4 ms·

>We rent our devices from Apple and Google, and they exercise control over what apps you run on it, From my understanding, Apple is a little different in that

by lsc 11y ago

>We rent our devices from Apple and Google, and they exercise control over what apps you run on it, From my understanding, Apple is a little different in that as far as I can tell, they make money off of, you know, you - selling you things directly, not off of selling your information to third parties. I mean, they do control what you can and can't install on your device, but they do so not in service of collecting more data on you, but in service of getting you to buy more stuff from them. Because their money ultimately comes from you rather than from advertisers, they ultimately have different aims. (if this is wrong, please correct me.) This is relevant because Your whole thesis rests on the idea that the currently-popular business model of "give consumers free stuff in exchange for personal data" will remain stable, that the "advertising based" model will win over the apple model. And maybe it will. I don't know. But right now? it looks like the apple model has won the high end, while the "give you stuff in exchange for your personal information" dominates the low end. Now, personally, I wouldn't bet money that the current situation is stable; in part because of this huge economic inequality, and because the people you really want as customers are paying for the services with money rather than with personal information. There is an argument to be made that a lot of this personal data collected by the cellphone companies who make their money through collecting data is mostly personal data of the poor, because wealthier people use the cellphone company who charges you money. I mean, you could be right, certainly, but my point is just that things haven't settled out yet. We're still in the part of the economic cycle where we simply don't know what will stick after the "dumb money" leaves the system.

chubot 11y ago
They are different, but Apple still exercises a high degree of control over what's in the App Store. There's no porn. They restrict the programming languages you can use, and AFAIK you can't make certain types of programming environments. You could argue that they are nibbling around the edges, and "most stuff you want" is in the App Store. But I still see it as a huge amount of control. They also seem to auto-complete what's typed into the Safari address bar, which heavily influences the sites you visit. And they choose the default search provider. Defaults matter. My thesis doesn't really rest on profit from advertising vs. devices. I agree that they are different, but I'm just saying that these companies have a lot of power in the abstract sense. True, some of that power could be more exchangeable for political power. Maybe Facebook and Google are more powerful politically than Apple, just because they deal more directly with information.
- lsc 11y ago
  >You could argue that they are nibbling around the edges, and "most stuff you want" is in the App Store. But I still see it as a huge amount of control. Apple has control, sure, like Microsoft did in the '90s. More, really, because it was harder for Microsoft to lock competing application developers out than it is for apple. And yeah, the perception I had was that Microsoft was all about control... but it was about control over your desktop, like Apple has over your phone, not about control over personal data that it can use to better sell stuff. Microsoft used that control to make programs that you didn't pay them for work less well (and Apple does the same) - You can make a good argument that it's a bad and maybe even scary thing, but it's straightforward and very different from someone who wants control in exchange for your personal data. I would very much compare apple to microsoft in the '90s, only with less market share (and I think it's really interesting that Apple asserts control in ways that Microsoft would have loved to in the '90s, and Apple does it without anything close to a monopoly) >They also seem to auto-complete what's typed into the Safari address bar, which heavily influences the sites you visit. And they choose the default search provider. Defaults matter. This is an example of how that sort of power could get scary, and raising concerns about this makes a lot of sense. But that really has nothing to do with my point. But my point was just that apple presents a counterargument to this idea that information will be the new oil. The Apple counterargument is that it's possible that collecting a bunch of data on users in order to sell advertising is... less valuable than we think. Less valuable than simply charging people for premium (both in quality and margin) goods and services. I mean, sure, personal data for targeted advertising is clearly worth something - but right now, we seem to think that it's worth more than the rest of the advertising-supported media industry put together, and... it's possible that we are wrong, and that using user data to sell advertising just isn't as huge of a deal as we think it is. Maybe instead of the new oil, that sort of information is the new, say, wood pulp. That sounds a lot more reasonable to me. The idea is that Apple, like Microsoft in the '90s, sure, could use their power over your desktop for evil... but gaining power over your desktop isn't why they write programs. Companies that release free softare in exchange for user tracking have a very different model; their goal is to collect user data, in part because they really do think that 'information is the new oil' - which, like, I said, may very well turn out to be the case, but is not a settled thing yet, not by a long shot. For you to understand my point, you also need to understand that I was also assuming that by "information" you meant "personal data" in the sense of personal data that is used to convince advertisers that they should pay more for ads because they are better targeted - which may or may not be what you meant, but it was what I was responding to. If you meant something different by 'information' of course, none of what I wrote makes any sense.

by lsc 11y ago

chubot 11y ago

They are different, but Apple still exercises a high degree of control over what's in the App Store. There's no porn. They restrict the programming languages you can use, and AFAIK you can't make certain types of programming environments. You could argue that they are nibbling around the edges, and "most stuff you want" is in the App Store. But I still see it as a huge amount of control. They also seem to auto-complete what's typed into the Safari address bar, which heavily influences the sites you visit. And they choose the default search provider. Defaults matter. My thesis doesn't really rest on profit from advertising vs. devices. I agree that they are different, but I'm just saying that these companies have a lot of power in the abstract sense. True, some of that power could be more exchangeable for political power. Maybe Facebook and Google are more powerful politically than Apple, just because they deal more directly with information.

lsc 11y ago
>You could argue that they are nibbling around the edges, and "most stuff you want" is in the App Store. But I still see it as a huge amount of control. Apple has control, sure, like Microsoft did in the '90s. More, really, because it was harder for Microsoft to lock competing application developers out than it is for apple. And yeah, the perception I had was that Microsoft was all about control... but it was about control over your desktop, like Apple has over your phone, not about control over personal data that it can use to better sell stuff. Microsoft used that control to make programs that you didn't pay them for work less well (and Apple does the same) - You can make a good argument that it's a bad and maybe even scary thing, but it's straightforward and very different from someone who wants control in exchange for your personal data. I would very much compare apple to microsoft in the '90s, only with less market share (and I think it's really interesting that Apple asserts control in ways that Microsoft would have loved to in the '90s, and Apple does it without anything close to a monopoly) >They also seem to auto-complete what's typed into the Safari address bar, which heavily influences the sites you visit. And they choose the default search provider. Defaults matter. This is an example of how that sort of power could get scary, and raising concerns about this makes a lot of sense. But that really has nothing to do with my point. But my point was just that apple presents a counterargument to this idea that information will be the new oil. The Apple counterargument is that it's possible that collecting a bunch of data on users in order to sell advertising is... less valuable than we think. Less valuable than simply charging people for premium (both in quality and margin) goods and services. I mean, sure, personal data for targeted advertising is clearly worth something - but right now, we seem to think that it's worth more than the rest of the advertising-supported media industry put together, and... it's possible that we are wrong, and that using user data to sell advertising just isn't as huge of a deal as we think it is. Maybe instead of the new oil, that sort of information is the new, say, wood pulp. That sounds a lot more reasonable to me. The idea is that Apple, like Microsoft in the '90s, sure, could use their power over your desktop for evil... but gaining power over your desktop isn't why they write programs. Companies that release free softare in exchange for user tracking have a very different model; their goal is to collect user data, in part because they really do think that 'information is the new oil' - which, like, I said, may very well turn out to be the case, but is not a settled thing yet, not by a long shot. For you to understand my point, you also need to understand that I was also assuming that by "information" you meant "personal data" in the sense of personal data that is used to convince advertisers that they should pay more for ads because they are better targeted - which may or may not be what you meant, but it was what I was responding to. If you meant something different by 'information' of course, none of what I wrote makes any sense.