14 ms·

I am an Apple fanboy but I am also a privacy fanboy. As AI, IoT, and consumer tracking continue to invade our daily lives I think Apple will continue to do quit

I am an Apple fanboy but I am also a privacy fanboy. As AI, IoT, and consumer tracking continue to invade our daily lives I think Apple will continue to do quite well if they maintain there pro-privacy heading. Privacy is a feature, it's something people want, and unfortunately its becoming a luxury. That is something that attracts Apple's customers.

__jal 9y ago
Can't claim to be a fanboy, but I am a longtime user[1], and this is the primary reason I stick to them for my phone. I frankly can't imagine using Android the way I use my Iphone - the privacy invasions considered acceptable are well in to the "no go" range for me, before even getting to the malware that pass for "free apps". If I were somehow forced to use Android, I'm pretty sure I'd treat it as an adversarial device, mostly like a feature-phone. Trust is vital in devices like this. [1] I'm becoming less of a fan, as MacOS becomes "cloud aware" and less of a Unix workstation.
- theCricketer 9y ago
  Could you elaborate on Android's weaknesses when it comes to privacy and contrast this with Apple's approach? Asking genuinely to update my understanding.
  - macinjosh 9y ago
    The glib response is to point out the difference between Apple's and Google's business models. Apple makes money by selling devices, Google sells ads (i.e. sells their customers' data to advertisers).
    - BoorishBears 9y ago
      And that Apple is the OEM behind the device that runs their OS, and Google (usually) isn't.
      - throwanem 9y ago
        Also that Android only gained the ability to enforce iOS-style fine-grained app permissions (prompting on first use for access to camera, location, etc., instead of a blanket grant at install time) one major version ago, which means that many if not most users can't actually get the benefit without buying a newer phone. I gather there are some questions around the strength of its app sandboxing as well, but I can't speak to that at all. Perhaps someone better informed will do so.
        BoorishBears 9y ago
        Those permissions are also opt-in for devs at the moment (by choosing certain OS versions at build time you can still use the old permissions system). I'm an Android dev and to me the biggest problem with Android from every aspect (development, security, monetization) is how poorly new versions of Android are supported on devices. Apple's dig at Android 7 usage vs iOS 10 usage was spot on.
    - Oletros 9y ago
      > (i.e. sells their customers' data to advertisers). This is not true
    - had2makeanacct 9y ago
      >(i.e. sells their customers' data to advertisers) They take the ads, and distribute them to their users based on user taste that's their secret sauce. Giving user data to advertisers would be giving away their secrets I think.
    - mythz 9y ago
      > Google sells ads (i.e. sells their customers' data to advertisers). They sell targeted ads, they do not sell customers' data to advertisers. i.e. Advertisers get to advertise on Google's platforms, but they do not get access to Customer data.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    Couple of examples: 1) iOS has had lazy permissions since the very early days e.g. when an app wants to use this microphone then ask the user right then instead of when the app is installed. This feature is still not implemented on all Android devices nor is it as seamless nor is it mandatory. 2) Apple is providing more and more frameworks e.g. CoreML which run only on the device. This means that developers don't have to run their own server side apps to process data.
    - j2bax 9y ago
      I don't really see that as lazy. I see that as considerate/beneficial to the user. I much prefer to be asked in context what/how the app is going to use the microphone for rather than on initial install, when I might be like "why the heck does this app need to use the microphone?"
      - johncolanduoni 9y ago
        It was being used in the programming sense, not as an insult. When some code passes around a "placeholder" instead of a value and waits until it is used to bother calculating it, that is commonly described as "lazy".
        j2bax 9y ago
        Got it! Thanks for the explanation and not assuming I'm a programmer, because I'm not!
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- TheAceOfHearts 9y ago
  For an Android alternative, check out CopperheadOS [0]. I'd argue it's better than iOS in privacy, since you can compile it yourself (excluding a few binary blobs). [0] https://copperhead.co/android/ https://copperhead.co/android/
  - satsuma 9y ago
    All these Android alternatives really make me wish I have someone other than Verizon as a carrier.
- lqdc13 9y ago
  Not sure how you use your iphone or what you would need from a smartphone, but I don't understand the distinction. Apps like Lyft, Yelp and Uber already know where you are so you can't use those. You're left with maps and browser. People tend to use google maps and Waze on iPhone anyway so that point is gone as well. If they use Apple maps, I am not convinced that apple doesn't store location history. So then you're left with a browser. Android lets Firefox run its own browser engine and you can install all the privacy extensions there. On the other hand, with Android it's possible to take privacy a lot more seriously. Lineage OS lets you have much more fine-grained controls over all the apps and you can forego the whole google services privacy menace.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Apps like Lyft, Yelp and Uber already know where you are so you can't use those. Only when you use them. You can either not install them at all (problem solved). or only allow them to "know your location" when you explicitly launch them and only for the duration of you actively using them on screen (problem lessened).
