Google Apple: These Folks Like Geniuses and Numbers in the 30s
November 13, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The New York Post published a story which may or may not be one the money. I would suggest that the odds of it being accurate are in the 30 percent range. In fact, 30 percent is emerging as a favorite number. Apple, for instance, imposes what some have called a 30 percent “Apple tax.” Don’t get me wrong. Apple is just trying to squeak by in a tough economy. I love the connector on the MacBook Air which is unlike any Apple connector in my collection. And the $130 USB cable? Brilliant.
The poor Widow Apple is pleading with the Bank of Googzilla for a more favorable commission. The friendly bean counter is not willing to pay more than one third of the cash take. “I want to pay you more, but hard times are upon us, Widow Apple. Might we agree on a slightly higher number?” The poor Widow Apple sniffs and nods her head in agreement as the frail child Mac Air the Third whimpers.
The write up which has me tangled in 30s is “Google Witness Accidentally Reveals Company Pays Apple 36% of Search Ad Revenue.” I was enthralled with the idea that a Google witness could do something by accident. I assumed Google witnesses were in sync with the giant, user centric online advertising outfit.
The write up states:
Google pays Apple a 36% share of search advertising revenue generated through its Safari browser, one of the tech giant’s witnesses accidentally revealed in a bombshell moment during the Justice Department’s landmark antitrust trial on Monday. The flub was made by Ken Murphy, a University of Chicago economist and the final witness expected to be called by Google’s defense team.
Okay, a 36 percent share: Sounds fair. True, it is a six percent premium on the so-called “Apple tax.” But Google has the incentive to pay more for traffic. That “pay to play” business model is indeed popular it seems.
The write up “Usury in Historical Perspective” includes an interesting passage; to wit:
Mews and Abraham write that 5,000 years ago Sumer (the earliest known human civilization) had its own issues with excessive interest. Evidence suggests that wealthy landowners loaned out silver and barley at rates of 20 percent or more, with non-payment resulting in bondage. In response, the Babylonian monarch occasionally stepped in to free the debtors.
A measly 20 percent? Flash forward to the present. At 36 percent inflation has not had much of an impact on the Apple Google deal.
Who is University of Chicago economist who allegedly revealed a super secret number? According to the always-begging Wikipedia, he is a person who has written more than 50 articles. He is a recipient of the MacArthur Fellowship sometimes known as a “genius grant.” Ergo a genius.
I noted this passage in the allegedly accurate write up:
Google had argued as recently as last week that the details of the agreement were sensitive company information – and that revealing the info “would unreasonably undermine Google’s competitive standing in relation to both competitors and other counterparties.” Schmidtlein [Google’s robust legal eagle] and other Google attorneys have pushed back on DOJ’s assertions regarding the default search engine deals. The company argues that its payments to Apple, AT&T and other firms are fair compensation.
I like the phrase “fair compensation.” It matches nicely with the 36 percent commission on top of the $25 billion Google paid Apple to make the wonderful Google search system the default in Apple’s Safari browser. The money, in my opinion, illustrates the depth of love users have for the Google search system. Presumably Google wants to spare the Safari user the hassle required to specify another Web search system like Bing.com or Yandex.com.
Goodness, Google cares about its users so darned much, I conclude.
Despite the heroic efforts of Big Tech on Trial, I find that getting information about a trial between the US and everyone’s favorite search system difficult. Why the secrecy? Why the redactions? Why the cringing when the genius revealed the 36 percent commission?
I think I know why. Here are three reasons for the cringe:
- Google is thin skinned. Criticism is not part of the game plan, particularly with high school reunions coming up.
- Google understands that those not smart enough (like the genius Ken Murphy) would not understand the logic of the number. Those who are not Googley won’t get it, so why bother to reveal the number?
- Google hires geniuses. Geniuses don’t make mistakes. Therefore, the 36 percent reveal is numeric proof of the sophistication of Google’s analytic expertise. Apple could have gotten more money; Google is the winner.
