Google's search payments to Apple could slow in 2018

Posted:
in iPhone
Google's payments to remain the default search option on Apple devices like iPhones and iPads may be set to slow down, a report hinted on Friday.

safari-ipadgoogle


Google's parent company, Alphabet, is telling investors that it expects the traffic acquisition costs it pays to partners like Apple to begin slowing this year, the Wall Street Journal said. While there are no public numbers on how much Apple receives, at least one estimate has pegged the sum for 2017 at over $3 billion.

In a Wednesday filing with the U.S. Securties and Exchange Commission, Apple flagged licensing fees like Google's as the main driver of its 31 percent growth in services revenue year-over-year. Google's money is often thought to be the biggest contributor to that segment.

In some ways Google is effectively captive to Apple, since it depends on iPhone and to a lesser extent iPad and Mac traffic to fuel its core advertising business. Apple would likely disappoint some users if it switched to another default search option, but it isn't beholden.

The reason for the slower growth in payments isn't clear at present.

The company dropped Google from Apple Maps with 2012's iOS 6, aiming to distance itself from a key rival in the smartphone space and -- at the time -- a legal opponent. The result was catastrophic in the short term, since the replacement map data contained missing or mislabeled items, and lacked any public transit directions.

Apple pulled in $9.19 billion in services revenue in the March quarter, an increase from $7 billion a year ago. The segment includes the App Store, Apple Pay, Apple Music, and iCloud storage, but Google's money is unique in that it's essentially pure profit, with little to no support costs for Apple.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,607member
    I suspect what they are really saying is TAC as a percentage of revenues will decrease rather than the actual dollar amount dropping. Not entirely clear tho so perhaps they'll explain it in more depth at some point. 
    potatoleeksoup
  • Reply 2 of 22
    lovemnlovemn Posts: 22member
    DuckDuckGo works just fine; google free forever. 
    SpamSandwichfh-aceolsrotateleftbyteelijahgpotatoleeksoupminicoffeecornchiplostkiwijony0
  • Reply 3 of 22
    leavingthebiggleavingthebigg Posts: 1,068member
    It was just Tuesday, May 1, 2028, Tim Cook resoundly refuted the dire news the Wall Street Journal had been reporting about iPhone X. Now the paper has decided to target Apple’s services revenue in yet another attempt at drumming fear, uncertainty and doubt. Thankfully the honest news of Warren Buffett’s purchase of 75 million more Apple shares is having a very positive effect on Apple’s share price today. 
    fh-acewatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 22
    irelandireland Posts: 17,137member
    Apple should acquire DDG and give them unlimited funds to execute on their mission. Their CEO has the best response I’ve ever seen on Quora. And then when an iPhone user updates their phone and opens Safari a splash screen should give users a choice of search engines to select from, putting DDG in a very prominent position, where Apple can claim the annonmous ad income and remove Google from their defecto position. Unlike Facebook and Google, Duck-Duck doesn’t build profiles on individuals—their software is purposefully designed not to.
    edited May 4 minicoffeepalominelostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 22
    red oakred oak Posts: 612member
    ireland said:
    Apple should acquire DDG and give them unlimited funds to execute on their mission. Their CEO has the best response I’ve ever seen on Quora. And then when an iPhone user updates their phone and opens Safari a splash screen should give users a choice of search engines to select from, putting DDG in a very prominent position, where Apple can claim the annonmous ad income and remove Google from their defecto position. Unlike Facebook and Google, Duck-Duck doesn’t build profiles on individuals—their software is purposefully designed not to.

