Apple CEO Explains How a Few Billion Dollars From Google Changes His Views on the Company's 'Unsettling' User Data Mining Activities (arstechnica.com)

In an interview with Axios on HBO Apple CEO Tim Cook explained the decision to use Google as the default search engine on Apple products. This decision, which enables Apple to make up to $9 billion a year, has baffled some, considering Google's business model of making money off of users' data -- something Apple has spoken out against numerous times. From a report: "I think their search engine is the best," Cook said in the interview. He followed up by diving into privacy features Apple has implemented in its Safari browser. "Look at what we've done with the controls we've built in," Cook stated. "We have private Web browsing. We have an intelligent tracker prevention. What we've tried to do is come up with ways to help our users through their course of the day. It's not a perfect thing. I'd be the very first person to say that. But it goes a long way to helping." Google pays Apple to have its search engine be the primary one on iPhones and other Apple devices.

Comments

Re:âoeTheir search engine is the bestâ

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's data mining is terrible. Unless they pay us $9 Billion a year. Then, it's OK.

--Tim Cook.

Who is baffled?

[Gravis Zero]

Google bribed Apple and I'm not sure it could be any more transparent.

Re:Who is baffled?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if I'd say Google bribed Apple or Apple blackmailed Google.

At one point the default search engine in iOS was Bing. Now I doubt Microsoft's privacy stance is any better than Google's but it shows that Apple is willing to use a sub-par service if they want. The decision to move back to Google happened last year. (Note that this is sort of getting into the weeds here as the default search engine for Safari has been Google for longer than that. When I say "default search engine for iOS" I'm talking about anything that triggers a web search outside of Safari, which includes Siri and searching via Spotlight.)

The point is that Apple is more than willing to move away from Google. They've proven it by switching the search engine they use some of the time. Google responded by increasing the amount of money they pay Apple.

So I don't know if I'd call it a bribe (Google paying Apple to get them to use their search) or blackmail (Apple demanding money from Google to not switch). In either case, it's pretty clear that Apple is being a pretty scummy company.

$1B would change my views on many things too

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Apple CEO Tim Cook explained the decision to use Google...has baffled some, considering Google's business model of making money off of users' data -- something Apple has spoken out against numerous times

Now $1B would change my views on many things too, but in this case, Cook was just being a smart businessman: lying to Apple customers (those gullible little marks) to get them to sign themselves and their friends up to his service, while at the same time telling Google that they would need to bring a truckload of money into a deal to get Apple to violate its lofty, lofty "principles". Well, the deal is done now that Google is bringing in the billions: in service to his shareholders, let's hope Cook gets a nice Christmas bonus.

Re:$1B would change my views on many things too

[TheFakeTimCook]

>> Apple CEO Tim Cook explained the decision to use Google...has baffled some, considering Google's business model of making money off of users' data -- something Apple has spoken out against numerous times

Now $1B would change my views on many things too, but in this case, Cook was just being a smart businessman: lying to Apple customers (those gullible little marks) to get them to sign themselves and their friends up to his service, while at the same time telling Google that they would need to bring a truckload of money into a deal to get Apple to violate its lofty, lofty "principles". Well, the deal is done now that Google is bringing in the billions: in service to his shareholders, let's hope Cook gets a nice Christmas bonus.

Since you can easily change the default search engine on both macOS and iOS to any one of a number of other services, including the hallowed DuckDuckGo, this is truly a non-issue.

Slashdot ALWAYS favors systems that put the responsibility in the hands of the User. Apple has done that.

I don't see a problem here. It is absolutely consistent with the hive-mind of Slashdot.

Re:$1B would change my views on many things too

[yuvcifjt]

Proof?

Their policy is crystal clear on what data they capture / store / pass forward.

In short, every query is unique, so there's no way to tie one user doing multiple queries, no cookies, no user-agent capture, no ip, and obviously no js fingerprinting.

They keep advertising to a minimum and instead try to use affiliate services;
but in either case, since they don't know who's doing a query, there's no personal info which is sent.

Another thing: since they don't store anything useful, they don't get any government requests for data, since there's nothing to give them.

Privacy features ... and compatibility

[Midnight Thunder]

As a user of Safari, I like the privacy features that Apple has put it. As a web developer, will they start fixing the compatibility issues in CSS and HTML (issues not present in Chrome or Firefox), otherwise I may confuse it for IE?

Duck duck go

[Arkham]

Apple added Duck Duck Go as one of the built-in search engines. I've been using it for over a year instead of Google. It works well enough and they don't set any tracking cookies. I'd recommend everyone switch to that.

Honestly. every other smartphone on the market uses Google too. Apple is just always held to some high standard that is impossible to meet.

Re:Duck duck go

[93 Escort Wagon]

I’ve been using DuckDuckGo for the past few years - it works well enough.