Net net: My hunch is that the cloud of unknowing wrapped around the evidence in this trial makes clear that the Google is just doing what anyone smart enough to work at Google would do. Cleverness is good. Being a genius is good. Appearing to be dumb is not Googley. Oh, oh. I am not smart enough to see the sheer brilliance of the number, its revelation, and how it makes Google even more adorable with its super special deals.
Stephen E Arnold, November 13, 2023
Mommy, Mommy, He Will Not Share the Toys (The Rat!)
November 8, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
In your past, did someone take your toy dump truck or walk up to you in the lunch room in full view of the other nine year olds and take your chocolate chip cookie? What an inappropriate action. What does the aggrieved nine year old do if he or she comes from an upper economic class? Call the family lawyer? Of course. That is a logical action. The cookie is not a cookie; it is a principle.
“That’s right, mommy. The big kid at school took my lunch and won’t let me play on the teeter totter. Please, help me, mommy. That big kid is not behaving right,” says the petulant child. The mommy is sympathetic. An injustice has been wrought upon her flesh and blood. Thanks, MidJourney. I learned that “nasty” is a forbidden word. It is a “nasty blow” that you dealt me.
“Google and Prominent Telecom Groups Call on Brussels to Act Over Apple’s Imessage” strikes me as a similar situation. A bigger child has taken the cookies. The aggrieved children want those cookies back. They also want retribution. Taking the cookies. That’s unjust from the petulant kids’ point of view.
The Financial Times’s article takes a different approach, using more mature language. Here’s a snippet of what’s shakin’ in the kindergarten mind:
Currently, only Apple users are able to communicate via iMessage, making its signature “blue bubble” texts a key factor in retaining iPhone owners’ loyalty, especially among younger consumers. When customers using smartphones running Google’s Android software join an iMessage chat group all the messages change color, indicating it has defaulted to standard SMS.
So what’s up? The FT reports:
Rivals have long sought to break iMessage’s exclusivity to Apple’s hardware, in the hope that it might encourage customers to switch to its devices. In a letter sent to the commission and seen by the Financial Times, the signatories, which include a Google senior vice-president and the chief executives of Vodafone, Deutsche Telekom, Telefónica and Orange, claimed Apple’s service meets the qualitative thresholds of the act. It therefore should be captured by the rules to “benefit European consumers and businesses”, they wrote.
I wonder if these giant corporations realize that some perceive many of their business actions as somewhat similar; specifically, the fences constructed so that competitors cannot encroach on their products and services.
I read the FT’s article as the equivalent of the child who had his cookie taken away. The parent — in this case — is the legal system of the European Union.
Those blue and green bubbles are to be shared. What will mommy decide? In the US, some mommies call their attorneys and threaten or take legal action. That’s right and just. I want those darned cookies and my mommy is going to get them, get the wrongdoers put in jail, and do significant reputational damage.
“Take my cookies; you pay,” some say in a most Googley way.
Stephen E Arnold, November 8, 2023
The AI Bandwagon: A Hoped for Lawyer Billing Bonanza
November 8, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The AI bandwagon is picking up speed. A dark smudge appears in the sky. What is it? An unidentified aerial phenomenon? No, it is a dense cloud of legal eagles. I read “U.S. Regulation of Artificial Intelligence: Presidential Executive Order Paves the Way for Future Action in the Private Sector.”
A legal eagle — aka known as a lawyer or the segment of humanity one of Shakespeare’s characters wanted to drown — is thrilled to read an official version of the US government’s AI statement. Look at what is coming from above. It is money from fees. Thanks, Microsoft Bing, you do understand how the legal profession finds pots of gold.
In this essay, which is free advice and possibly marketing hoo hah, I noted this paragraph:
While the true measure of the Order’s impact has yet to be felt, clearly federal agencies and executive offices are now required to devote rigorous analysis and attention to AI within their own operations, and to embark on focused rulemaking and regulation for businesses in the private sector. For the present, businesses that have or are considering implementation of AI programs should seek the advice of qualified counsel to ensure that AI usage is tailored to business objectives, closely monitored, and sufficiently flexible to change as laws evolve.
Absolutely. I would wager a 25 cents coin that the advice, unlike the free essay, will incur a fee. Some of those legal fees make the pittance I charge look like the cost of chopped liver sandwich in a Manhattan deli.
