gatorguy

About

Username
gatorguy
Joined
Visits
574
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
18,918
Badges
3
Posts
24,772

Reactions

7.8KLike92Dislike2.2KInformative

  • TikTok's ban saga is a mess, with only days before the hammer falls

    gatorguygatorguy
    foregoneconclusion said:
    FYI: the "Department of Government Efficiency" isn't part of the government at all. It's just a glorified task force.
    Yup. And what are the odds the name of the crypto that tocayo Musk is endorsing and invested in is the same as the acronym he created for this non-agency.  Rich get richer. 
    DAalsethronn

  • Apple Camera due in 2026 -- but Home Hub may get delayed

    gatorguygatorguy
    For now it all sounds like vaporware.

    First "it's coming soon", then "maybe a delay to the end of this year", then maybe later in 2026, or maybe 2027. Or not at all. It's going to do such and such and look like this and that, then a new "report" claims things are going to take a different path. Maybe by late this year, what's real and what's just wishful thinking will be more evident. 
    ramanpfaff

  • Apple reaffirms privacy as a tentpole feature in Siri after lawsuit settlement

    gatorguygatorguy
    A well-written article overall. Kudos to the author. 

    I have just one suggestion, which isn't unique to this specific article:
    Make it more clear that the writer has no evidence that either Google or Amazon sell otherwise private user data, which is not unlike Apple. They may use collected data internally in ways that Apple doesn't, or at least does in a far more limited fashion. But none of the three ever sell your data to any outside parties, whether it be an advertiser or data broker or government agency.  What is entrusted to them stays with them.

    Sometimes readers are left with the impression that's not the case, which may not be the writer's intent. 
    muthuk_vanalingamdewme

  • Ending Google search partnership would hamstring Apple, says Eddy Cue

    gatorguygatorguy

    Apple NEEDS to win this for itself AND Google. Because lots of unsavory details risk being discovered in ther deal. 

    The discovery phase was done long ago, as was the trial and outcome. No one in this court is looking for more "unsavory details". Done and over. Apple wants to join Google to defend against the government's suggested cure.

    Any post-judgment appeals are sometime in the future, and Apple has not suggested they would like to be involved there as well. 
    danox

  • Ending Google search partnership would hamstring Apple, says Eddy Cue

    gatorguygatorguy
    blastdoor said:
    gatorguy said:
    blastdoor said:
    gatorguy said:
    blastdoor said:
    gatorguy said:
    Apple has gone a step further than the article mentions. It now wants to participate in Google's legal defense, concerned that Google cannot adequately protect both themselves and Apple's interests against the government's demands for a break-up. 

    https://www.thurrott.com/apple/314883/apple-files-to-represent-itself-in-google-antitrust-remedy-proceedings
    Reading this Cue quote:

    The development of a search engine would require diverting both capital investment and employees because creating a search engine would cost billions of dollars and take many years. Search is rapidly evolving due to recent and ongoing developments in Artificial Intelligence, making it economically risky to devote the huge resources that would be required to create a search engine. 

    makes it sound like not only should Google not be paying apple, but that apple should be paying Google. 

    If Cue truly means this then it implies (1) Google is dumb for paying apple and (2) apple is dumb for pointing out that Google is dumb. 

    But I think neither apple nor Google are dumb, which makes me think Cue doesn’t believe what he’s saying but does believe (or hopes) that the audience for his message is dumb. 
    Wow, quite the leap in logic. 

    Google is paying Apple for default placement, but not so that Apple doesn't create their own search engine. Both companies knew Apple wasn't planning one, something frenemies would understand. Google wanted a guaranteed fast track to Apple users and their shopping plans, worth about $40B/year in profit as of 2021 after paying Apple their cut. That's minimally $160B into Google coffers over the past four years and probably north of $200Billion. AS for Apple they got at least $80B for doing essentially nothing and at zero cost. Pure profit. Surely you understood why the two made a deal?
    If there is no way that Apple would make their own search engine and regards googles search engine as best, why would Google pay apple $20 billion for default placement ? Love?
    The didn't "pay Apple $20B for placement". They paid Apple $20B in 2021 because it worked out to be the contractually agreed on 1/3rd cut, perhaps a percentage or two higher, of search revenue Google collected from Safari searches. Default settings are rarely changed, which Google understands, an so id Microsoft who also wanted that default. More profit with less work, a LOT more and essentially guaranteed.

    With Apple and Google it was not set at a flat $20B. It is percentage-based and could have been more or less based on how much profit Google realized. 

    There's no other search provider who would have delivered better results for Apple, and there still isn't. Apple likes profit, and profit without effort is even better. 
    You’re missing the forest for the chlorophyll in the leaves of the trees. 

    If Google is clearly the best search engine that Apple really wants to use and Apple would never ever want to build their own, why does there need to be a contract? Why does there need to be any payments?
    Perhaps because, as with Spotlight default, Microsoft (Bing) was negotiating with Apple to also be the Safari default search provider. Apple's response was to see what Google would offer? Apple knew they were leaving money on the table by making users decide for themselves who would provide search for them. Apple took the money laying there unclaimed by adding a bit of encouragement to use Apple's choice. A default provider. Someone was going to be required to give Apple a profitable contract, even if it wasn't Google.

    Apple wanted to sell the search position, not develop and provide it themselves. That much should be obvious. 
    thtmuthuk_vanalingam