    - virmundi 9y ago
      I don't know if they've fixed this, or if was just me not working the phone right, but Disney's park maps kept tracking when the app was closed.
      - tricolon 9y ago
        From the "Privacy and Your Apps" presentation on Tuesday at WWDC: > in iOS 11, users will be able to choose the “when in use” option at all times [when asked for permission to use their location]
      - et-al 9y ago
        > Disney's park maps kept tracking when the app was closed Closed or in the background? I was under the impression (in iOS 10 and earlier), that "Always" meant anytime the app was open, and "While in use" is only when the app is in the foreground. So if an app has "Always" on for its Location Services, it will stop tracking when I swipe up and quit it. If I've been incorrect this whole time, please pass the tinfoil.
- s73ver 9y ago
  "[1] I'm becoming less of a fan, as MacOS becomes "cloud aware" and less of a Unix workstation." How is it becoming less of a Unix workstation? It can still do all the Unixy stuff it could before.
  - __jal 9y ago
    What I mean is twofold: - They're paying much less attention to the "Unixy stuff" than they used to. Old versions of common things take forever to be updated. Compatibility has always been shit, but it is getting worse. SIP means a number of things I tend to modify, can't be, without hassle[1]. - With a workstation, I expect to be able tailor it specifically to my work requirements. This is becoming increasingly difficult at the proliferation of "cloud" daemons increases and they lock down the system - the documentation for most of the daemons ranges from "sucks" to "nonexistent", so it isn't clear if any given one needed for stable operation or if it yet another thing related to trying to sell me music or some such[2]. Reverting the machine to a state where "root" means "root" is rather difficult (See SIP). Apple's focus is on chasing the flavor-of-the-month social features and keeping up with the GOOGs. Which makes sense - the set of people buying that stuff is much larger than the workstation market. But it means they don't care so much about it, and make choices like letting the core OS get as buggy and unstable as it has become. It is mostly fine for me. I built a nice king-hell PC running Debian that I'm very happy with. I didn't think I would, but after my last MBP died unexpectedly, I ended up buying a bottom-rung used Air because I'm hopelessly dependant on OmniFocus and a couple other OS X only productivity tools, and I sync my phone local-only. So it tends to live in the dining room, where I work on my schedule and read mail via ssh over breakfast. So yeah, Apple still has a place for me, but it is peripheral. I spent mid-4 figures on building a PC this year, and mid-3 on that MBA. And I'm thinking about what I really need out of OmniFocus, and how much of that I can build myself. [1] This is a good thing for many people, but I expect full control of my machines, and I do occasionally sketchy things like patching Safari. The problem with SIP is that I only need full control sporadically, and not for long, but it is a serious PITA to disable/enable. So it just stays disabled. [2] One example of many is `parsecd`. No man page. Googling about shows that a lot of people think it to be related to location-based lookups for Siri data. Despite the fact that Siri is disabled on my box, it ran and asked for network access all the time, until I disabled it. Now, WTF is 'LaterAgent', and why is it in my process table?
darrmit 9y ago
Completely agree. I switched between Android and iOS for years because I enjoyed aspects of both, but the privacy concerns around Google (and by proxy, Android, thanks to the Google Play Store monopoly on app distribution) have seemingly permanently tipped the scales towards iOS at this point.
- Grazester 9y ago
  "(and by proxy, Android, thanks to the Google Play Store monopoly on app distribution) have seemingly permanently tipped the scales towards iOS at this point." Do you even know what you are talking about? On an Android phone you could install other App stores and side load apps. You can't do any of this on iOS.
  - tacomonstrous 9y ago
    I think the argument is that app distribution is controlled by Apple on iOS and by Google on Android, and GP is happier ceding control to the former but not so much the latter. As Google Play Services become more entrenched in the basic functioning of the OS and apps on the platform, it becomes harder to extricate Google out of the Android experience, even if one has the ability to use other app stores. I think it's a very reasonable position.
    - akoncius 9y ago
      exactly, recently android was developed in a way that it's impossible to disable some core services which are directly associated with google services, so AOSP as such is almost impossible to exist separately from google.
  - mercutio2 9y ago
    You can side load apps to which you have the source code on iOS, for free.
davidcbc 9y ago
I don't think the "average consumer" sticks with Apple because of their privacy stances though. They stick with Apple because of the well polished "cool" devices. If Apple can't keep up with the cool features of less privacy focused companies I don't think the average consumer is going to stick with them in the long run. The Apple coolness factor will slowly wear off and some other devices will become the new hotness. The privacy focused consumers won't be enough to sustain Apple if that happens.
krrishd 9y ago