    I like DDG.   But the product and company would have to be taken to a whole new plane.   DDG right now is made up of a bunch of contractors and is run a lot like a college experiment  
    minicoffee
  • Reply 6 of 22
    croprcropr Posts: 772member
    ireland said:
    Apple should acquire DDG and give them unlimited funds to execute on their mission. Their CEO has the best response I’ve ever seen on Quora. And then when an iPhone user updates their phone and opens Safari a splash screen should give users a choice of search engines to select from, putting DDG in a very prominent position, where Apple can claim the annonmous ad income and remove Google from their defecto position. Unlike Facebook and Google, Duck-Duck doesn’t build profiles on individuals—their software is purposefully designed not to.
    DDG is really targeted for US related content. So if Apple were to acquire the DDG and make it the default search engine the rest of the world have a clearly degraded experience.
  • Reply 8 of 22
    blah64blah64 Posts: 851member
    cropr said:
    ireland said:
    Apple should acquire DDG and give them unlimited funds to execute on their mission. Their CEO has the best response I’ve ever seen on Quora. And then when an iPhone user updates their phone and opens Safari a splash screen should give users a choice of search engines to select from, putting DDG in a very prominent position, where Apple can claim the annonmous ad income and remove Google from their defecto position. Unlike Facebook and Google, Duck-Duck doesn’t build profiles on individuals—their software is purposefully designed not to.
    DDG is really targeted for US related content. So if Apple were to acquire the DDG and make it the default search engine the rest of the world have a clearly degraded experience.
    DDG isn't the only search game in town.  People who are interested in using a privacy-oriented search engine should also consider StartPage.

    StartPage has a couple advantages:
    1) It's operated out of Europe, giving it freedom from U.S. government requests for data.
    2) They run a proxy system that allows you to click on links and have the pages load through their proxy, so not only are your searches anonymous, but you can actually click through and see the pages of interest anonymously.

    This second feature doesn't work well on sites that require javascript to load the basic page info, but if you're interested in anonymity, it's a great feature that does work on many sites.

    I also use DDG for other things.  I prefer their image searches and weather, for example.  But 100% google-free (and facebook and other tracking companies -free) for many years now.
    cornchiplostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 22
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,607member
    blah64 said:
    cropr said:
    ireland said:
    Apple should acquire DDG and give them unlimited funds to execute on their mission. Their CEO has the best response I’ve ever seen on Quora. And then when an iPhone user updates their phone and opens Safari a splash screen should give users a choice of search engines to select from, putting DDG in a very prominent position, where Apple can claim the annonmous ad income and remove Google from their defecto position. Unlike Facebook and Google, Duck-Duck doesn’t build profiles on individuals—their software is purposefully designed not to.
    DDG is really targeted for US related content. So if Apple were to acquire the DDG and make it the default search engine the rest of the world have a clearly degraded experience.
     But 100% google-free (and facebook and other tracking companies -free) for many years now.
    Then you would not be the Blah64 in Texas. The problem becomes old or supposedly unimportant info gets linked by companies such as Acxiom, augmented with what most would assume is unconnectable data but isn't when there's hundreds/thousands of data points available from a multitude of sources, then packaged for a fuller dossier to be resold.  Unless someone had NEVER shared personal information with a credit provider, store (for a return, warranty etc), employer, school, insurer, taxing agency, hospital, club, magazine, etc then there's a file out there for sale with your real name and personal info in it. Just because you now avoid online social sites and certain browsers/search engines doesn't mean you have become anonymous and not for sale.

    "All that stuff ain't comin' from the internets."
    edited May 4 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 10 of 22
    command_fcommand_f Posts: 247member
    I don't see changing the default search engine as a problem but removing Google from the list of available search engines (in Safari) would be a big move. I think the latter would be unreasonable of Apple because, love it or loathe it, Google is the biggest player in search.
    potatoleeksoup
  • Reply 11 of 22
    blah64blah64 Posts: 851member
    gatorguy said:
    blah64 said:
    cropr said:
    ireland said:
    Apple should acquire DDG and give them unlimited funds to execute on their mission. Their CEO has the best response I’ve ever seen on Quora. And then when an iPhone user updates their phone and opens Safari a splash screen should give users a choice of search engines to select from, putting DDG in a very prominent position, where Apple can claim the annonmous ad income and remove Google from their defecto position. Unlike Facebook and Google, Duck-Duck doesn’t build profiles on individuals—their software is purposefully designed not to.
    DDG is really targeted for US related content. So if Apple were to acquire the DDG and make it the default search engine the rest of the world have a clearly degraded experience.
     But 100% google-free (and facebook and other tracking companies -free) for many years now.
    Then you would not be the Blah64 in Texas.
    What an odd thing to say.  Did you think you "found" me?  I'm not going to give my location, but I'm okay saying that I'm most definitely not in Texas.  A linguistic assessment of all my posts would probably bear that out.
    The problem becomes old or supposedly unimportant info gets linked by companies such as Acxiom, augmented with what most would assume is unconnectable data but isn't when there's hundreds/thousands of data points available from a multitude of sources, then packaged for a fuller dossier to be resold.  Unless someone had NEVER shared personal information with a credit provider, store (for a return, warranty etc), employer, school, insurer, taxing agency, hospital, club, magazine, etc then there's a file out there for sale with your real name and personal info in it. Just because you now avoid online social sites and certain browsers/search engines doesn't mean you have become anonymous and not for sale.