Stephen E Arnold, November 8, 2023
Is Utah a Step Behind As Meta Threads Picks Up Steam?
November 3, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Now that TikTok has become firmly embedded in US culture, regulators are finally getting around to addressing its purported harms. Utah joins Arkansas and Indiana in suing parent company ByteDance even as the US Supreme Court considers whether social-media regulation violates the US Constitution. No, it is not the threat of Chinese spying that has Utah’s Division of Consumer Protection taking action this time. Rather, Digital Trends reports, “TikTok Sued by Utah Over Alleged Child Addiction Harm.” Yes, that’s a big concern too. Writer Treavor Mogg tells us:
“Utah’s filing focuses on the app’s alleged negative impact on children, claiming that TikTok ‘surreptitiously designed and deployed addictive features to hook young users into endlessly scrolling through the company’s app.’ It accused TikTok of wanting Utah citizens to ‘spend as much time on its app as possible so it can place advertisements in front of them more often,’ and alleges that the company ‘misled young users and their parents about the app’s dangers.’ In damning comments shared in a statement on Tuesday, Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes said: ‘I’m tired of TikTok lying to Utah parents. I’m tired of our kids losing their innocence and even their lives addicted to the dark side of social media. TikTok will only change if put at legal risk — and ‘at risk’ is where they have left our youth in exchange for profit and greed. Immediate and pervasive threats require swift and bold responses. We have a compelling case against TikTok. Our kids are worth the fight.’”
Reyes is not bluffing. The state has already passed laws to limit minors’ social media usage, with measures such as verified parental consent required for sign-ups and even making accounts and messages accessible to parents. Though many are concerned the latter is a violation of kids’ privacy, the laws are scheduled to go into effect next year.
But what about the other social media apps? Elon is not dragging his heels. And the Zuck? Always the Zuck.
Cynthia Murrell, November 3, 2023
Cyber Security Professionals May Need Worry Beads. Good Worry Beads
November 1, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I read “SEC Charges SolarWinds and Its CISO With Fraud and Cybersecurity Failures.” Let’s assume the write up is accurate or — to hit today’s target for excellence — the article is close enough for horseshoes. Armed with this assumption, will cyber security professionals find that their employers or customers will be taking a closer look at the actual efficacy of the digital fences and news flows that keep bad actors outside the barn?
A very happy bad actor laughs after penetrating a corporate security system cackles in a Starbucks: “Hey, that was easy. When will these people wake up that you should not have fired me.” Thanks, MidJourney, not exactly what I wanted but good enough, the new standard of excellence.
The write up suggests that the answer may be a less than quiet yes. I noted this statement in the write up:
According to the complaint filed by the SEC, Austin, Texas-based SolarWinds and Brown [top cyber dog at SolarWinds] are accused of deceiving investors by overstating the company’s cybersecurity practices while understating or failing to disclose known risks. The SEC alleges that SolarWinds misled investors by disclosing only vague and hypothetical risks while internally acknowledging specific cybersecurity deficiencies and escalating threats.
The shoe hit the floor, if the write up is on the money:
A key piece of evidence cited in the complaint is a 2018 internal presentation prepared by a SolarWinds engineer [an employee who stated something senior management does not enjoy knowing] that was shared internally, including with Brown. The presentation stated that SolarWinds’ remote access setup was “not very secure” and that exploiting the vulnerability could lead to “major reputation and financial loss” for the company. Similarly, presentations by Brown in 2018 and 2019 indicated concerns about the company’s cybersecurity posture.
From my point of view, there are several items to jot down on a 4×6 inch notecard and tape on the wall:
- The “truth” is often at odds with what senior managers want to believe, think they know, or want to learn. Ignorance is bliss, just not a good excuse after a modest misstep.
- There are more companies involved in the foul up than the news sources have identified. Far be it from me to suggest that highly regarded big-time software companies do a C minus job engineering their security. Keep in mind that most senior managers — even at high tech firms — are out of the technology loop no matter what the LinkedIn biography says or employees believe. Accountants and MBA are good at some things, bad at others. Cyber security is in the “bad” ledger.