> it's something people want I feel the same as you do, but are we sure that the mainstream public actually WANTS privacy, especially when compared to the utility companies are providing by taking it away?
- macinjosh 9y ago
  I don't think the tech community gives the general public enough credit when it comes to privacy. If you asked someone whether they wanted a phone that has more privacy risks but also more features or a phone that has less features but more privacy I don't think the former would win hands down. Maybe more would pick the former but a big chunk would pick the latter and that is OK for Apple. They've never needed the majority of the market.
  - krrishd 9y ago
    If you blatantly told the consumer, yes. However, most of the privacy-risking utility barely reminds us of what we're giving up, so really it feels like we're losing nothing and gaining utility. The lack of privacy has to feel tangible in consequence for consumers to care, IMO. Right now it doesn't.
pwython 9y ago
I'm one of the few in the "tech world" that isn't so much pro-privacy. Google can read my email, Apple can track my movements, my Amazon Echo can even listen in when it wants. The end result is a huge benefit to me. How is any AI supposed to know what I want, if I try to be an anonymous user? I prefer targeted ads. I prefer submitting my information to "robots" in the hopes that my user experience is tailored to what I want. I see all of these articles on HN on how to break free from Google or some other eco-system because they're "evil." I dunno, I guess I don't have a CIA-level job that most of these commenters have where they need to be off the grid. "Alexa, play me that song I like. And while you're at it, order me a case of my favorite beer. Thanks."
- Barrin92 9y ago
  I see it this way too. For way too many people privacy seems to have turned into a kind of religious end in and of itself. I think evaluating privacy in real, material terms as in ("what actually happens to me if I gave up my privacy here, and what do I get?") makes more sense than treating it as quasi sacred.
  - PatentTroll 9y ago
    What if you found out today that your neighbors have been watching you undress for the past year? In material terms, nothing has changed and there is no material harm to you, but knowledge of that level of intrusive exposure without consent is something most people object to.
    - Barrin92 9y ago
      I genuinely don't really care about things like this. I mean sure It'd be a little odd if my neighbour would stare at me but I generally don't mind, as you said no harm done
  - giobox 9y ago
    In countries that are signatories to the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) it is _sacred_, given it enshrines a right to privacy in Article 8 for some 800 million people. The Court is pretty judicially active in enforcing the rule as well, even in member states that have governments with crappy human rights records like Russia. America and a few others are arguably outliers in the western world for failing to recognize privacy, and the right to private family life, as a fundamental right in some form of constitutional legislation.
jswny 9y ago
I seriously doubt that there is a significant number of customers that Apple attracts by being pro-privacy. On HN and similar environments, sure, plenty of people here value privacy, as do I. However, don't think for a second that the community on HN is in any way representative of Apple's customer base at all. Apple customers buy Apple products because they work well, look nice, are popular here in the US, etc., but it's NOT because Apple has a strong privacy stance. The majority of Apple customers couldn't care less about privacy (and probably don't know much about it either) and given the chance, would choose Siri working well and not returning search results from Bing over more privacy any day. So, I agree with your sentiment, but I do not agree with your assessment that Apple's stance on privacy is anything even remotely close to a significant factor in attracting customers.
- JauntTrooper 9y ago
  That's probably true in the US, though I wonder if it is more important internationally. There are a lot of people living under potentially abusive dictatorships.
- baddox 9y ago
  I'm not so sure. It becomes a lot harder to explain Apple's very public focus on privacy features if you don't accept that it is a significant factor in smartphone buyers' decisionmaking.
  - solaceb 9y ago
    In the past, Apple has marketed certain products towards enthusiasts and power-users, which gave those products a certain "prestige" that elevated Apple's image more generally. (I'm thinking about Pro products here, as they were marketed towards arts professionals). Perhaps Apple seeks to take a similar marketing angle here -- by appeal to computer enthusiasts' desire to privacy, maybe they gain some prestige more generally? I'm not sure.
    - naravara 9y ago
      Makes sense to me. Apple's sweet spot for marketing is people who don't care very much about tinkering with their stuff, but are fussy enough about how it looks and works to pay a premium for good design that works out of the box. Prioritizing privacy and security are one of those things that fit as being fussy about things working well, but not wanting to put the time into configuring them to be so. If that crowd likes your stuff and recommends them, then the less technically savvy folks will pick up on the preferences of that crowd and it build's Apple's brand as making premium products.
Asdfbla 9y ago
While I don't really believe Apple will not also eventually succumb to the idea of making more money by incorporating tracking and selling out users, I really liked their initiatives for privacy-preserving data collection like the differential privacy approach they promised last year. I hope they publish more in that direction.