    "All that stuff ain't comin' from the internets."
    You bring this up all the time, trying to make google look "less evil" because other companies do similar data gathering.

    --> Just because there are other bad companies around, doesn't make google any less bad. <--  (except in your mind, it seems)


    I don't like clouding the actual message (bold, above), but without getting into details, most of what you've mentioned above isn't applicable to me, personally.  There are very few bits of personal data that any of these companies have on me.  Unfortunately, there are 3 things that are nearly impossible to avoid: finance/banking, healthcare, and insurance.  The last two are related, but not the same as far as personal data.  I do have a couple banking relationships, none of which have any electronic associations, such as an email address, and I do not use mobile or online banking.  Healthcare data is a mess, but at least there's a veneer of protection.  Perhaps a topic for another day.  And insurance is an even bigger mess, with very little regulation.  My insurers know as little about me as possible, but it's still more than I'd like.  And I do presume that some of that data is shared and/or sold.

    Most people that I know, even so-called privacy advocates, give up a lot of data for the sake of convenience.  You should know by now that I'm not one of them.
    potatoleeksoupStrangeDayscornchiplostkiwilolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 22
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,665member
    If Apple can get over $3 billion from Google in 2017, imaging how much the Android phone makers get? Hint: the Android market share is at least five times that of iOS. AI claiming Apple making the lion's share of profit from selling iPhone while Android makers making little to losing is not telling the real story. 
  • Reply 13 of 22
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,607member
    blah64 said:
    gatorguy said:
    blah64 said:
    cropr said:
    ireland said:
    Apple should acquire DDG and give them unlimited funds to execute on their mission. Their CEO has the best response I’ve ever seen on Quora. And then when an iPhone user updates their phone and opens Safari a splash screen should give users a choice of search engines to select from, putting DDG in a very prominent position, where Apple can claim the annonmous ad income and remove Google from their defecto position. Unlike Facebook and Google, Duck-Duck doesn’t build profiles on individuals—their software is purposefully designed not to.
    DDG is really targeted for US related content. So if Apple were to acquire the DDG and make it the default search engine the rest of the world have a clearly degraded experience.
     But 100% google-free (and facebook and other tracking companies -free) for many years now.
    Then you would not be the Blah64 in Texas.
    What an odd thing to say.  Did you think you "found" me?  I'm not going to give my location, but I'm okay saying that I'm most definitely not in Texas.  A linguistic assessment of all my posts would probably bear that out.
    The problem becomes old or supposedly unimportant info gets linked by companies such as Acxiom, augmented with what most would assume is unconnectable data but isn't when there's hundreds/thousands of data points available from a multitude of sources, then packaged for a fuller dossier to be resold.  Unless someone had NEVER shared personal information with a credit provider, store (for a return, warranty etc), employer, school, insurer, taxing agency, hospital, club, magazine, etc then there's a file out there for sale with your real name and personal info in it. Just because you now avoid online social sites and certain browsers/search engines doesn't mean you have become anonymous and not for sale.

    "All that stuff ain't comin' from the internets."
    You bring this up all the time, trying to make google look "less evil" because other companies do similar data gathering.