You can even get it to redirect to Google’s search results by adding “!g” after your search terms. I do that occasionally to check whether Google gives me better results... but the Goog generally shows me the same list as DDG (sometimes in a slightly different order, but that’s about it).

Re:Duck duck go

[Moridineas]

Ditto with using DuckDuckGo for a year or two now. The search results are good enough. If my search doesn't show good results I just add a "!g" and that solves it.

Plus it's got a whole bunch of other good controls. "!w" for search wikipedia, !gm for google maps, !gn for google news, !n for DDG news, etc.

Re:Bribery implies illegality

[bogaboga]

Bribery implies illegality. It's not illegal, it's just a failure to care about user privacy when a billion dollars are on the table. Privacy is only for people like Tim Cook, not for people who use his hardware.

This is similar to what lobbyists do with members of the US Congress, where this *is* bribery when one critically looks at it.

He actually said it, Google is the best for search

[sasparillascott]

Well, he said it right off there. Google search is the best and his customers are used to it. If Apple switched it over to DuckDuckGo it'd be a Apple Maps launch size of complaining and dissatisfaction.

Now the $3billion doesn't hurt of course. But DuckDuckGo isn't good enough for a switchover at this point. I use DuckDuckGo as my main search engine but need Google as a back up often enough. This is something that needs to be fixed - Apple probably needs to make DuckDuckGo or whatever better and then cast off Google and their billions, but at this point DuckDuckGo's results aren't good enough. JMHO....

Is he wrong about Google?

[SuperKendall]

I am speaking as someone who has sent Bing as the default search on iOS, but still use Google on desktop.

Why? Because Cook is right - Google is the best search engine, still by a fair margin. I tried REALLY HARD to use other search engines, but (especially for a developer) it is dumb to hamstring yourself with inferior search results in day to day work.

Cook is also right to point out anti-tracking things Apple has in place, so even though you are using Google on iOS you are giving them relatively little information.

Re:Hasty Generalization

[TheFakeTimCook]

Looking back on the articles listed it never mentions a company by name, just the practices they use. However, if you think apple doesn't collect your data you'd be wrong. They may not sell it to a 3rd party, but they allow targeted ads in some of their products, using things such as your likes and possible your demographics as well.

They never really cared about your privacy, they just want you to think they care about your privacy.

Sorry, no.

Their BRIEF toe-in-the-water with targeted advertising, iAds, was WILDLY UNPOPULAR with both Devs. and Users, and was DISCONTINUED in 2016, IIRC.

At present, there are NO "targeted ads" in Apple's Products, and no Ads for A DIFFERENT Publisher or Service in any Apps, either. I didn't say that, for example, "Freemium" iOS Apps don't have Ads for enhanced features, or even other Apps BY THE SAME PUBLISHER; but there are pretty strict rules about what is, and is not, allowed.

Re:He actually said it, Google is the best for sea

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

And did you know that DuckDuckGo uses Google as one of its search backends? Basically DuckDuckGo is not a search engine and never been. It's a search engine aggregator.

And without Google search DuckDuckGo would be worthless because, and I'm probably going to be downvoted a lot, but Bing is shit and I don't know any other decent world search engines.

Despite all the hatred towards Google, their search engine is by miles better than anything on the market (except maybe local search engines like Baidu) and I will continue to use it, though in incognito mode ;-) which I don't mind a single bit.

Re:Hasty Generalization

[TheFakeTimCook]

here is one example -

https://searchads.apple.com/ad...

SearchAds.

You can target ads by gender, age, location

This doesn't seem to pertain to ANYTHING but App Store Search Results. HARDLY "Targeted Advertising", as in browser Banner Ads, or those annoying "follow me" Ads. It is essentially something like "Google Ad Words", but for the iOS (and Mac?) App Stores ONLY.

BFD. Not impressed.

Try again...

Re:Hypocrisy at it's Finest

[tlhIngan]

Google is pretty blatant that they use customer data to target ads. Apple? Blatantly dishonest. "We respect your privacy" but give China whatever they demand while stonewalling the FBI against actual terrorists.

They don't give China anymore than what the FBI and other LEOs already get. The only thing China has is potential access to iCloud data. But Apple gives that up pretty freely upon being shown a warrant.

The only thing Apple cannot get you are unlock codes for the devices. China can't get them either. So Apple won't unlock a phone upon request because they can't. Doesn't matter if you're an FBI, China, ISIS, whatever.

Re:Hypocrisy at it's Finest

[morethanapapercert]

that was a case of the law enforcement community demanding that the existing, privacy protecting, encryption be broken so that they could have a back-door without benefit of a warrant. Apples response was that the encryption was actually competent, turned into code by competent programmers, so there was no known way of breaking the encryption of an individual piece of hardware without weakening the encryption standards for _everyone_. (by replacing existing encryption with a deliberately crippled version as an "update") And keep in mind that serious bad actors could probably block the update and continue using the good encryption and/or start using some other implementation.