__jal 9y ago

Can't claim to be a fanboy, but I am a longtime user[1], and this is the primary reason I stick to them for my phone. I frankly can't imagine using Android the way I use my Iphone - the privacy invasions considered acceptable are well in to the "no go" range for me, before even getting to the malware that pass for "free apps". If I were somehow forced to use Android, I'm pretty sure I'd treat it as an adversarial device, mostly like a feature-phone. Trust is vital in devices like this. [1] I'm becoming less of a fan, as MacOS becomes "cloud aware" and less of a Unix workstation.

theCricketer 9y ago
Could you elaborate on Android's weaknesses when it comes to privacy and contrast this with Apple's approach? Asking genuinely to update my understanding.
- macinjosh 9y ago
  The glib response is to point out the difference between Apple's and Google's business models. Apple makes money by selling devices, Google sells ads (i.e. sells their customers' data to advertisers).
  - BoorishBears 9y ago
    And that Apple is the OEM behind the device that runs their OS, and Google (usually) isn't.
    - throwanem 9y ago
      Also that Android only gained the ability to enforce iOS-style fine-grained app permissions (prompting on first use for access to camera, location, etc., instead of a blanket grant at install time) one major version ago, which means that many if not most users can't actually get the benefit without buying a newer phone. I gather there are some questions around the strength of its app sandboxing as well, but I can't speak to that at all. Perhaps someone better informed will do so.
      - BoorishBears 9y ago
        Those permissions are also opt-in for devs at the moment (by choosing certain OS versions at build time you can still use the old permissions system). I'm an Android dev and to me the biggest problem with Android from every aspect (development, security, monetization) is how poorly new versions of Android are supported on devices. Apple's dig at Android 7 usage vs iOS 10 usage was spot on.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > (i.e. sells their customers' data to advertisers). This is not true
  - had2makeanacct 9y ago
    >(i.e. sells their customers' data to advertisers) They take the ads, and distribute them to their users based on user taste that's their secret sauce. Giving user data to advertisers would be giving away their secrets I think.
  - mythz 9y ago
    > Google sells ads (i.e. sells their customers' data to advertisers). They sell targeted ads, they do not sell customers' data to advertisers. i.e. Advertisers get to advertise on Google's platforms, but they do not get access to Customer data.
- threeseed 9y ago
  Couple of examples: 1) iOS has had lazy permissions since the very early days e.g. when an app wants to use this microphone then ask the user right then instead of when the app is installed. This feature is still not implemented on all Android devices nor is it as seamless nor is it mandatory. 2) Apple is providing more and more frameworks e.g. CoreML which run only on the device. This means that developers don't have to run their own server side apps to process data.
  - j2bax 9y ago
    I don't really see that as lazy. I see that as considerate/beneficial to the user. I much prefer to be asked in context what/how the app is going to use the microphone for rather than on initial install, when I might be like "why the heck does this app need to use the microphone?"
    - johncolanduoni 9y ago
      It was being used in the programming sense, not as an insult. When some code passes around a "placeholder" instead of a value and waits until it is used to bother calculating it, that is commonly described as "lazy".
      - j2bax 9y ago
        Got it! Thanks for the explanation and not assuming I'm a programmer, because I'm not!
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
TheAceOfHearts 9y ago
For an Android alternative, check out CopperheadOS [0]. I'd argue it's better than iOS in privacy, since you can compile it yourself (excluding a few binary blobs). [0] https://copperhead.co/android/ https://copperhead.co/android/
- satsuma 9y ago
  All these Android alternatives really make me wish I have someone other than Verizon as a carrier.
lqdc13 9y ago
Not sure how you use your iphone or what you would need from a smartphone, but I don't understand the distinction. Apps like Lyft, Yelp and Uber already know where you are so you can't use those. You're left with maps and browser. People tend to use google maps and Waze on iPhone anyway so that point is gone as well. If they use Apple maps, I am not convinced that apple doesn't store location history. So then you're left with a browser. Android lets Firefox run its own browser engine and you can install all the privacy extensions there. On the other hand, with Android it's possible to take privacy a lot more seriously. Lineage OS lets you have much more fine-grained controls over all the apps and you can forego the whole google services privacy menace.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Apps like Lyft, Yelp and Uber already know where you are so you can't use those. Only when you use them. You can either not install them at all (problem solved). or only allow them to "know your location" when you explicitly launch them and only for the duration of you actively using them on screen (problem lessened).
  - virmundi 9y ago
    I don't know if they've fixed this, or if was just me not working the phone right, but Disney's park maps kept tracking when the app was closed.
    - tricolon 9y ago
      From the "Privacy and Your Apps" presentation on Tuesday at WWDC: > in iOS 11, users will be able to choose the “when in use” option at all times [when asked for permission to use their location]
    - et-al 9y ago
      > Disney's park maps kept tracking when the app was closed Closed or in the background? I was under the impression (in iOS 10 and earlier), that "Always" meant anytime the app was open, and "While in use" is only when the app is in the foreground. So if an app has "Always" on for its Location Services, it will stop tracking when I swipe up and quit it. If I've been incorrect this whole time, please pass the tinfoil.
s73ver 9y ago
"[1] I'm becoming less of a fan, as MacOS becomes "cloud aware" and less of a Unix workstation." How is it becoming less of a Unix workstation? It can still do all the Unixy stuff it could before.
- __jal 9y ago
  What I mean is twofold: - They're paying much less attention to the "Unixy stuff" than they used to. Old versions of common things take forever to be updated. Compatibility has always been shit, but it is getting worse. SIP means a number of things I tend to modify, can't be, without hassle[1]. - With a workstation, I expect to be able tailor it specifically to my work requirements. This is becoming increasingly difficult at the proliferation of "cloud" daemons increases and they lock down the system - the documentation for most of the daemons ranges from "sucks" to "nonexistent", so it isn't clear if any given one needed for stable operation or if it yet another thing related to trying to sell me music or some such[2]. Reverting the machine to a state where "root" means "root" is rather difficult (See SIP). Apple's focus is on chasing the flavor-of-the-month social features and keeping up with the GOOGs. Which makes sense - the set of people buying that stuff is much larger than the workstation market. But it means they don't care so much about it, and make choices like letting the core OS get as buggy and unstable as it has become. It is mostly fine for me. I built a nice king-hell PC running Debian that I'm very happy with. I didn't think I would, but after my last MBP died unexpectedly, I ended up buying a bottom-rung used Air because I'm hopelessly dependant on OmniFocus and a couple other OS X only productivity tools, and I sync my phone local-only. So it tends to live in the dining room, where I work on my schedule and read mail via ssh over breakfast. So yeah, Apple still has a place for me, but it is peripheral. I spent mid-4 figures on building a PC this year, and mid-3 on that MBA. And I'm thinking about what I really need out of OmniFocus, and how much of that I can build myself. [1] This is a good thing for many people, but I expect full control of my machines, and I do occasionally sketchy things like patching Safari. The problem with SIP is that I only need full control sporadically, and not for long, but it is a serious PITA to disable/enable. So it just stays disabled. [2] One example of many is `parsecd`. No man page. Googling about shows that a lot of people think it to be related to location-based lookups for Siri data. Despite the fact that Siri is disabled on my box, it ran and asked for network access all the time, until I disabled it. Now, WTF is 'LaterAgent', and why is it in my process table?