    --> Just because there are other bad companies around, doesn't make google any less bad. <--  (except in your mind, it seems)


    I don't like clouding the actual message (bold, above), but without getting into details, most of what you've mentioned above isn't applicable to me, personally.  There are very few bits of personal data that any of these companies have on me.  Unfortunately, there are 3 things that are nearly impossible to avoid: finance/banking, healthcare, and insurance.  The last two are related, but not the same as far as personal data.  I do have a couple banking relationships, none of which have any electronic associations, such as an email address, and I do not use mobile or online banking.  Healthcare data is a mess, but at least there's a veneer of protection.  Perhaps a topic for another day.  And insurance is an even bigger mess, with very little regulation.  My insurers know as little about me as possible, but it's still more than I'd like.  And I do presume that some of that data is shared and/or sold.

    Most people that I know, even so-called privacy advocates, give up a lot of data for the sake of convenience.  You should know by now that I'm not one of them.
    Not at all an odd thing to say. Many folks think they are more anonymous than they actually are, tho I was pretty certain that didn't apply to you. I think you mostly get it.

    But anyway I'm not trying to make Google out as a company that no one should have any concerns about and at the same time very properly pointing out that it's a fool's view if thinking they've somehow "protected their privacy" by avoiding Facebook and Google. You seem to focus more on the Google aspect despite the fact they don't sell personal data and on the contrary are exceedingly protective of it, when there are far greater and more directed privacy concerns out there that we unknowingly feed on a regular basis. 

    The worst Google is going to do for the foreseeable future is toss an ad your way, one that you may or may not have an interest in. But it's an ad. They're not trying to steal your identify, sell your health data, out you as a corporate spy or wife-beater, disclose your arrest record or tell anyone where you live or where you like to go....
    But there are companies and individuals out there who do exactly that for the right price. They worry me a whole lot more than whether long after I'm dead and buried Google or Apple gets sold to someone who is less protective of whatever they know about us. 
    edited May 4 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 14 of 22
    irelandireland Posts: 17,137member
    cropr said:
    ireland said:
    Apple should acquire DDG and give them unlimited funds to execute on their mission. Their CEO has the best response I’ve ever seen on Quora. And then when an iPhone user updates their phone and opens Safari a splash screen should give users a choice of search engines to select from, putting DDG in a very prominent position, where Apple can claim the annonmous ad income and remove Google from their defecto position. Unlike Facebook and Google, Duck-Duck doesn’t build profiles on individuals—their software is purposefully designed not to.
    DDG is really targeted for US related content. So if Apple were to acquire the DDG and make it the default search engine the rest of the world have a clearly degraded experience.
    I’m based in Ireland and have been using DDG pretty much exclusively for well over a year.
    lostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 22
    irelandireland Posts: 17,137member
    blah64 said:

    What an odd thing to say. Did you think you "found" me?  I'm not going to give my location, but I'm okay saying that I'm most definitely not in Texas.
    Your the blah64 in Texas. It’s settled.
  • Reply 16 of 22
    blah64blah64 Posts: 851member
    ireland said:
    blah64 said:

    What an odd thing to say. Did you think you "found" me?  I'm not going to give my location, but I'm okay saying that I'm most definitely not in Texas.
    Your the blah64 in Texas. It’s settled.
    Good one.  Yup, I guess y'all caught me.  lol
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 22
    blah64blah64 Posts: 851member
    ireland said:
    cropr said:
    ireland said:
    Apple should acquire DDG and give them unlimited funds to execute on their mission. Their CEO has the best response I’ve ever seen on Quora. And then when an iPhone user updates their phone and opens Safari a splash screen should give users a choice of search engines to select from, putting DDG in a very prominent position, where Apple can claim the annonmous ad income and remove Google from their defecto position. Unlike Facebook and Google, Duck-Duck doesn’t build profiles on individuals—their software is purposefully designed not to.
    DDG is really targeted for US related content. So if Apple were to acquire the DDG and make it the default search engine the rest of the world have a clearly degraded experience.
    I’m based in Ireland and have been using DDG pretty much exclusively for well over a year.
    Have you tried StartPage?

