Privacy isn't an iPhone with default settings. Unencrypted back ups and Google Search enabled by default isn't privacy.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Australia Eyes Consumer Impact of Google's Default Search Engine Deal With Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Privacy isn't an iPhone with default settings. Unencrypted back ups and Google Search enabled by default isn't privacy.
Privacy isn't binary and this really isn't about privacy, this is an internet talking point. What some want to ding Apple for are the setup defaults. If this was about privacy, one wouldn't be able to change the defaults.
The scope of privacy extends way beyond a setup option. But if one wants to criticize Apple on an on-line forum for lack of privacy due to choosing google, I'm sure others will note that choosing another search engine changes little and there is nothing stopping ios users from changing the default.
Who asked for this investigation? I haven’t seen anything anywhere in the past ten years where Australians have been complaining about the default search setting on their iPhones.
If a company markets its product as protecting my privacy I don't really expect them to be taking cash from Google to serve their users up for ad clicks.
Changing their defualts is a nonsense argument.
So you can configure an iPhone in a privacy centric way, so? You can configure an Android Phone in a privacy centric way. It isn't an inherently private platform though.
My guess is - the competition. Expect more of this over the next couple of years, as everyone starts eyeing a piece of Apple’s pie.
That said, I don’t think anyone is doing this for the benefit of consumers. It’s all about wresting control of the iOS ecosystem away from Apple and enriching themselves.
Apple needs to dig in their heels and show their opponents no quarter. This is war.
This a very odd view.
Why would any government care to do the bidding of Apples competitors?
There is a general scrutiny of big tech and its abuse of market power by governments globally. It isn't exclusive to Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Google have all face similar scrutiny.
The focus is to prevent the likes to Apple/Google/Amazon et al enriching themselves at the expense of fair markets. This point seems to be completely lost on you.
Yeah great, Murdoch has a huge amount of political influence.
None of that supports Abazigals theory that governments are doing the bidding of Apples competitors. If anything it proves it to be entirely false.
They have gone after Google and Facebook much more than Apple.
This is just another attack on Google's ad revenue funnel which has sucked Murdoch's advertising revenue dry.
The News Code was just the start, now they're going after the traffic deal they did with Apple, and if they win this case, they'll no doubt use it to force Google to present Australian users with an equivalent search choice (if that is the outcome) to users on Android. They will continue to go up and down the revenue funnel putting leaks in it wherever they can.
When the mainstream media start reporting on this, they will use Apple's privacy evangelising against them, saying they "sold their customers search data to Google". Antagonising the relationship between Apple and its customers. That will be the screw they will turn on Apple to get them fall in line with this search selection stunt.
This is Internet spin, just finding, something, anything, to criticize apple on. You buy a phone, change the defaults if not the way you want the you want them. Done.
Hahaha “anyone?”
I know that. You know that. But the average consumer has no idea you can customize your search engine, much less what you get by customizing it — e.g. potentially protecting your data privacy, etc.
I’m happy with how things are but governments are going to cause changes, unfortunately. It’s possible some changes could be positive but you highlight some of the negatives.
You can't complete with snails...
....They go at their own pace
DDG and others probably don't earn anywhere enough as much as Google ..I guess this is anti-competitive, but then so it "you get more money than me",
whatisthebusinessmodelof.com
....They go at their own pace
DDG and others probably don't earn anywhere enough as much as Google ..I guess this is anti-competitive, but then so it "you get more money than me",
DuckDuckGo Business Model:How DuckDuckGo Makes Money
DuckDuckGo makes money from three sources: keyword-based search advertising & anonymous affiliate partnerships with Amazon & eBay and licensing fees for its tracker radar tool. DuckDuckGo became profitable in 2014, six years after its founding in 2008, and has been profitable ever since without...
whatisthebusinessmodelof.com
Last edited:
I get the point, and I find it absurd.
When digital cameras displaced traditional cameras, was there a need to compensate traditional film stock producers? When email and instant messaging took off, was there a need to compensate fax machine companies? When the car became popular, did people think it made sense to compensate horse ranches for lost sales?
I can go on with more examples of how one established product or way of doing things gets overtaken by a superior product, but I think you get what I am trying to drive at. This is simply how economies work.
These companies got to where they are today precisely because of the free market. They created a product with a greater user experience that earned them the most customers or users. This in turn attracted suppliers to their platforms, because that's where the people and the money was. More sellers meant more users, and so on. All this came together to enhance the user experience in a virtuous upward cycle.