- The marketing collateral for most cyber security, threat intelligence services, and predictive alerting services talks about a sci-fi world, not the here and now of computer science students given penetration assignments from nifty places like Estonia and Romania, among others. There are disaffected employees who want to leave their former employers a digital hickey. There are developers, hired via a respected gig matcher, who will do whatever an anonymous customer requires for hard cash or a crypto payment. Most companies have no idea how or where the problem originates.
- Think about insider threats, particularly when insiders include contractors, interns, employees who are unloved, or consulting firm with a sketchy wizard gathering data inside of a commercial operation.
Sure, cyber security just works. Yeah, right. Maybe this alleged action toward a security professional will create some discomfort and a few troubled dreams. Will there be immediate and direct change? Nope. But the PowerPoint decks will be edited. The software will not be fixed up as quickly. That’s expensive and may not be possible with a cyber security firm’s current technical staff and financial resources.
Stephen E Arnold, November 1, 2023
How Does One Impede US AI Progress? Have a Government Meeting?
November 1, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The Washington Post may be sparking a litigation hoedown. How can a newspaper give legal eagles an opportunity to buy a private island and not worry about the cost of LexisNexis searches? The answer may be in “AI Researchers Uncover Ethical, Legal Risks to Using Popular Data Sets.” The UK’s efforts to get a group to corral smart software are interesting. Lawyers may be the foot that slows AI traffic on the new Information Superhighway.
The Washington Post reports:
The advent of chatbots that can answer questions and mimic human speech has kicked off a race to build bigger and better generative AI models. It has also triggered questions around copyright and fair use of text taken off the internet, a key component of the massive corpus of data required to train large AI systems. But without proper licensing, developers are in the dark about potential copyright restrictions, limitations on commercial use or requirements to credit a data set’s creators.
There is nothing like jumping in a lake with the local Polar Bears Club to spark investor concern about paying big fines. The chills and thrills of the cold water create a heightened state of awareness.
The article continues:
But without proper licensing, developers are in the dark about potential copyright restrictions, limitations on commercial use or requirements to credit a data set’s creators.
How’s the water this morning?
Several observations:
- A collision between the compunction to innovate in AI and the risk of legal liability seems likely
- Innovators will forge ahead and investors will have to figure out the risks by looking for legal eagles and big sharks lurking below the surface
- Whatever happens in North America and Western Europe will not slow the pace of investment into AI in the Middle East and China.
- Are there unpopular data sets perhaps generated by biased smart software?
Uncertainty and risk. Thanks, AI innovators.
Stephen E Arnold, November 1, 2023
Google Pays Apple to Be More Secure? Petulant, Parental, or Indifferent?
October 31, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I am fascinated by the allegedly “real” information in this Fortune Magazine write up: “Google CEO Sundar Pichai Swears Under Oath That $26 Billion Payment to Device Makers Was Partly to Nudge Them to Make Security Upgrades and Other Improvements.”
As I read the article, this passage pokes me in the nose:
Pichai, the star witness in Google’s defense, testified Monday that Google’s payments to phone manufacturers and wireless phone companies were partly meant to nudge them into making costly security upgrades and other improvements to their devices, not just to ensure Google was the first search engine users encounter when they open their smartphones or computers. Google makes money when users click on advertisements that pop up in its searches and shares the revenue with Apple and other companies that make Google their default search engine.
First, I like the “star witness” characterization. It is good to know where the buck stops at the Alphabet Google YouTube et al enterprise fruit basket.
The driver and passengers shout to the kids, “Use this money to improve your security. If you need more, just call 1 800 P A Y O F F S. Thanks, MidJourney, you do money reasonably well. By the way, where did the cash come from?
Second, I like the notion of paying billions to nudge someone to do something. I know that getting action from DC lobbyists, hiring people from competitors, pushing out people who disagree with Google management, and buying clicks costs less than billions. In some cases, the fees are considerably lower. Some non US law enforcement entities collection several thousand dollars from wives who want to have their husbands killed by an Albanian or Mexican hit man. Billions does more than nudge. Billions means business.