    DDG is a nice service that I make use of as well, but once you click any of their returned URLs, you're usually going to be tracked.  The StartPage proxy links allow you to (often) load the information on the linked pages without being tracked at all.  Neither search engine is perfect, but both are great tools to have in your web-surfing toolbox.
    lostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 22
    blah64blah64 Posts: 851member
    gatorguy said:

    The problem becomes old or supposedly unimportant info gets linked by companies such as Acxiom, augmented with what most would assume is unconnectable data but isn't when there's hundreds/thousands of data points available from a multitude of sources, then packaged for a fuller dossier to be resold.  Unless someone had NEVER shared personal information with a credit provider, store (for a return, warranty etc), employer, school, insurer, taxing agency, hospital, club, magazine, etc then there's a file out there for sale with your real name and personal info in it. Just because you now avoid online social sites and certain browsers/search engines doesn't mean you have become anonymous and not for sale.

    "All that stuff ain't comin' from the internets."
    You bring this up all the time, trying to make google look "less evil" because other companies do similar data gathering.

    --> Just because there are other bad companies around, doesn't make google any less bad. <--  (except in your mind, it seems)

    <snip>

    But anyway I'm not trying to make Google out as a company that no one should have any concerns about and at the same time very properly pointing out that it's a fool's view if thinking they've somehow "protected their privacy" by avoiding Facebook and Google. You seem to focus more on the Google aspect despite the fact they don't sell personal data and on the contrary are exceedingly protective of it, when there are far greater and more directed privacy concerns out there that we unknowingly feed on a regular basis. 
    And you seem to have an uncanny focus on comparing google to other companies instead of letting what they do stand on its own, which at the core is collecting behavioral profiles of internet users.  Note that I didn't say account holders, because their reach is far beyond that.  If it wasn't, I'd complain less.

    Clearly other companies are bad.  facebook is a more sleazy company than google, but google is far more ubiquitous and far more difficult to avoid.  Studies have show this for some time, here are recent articles about the (relative) sheer quantity of data:

    BGR:  Forget Facebook, Google hoards even more of your personal data
    Wall Street Journal:  Who Has More of Your Personal Data Than Facebook? Try Google

    The worst Google is going to do for the foreseeable future is toss an ad your way, one that you may or may not have an interest in. But it's an ad. They're not trying to steal your identify, sell your health data, out you as a corporate spy or wife-beater, disclose your arrest record or tell anyone where you live or where you like to go....
    But there are companies and individuals out there who do exactly that for the right price. They worry me a whole lot more than whether long after I'm dead and buried Google or Apple gets sold to someone who is less protective of whatever they know about us. 
    If you truly believe this, then you are far more naive than I think you actually are.  Long before you and I are dead and gone, management will change, laws will change, internet users' attitudes will change (and they've already changed A LOT!), and at the end of the day, that data is not safe and will not be able to be contained.  Period. 

    Do you think it's even remotely possible to protect this massively valuable treasure trove of data forever?  Against state-level attacks?  For a while, sure, but it only takes one successful hack to beat thousands or millions of successful defenses.  Passwords are hacked every day via a wide variety of means.  And do you think that when the next 9/11 happens that Larry will go to jail to protect your personal data from being slurped up in its entirety by our wonderful gov't?  Of course not.  People will be scared, congress will react, and all that data will be out, and likely available via direct feeds.  The amount of behavioral data that companies like google have simply cannot be allowed to exist as it does now.

