will use Google or other services at all. Google pays Apple to be a native search engine. However, it's nothing that can't be changed with a few clicks. If he didn't pay for that privilege, it wouldn't affect users' privacy either negatively or positively.
It is still up to the user what to provide to whom.