Third, I liked the reminder that no ruling will result in 2023. Then once a ruling is revealed, “another trial will determine how to rein in its [the Google construct’s] market power.”
Several questions popped into my mind:
- Is the “nudge” thing serious? My dinobaby mind interprets the statement as either a bit of insider humor, a disconnect between the Googley world and most people’s everyday reality, or a bit dismissive. I can hear one of my high school science club member’s saying to a teacher perceived as dull normal, “You would not understand the real reason so I am pointing the finger at Plato’s philosophy.”
- The “billions” is the giveaway. That is more than the average pay-to-play shyster of Fiverr.com charges. Why such a premium For billions, I can think of several lobbying outfits who would do some pretty wild and crazy things for a couple of hundred million in cash.
- Why is the already glacier-like legal process moving slowly with the prospect of yet another trial to come? With a substantial footprint in search and online advertising, are some billions being used to create the world’s most effective brake on a legal process?
- Why is so much of the information redacted and otherwise difficult or almost impossible to review? I thought the idea of a public trial involving a publicly traded company in a democratic society was supposed to be done in the sunshine?
Fortune Magazine sees nothing amiss. I wonder if I am the only dinobaby wondering what’s beneath the surface of what seems to be a trial which is showing some indications of being quite Googley. I am not sure if that is a positive thing.
I also wonder why a large outfit like Apple needs to be nudged with Google billions? That strikes me as something worth thinking about. The fake Albanian and Mexican hitmen may learn something new by answering that question. Hey, Fortune Magazine, why not take another shot at covering this story?
Stephen E Arnold, October 31, 2023
Google Loves Up Search Engine Optimization
October 31, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Alphabet, Google, YouTube is definitely a believer in search engine optimization or SEO. How do I know? Consider the reports that relay this allegedly accurate number: $26 billion. Yep, $26 billion paid out to other companies to buy click love.
“Google Paid a Whopping $26.3 Billion in 2021 to Be the Default Search Engine Everywhere” asserts:
Google obviously agrees and has paid a staggering amount to make sure it is the default: testimony in the trial revealed that Google spent a total of $26.3 billion in 2021 to be the default search engine in multiple browsers, phones, and platforms.
The article shares some napkin math and says:
Just to put that $26.3 billion in context: Alphabet, Google’s parent company, announced in its recent earnings report that Google Search ad business brought in about $44 billion over the last three months and about $165 billion in the last year. Its entire ad business — which also includes YouTube ads — made a bit under $90 billion in profit. This is all back-of-the-napkin math, but essentially, Google is giving up about 16 percent of its search revenue and about 29 percent of its profit to those distribution deals.
It appears that Google does its own big money SEO. It pays to be the search system and, therefore, is artificially boosted to be the winner. Yes, SEO, but not the penny ante silliness of an art history major working at a Google optimization company. The billions deliver the big school of fish: Advertisers.
Is this good or bad? From my point of view, Google is doing what good optimization wizards do: Maximize return and reduce risk. Big money deals facilitated some important milestones in the American economy; for example, the steel monopoly, the railroad that made Stanford the exemplar of integrity, and everyone’s friend with the jingle Luckies taste better.
Maybe money can buy happiness or $150 billion in revenue for those offering free online search? Thanks, Microsoft Bing.
Google is little more than a clever construct. What’s fascinating is that the baloney about Google search being better has a shelf life of more than 25 years. What’s troubling is that it has taken Google, the US legal system, and users a long time to think about the company’s mechanisms of control.
Perhaps it is helpful to think about Google’s entanglement with certain government activities? Perhaps some thinking about the data collection, retention, and mining capabilities of the company? Perhaps some analysis abut the use of YouTube to shape thinking or distort thinking about certain issues?
I love the Google. I have a Christmas card from a long gone Googler. That shows something. Nevertheless, the gravitational “force” of an outfit like Google seems so right. The company is the environment of online.
But 25 years of Google love? That’s a bit much. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 showed more awareness than the governmental officials beavering away in Washington, DC, today. Oh, I forgot. Many of those tireless workers have Google mouse pads and a Google T shirt to wear to a frisbee session at the reflecting pool.