    FWIW, I would like to see better research that compares google dossiers with data brokers like acxiom, but neither company will ever willingly make that kind of data public.  We only see a fraction of what their algorithms are able to suss out about individuals.  And don't forget that google has something like double (or more) data than facebook, according to what I've read over the years.

    lostkiwilolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 22
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,607member
    blah64 said:
    gatorguy said:

    The problem becomes old or supposedly unimportant info gets linked by companies such as Acxiom, augmented with what most would assume is unconnectable data but isn't when there's hundreds/thousands of data points available from a multitude of sources, then packaged for a fuller dossier to be resold.  Unless someone had NEVER shared personal information with a credit provider, store (for a return, warranty etc), employer, school, insurer, taxing agency, hospital, club, magazine, etc then there's a file out there for sale with your real name and personal info in it. Just because you now avoid online social sites and certain browsers/search engines doesn't mean you have become anonymous and not for sale.

    "All that stuff ain't comin' from the internets."
    You bring this up all the time, trying to make google look "less evil" because other companies do similar data gathering.

    --> Just because there are other bad companies around, doesn't make google any less bad. <--  (except in your mind, it seems)

    <snip>

    But anyway I'm not trying to make Google out as a company that no one should have any concerns about and at the same time very properly pointing out that it's a fool's view if thinking they've somehow "protected their privacy" by avoiding Facebook and Google. You seem to focus more on the Google aspect despite the fact they don't sell personal data and on the contrary are exceedingly protective of it, when there are far greater and more directed privacy concerns out there that we unknowingly feed on a regular basis. 
    And you seem to have an uncanny focus on comparing google to other companies instead of letting what they do stand on its own, which at the core is collecting behavioral profiles of internet users.  

    Long before you and I are dead and gone, management will change, laws will change, internet users' attitudes will change (and they've already changed A LOT!), and at the end of the day, that data is not safe and will not be able to be contained.  Period.... The amount of behavioral data that companies like google have simply cannot be allowed to exist as it does now.

    FWIW, I would like to see better research that compares google dossiers with data brokers like acxiom, but neither company will ever willingly make that kind of data public.  We only see a fraction of what their algorithms are able to suss out about individuals.  And don't forget that google has something like double (or more) data than facebook, according to what I've read over the years.

    I don't actually believe that as a rational person concerned today about where and how your personal information is used and whether it's for your benefit that you'd be more worried about a "what if maybe someday something changes" Google than a clear and present danger today like your insurers, financial institutions, and the data aggregators such as Acxiom, TransUnion, and Experion. Google ( or Apple or others for that matter) may or may not be a problem "some day" while all the others are a problem today and staring you right in the face.

    Question for you: While you were typing out your response earlier how many personal dossiers do you think might have been sold behind the scenes?  A thousand? 100 thousand? A million? More? Could any of them included you? Me? Even if you don't have the answers to any of that the one thing you do know is that it wasn't Google selling those personal dossiers. 

    But you would prefer we all worry most about the advertising company and not be looking at the organizations in the shadows who minute by minute aggregate, collate, and sell whatever personally identifiable information they can from every source imaginable no matter how private or how seemingly mundane? So yeah I don't worry about Google as much, and for what I think are very logical and rational reasons. I don't see Google on the same privacy-endangering level today as those others I mentioned (and they may never be), and I don't really believe you do either, I think there may be something else motivating you IMHO, but that's just a semi-educated guess. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 20 of 22
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,607member
    blah64 said:
    You bring this up all the time, trying to make google look "less evil" because other companies do similar data gathering.

    --> Just because there are other bad companies around, doesn't make google any less bad. <--  (except in your mind, it seems)
    Think of it as two gun-owners living in two houses next to you. You don't particularly like guns, been reading about accidents involving careless owners, and thus would rather neither of them had them. You have proof the neighbor on the left has actively threatened your home and your family with his weapons, hides the fact he raids your garden, takes pictures of you from outside your window when you're not looking. 

    The one on your right is simply a gun-owning neighbor, one you let use your property for growing vegetables for his restaurant. While you might prefer he didn't have those guns he does at least maintain a relationship with you, trading a few things back and forth, profiting off your land in return for some odd and end maintenance jobs around your house.

    Even tho there's no guarantee that the right side neighbor will never be a threat to you, afterall he IS a gun-owner and any of them could possibly become a danger someday, which one deserves your attention? Bingo. One is worse than the other.
    edited May 6 muthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.