People gravitate towards Google because their search results are the best. People use Facebook because that's where their friends and family members are on, so that's where you go when you want to "snoop" on photos of your cousin's newborn child. This in turn led to advertisers favouring internet companies like Google and Facebook over traditional media sources because the internet was simply far more efficient at reaching a wider audience compared to paper, however expansive their distribution network was.
People buy stuff on Amazon because it's so much more convenient to be able to purchase anything you want all in one place, rather than having to visit 50 different websites and create 50 different accounts (and consequently be bombarded by 50 different newsletters all advertising stuff you don't want).
It's the same with the iOS App Store. Apple put the resources into creating a digital marketplace that makes it extremely safe and convenient to purchase and download apps, and companies like Epic and Basecamp want to come in and be able to take advantage of all this infrastructure and the user base that Apple so painstakingly built up, while giving nothing back to help maintain the vitality and viability of the App Store.
To go back to my original point, what this means is that the old way of reaching out to a mass audience via physical copies is all but dead. I personally haven't bought a newspaper in more than a decade, and I do not miss them. The market has spoken and the issue here isn't that companies like Google and Facebook have stolen these media companies' news, but that they have stolen their advertising. Compare the rate to place an online ad on Facebook or Google Search, vs the rate back then to take out a full-cover spread in your local newspaper. $16 vs $40000.
Remind me who's charging monopoly rates again?
If anything, these news companies need Google and Facebook more so than ever to reach their users, but what use if all the readership in the world without the ad revenue to show for it?
They need to adapt, but they can't because their business model was predicated on them having a monopoly on distribution (and local ads). A monopoly that has already been shaken up by Facebook and Google (or more specifically, the internet). And so it's easier to cry foul and try to extort Facebook and Google (yes, I am actually speaking out in favour of them here) then start all over at the bottom in this new world order.
I am not a fan of Facebook, but Google and Facebook (and Amazon and Apple) are not the villains in this story here.
Not necessarily: the search/URL bar could function as just a URL bar unless you select a default search provider.
the ACCC does respond to government prodding, and Rod Sims is sometimes responsible for disastrous anti-consumer and anti-competitive decisions (such as the 121 points of interconnection for the National Broadband Network - though it was NBNco and the minister who required ISPs to serve all of them), but he does act independently and there are laws which affect the deal (unless google claims they're just wasting money).
I remember the days when the URL bar was just a URL bar 👴🏻
It wasn't until Google started putting ads in search (2000) before Netscape integrated a search function into the URL bar of Netscape Navigator (v6.0) - how's that for a coincidence 🤔
Hahaha “anyone?”
I know that. You know that. But the average consumer has no idea you can customize your search engine, much less what you get by customizing it — e.g. potentially protecting your data privacy, etc.
If the average consumer is taking into account privacy and how they are tracked then they certainly know about search engines that are available. People that use Google because if its ease of use and successful searching are going to continue to use it no matter what.
- The average consumer doesn’t take into account their privacy or how they’re tracked.
- The average consumer doesn’t use Google because it’s easy to use, they use it because that’s all they’ve ever used.
- The average kid with average parents, growing up with an average phone presses the “Google” button and thinks that is what the internet is. A few will be curious about how it works, but most just accept it for what it is, just like how you turn on a broadcast TV and there are shows playing on different channels. It just works. You don’t need to understand how or why it does. Who cares? The average person sure doesn’t.
- Google is easy for the average consumer to use because it’s the default search on just about every major browser.
- It’s the default search because Google can afford to pay to be the default search on just about every major browser.
- Google can afford to pay to be the default search because they made a marginally better search engine 20+ years ago and the compounding effects of of marginally better search performance x behavioural data x advertising revenue over 20+ years enabled them to attract better and better talent over time, further enhancing their product and market position as a search and advertising leader.
- The price for the default search position is so high because of the lucrative advertising revenue and behavioural data attached to the search result traffic.
I agree that those who already use it will continue to use it, but I think you’re giving the average consumer a lot more credit than they’re due. Most people don’t know or care how these things work, unfortunately.
I disagree with a lot of your points and I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying. There definitely are average consumers who are aware their privacy is being invaded/movements tracked based on their digital footprints. I would say, give or take, just about everyone nowadays knows they are being watched by big companies. You are giving the average human less credit than deserved IMO. Plus, the news that these companies are getting, the ads on TV, print etc...
People may not know all the tech used behind the scenes for the tracking and ad placements but they are willing to 'go along with it' because they want to use the applications (social media, google, etc...) because they are now ingrained into their lives. Maybe when they started using them they didn't know how they were going to be monetized, but people know that now and for the most part continue to use them. You are underestimating the social aspect of those platforms and the ties that bind them.