Stephen E Arnold, October 31, 2023
Does a UK Facial Recognition Case Spell Trouble for AI Regulation?
October 30, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
I noted this Politico article in my feed today (October 30, 2023). I am a dinobaby and no legal eagle. Consequently I may be thinking incorrectly about the information in “An AI Firm Harvested Billions of Photos without Consent. Britain Is Powerless to Act.” The British government has been talking about smart software. French government officials seem to be less chatty. The US government has ideas as well. What’s the Politico write up say that has me thinking that AI regulation, AI industry cooperation, and AI investors will not be immediately productive?
“Where did my horse go?” asks the farmer. Thanks, Microsoft Bing. The image is not of a horse out of a barn, but it is good enough… just like most technology today. Good enough is excellence.
Here’s the statement which concerns the facial recognition company Clearview, and its harvesting of image data. Those data are used to assist enforcement agencies in their work. The passage I circled was:
The judgment, issued by the three-member tribunal at the First-tier Tribunal, agreed with Clearview’s assertion that the ICO lacked jurisdiction in the case because the data processing in question was carried out on behalf of foreign government agencies. The ICO failed “not because this isn’t monitoring and not because in other circumstances, this might not be in breach of U.K. GDPR, but because it’s foreign law enforcement. It’s outside of the scope of European Union law so it doesn’t apply,” said James Moss, privacy and data protection partner at the law firm Bird & Bird.
Could AI regulation in the EU find itself caught in the same thicket? Furthermore, efforts in the US to curb or slow down the pace of AI innovation may collide with the reality of other countries’ efforts to expand business and military use of AI. Common sense suggests that nation states like China are unlikely to inhibit their interests in AI. What will Britain and US do?
My thought is that much effort will be expended in meetings, writing drafts, discussing the ideas, and promulgating guidelines. The plain fact is that both commercial and investor interests will find a way to push forward. Innovations like AI and the downstream applications have considerable potential for law enforcement and military professionals.
Net net: AI, despite its flaws and boundary breaking, is now out of the barn. Time travel is an interesting idea, but the arrow of time is here and now like the lawyers and bureaucrats.
Stephen E Arnold, October 30, 2023
Will New EU Privacy Oversight Members Be Googley?
October 27, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
The European Union has tried to protect individual privacy and tries to keep US technology companies in line. Unlike some other government constructs, EU countries have agencies to enforce privacy regulations and Tech Crunch reports how Ireland’s DPC “Major Big Tech Privacy Watchdog In EU Set To Get Two More Commissioners Soon.” As an EU member, Ireland has the Data Protection Commission (DPC) to ensure big tech companies comply with laws. The DPC recently posted job ads for two more commissioners.
Ireland’s DPC is a major player in enforcing Europe’s privacy laws as part of the pan-EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Many tech companies have a branch on Irish soil. The DPC changed its structure in July 2022 to increase its monitoring capabilities as the GDPR’s caseload increases. The DPC monitors Apple, X, Meta, Google, TikTok, and soon will watch AI-based companies like OpenAI.
Whoever joins the DPC will have an F-150 load of responsibility parked in their driveway. Part of their job will involve battling with privacy advocates and politicians. The DPC is also dealing with lots of criticism, particularly in how slow the organization moves. The DPC has rallied for more help since its founding in 2018 and how it handles enforcing the GDPR:
“The European Commission itself has been forced to dial up its monitoring of how regulators including the DPC are enforcing the GDPR, following complaints lodged with its ombudsman which stemmed from criticism of the DPC. This summer the EU’s executive also came out with a proposal for reforming procedural rules around GDPR enforcement with the aim of making the handling of cross-border cases ‘more efficient and harmonized across the EU.’”
The DPC is enforcing laws on big tech companies that have the funds and time to waste in litigation. The DPC can also raise fines on big tech companies and penalize them for not obeying EU laws. Who will win? Our bet is that the US outfits have the money and motivation to prevail. Governments! Pesky things.
Whitney Grace, October 27, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