darrmit 9y ago

Completely agree. I switched between Android and iOS for years because I enjoyed aspects of both, but the privacy concerns around Google (and by proxy, Android, thanks to the Google Play Store monopoly on app distribution) have seemingly permanently tipped the scales towards iOS at this point.

Grazester 9y ago
"(and by proxy, Android, thanks to the Google Play Store monopoly on app distribution) have seemingly permanently tipped the scales towards iOS at this point." Do you even know what you are talking about? On an Android phone you could install other App stores and side load apps. You can't do any of this on iOS.
- tacomonstrous 9y ago
  I think the argument is that app distribution is controlled by Apple on iOS and by Google on Android, and GP is happier ceding control to the former but not so much the latter. As Google Play Services become more entrenched in the basic functioning of the OS and apps on the platform, it becomes harder to extricate Google out of the Android experience, even if one has the ability to use other app stores. I think it's a very reasonable position.
  - akoncius 9y ago
    exactly, recently android was developed in a way that it's impossible to disable some core services which are directly associated with google services, so AOSP as such is almost impossible to exist separately from google.
- mercutio2 9y ago
  You can side load apps to which you have the source code on iOS, for free.

davidcbc 9y ago

I don't think the "average consumer" sticks with Apple because of their privacy stances though. They stick with Apple because of the well polished "cool" devices. If Apple can't keep up with the cool features of less privacy focused companies I don't think the average consumer is going to stick with them in the long run. The Apple coolness factor will slowly wear off and some other devices will become the new hotness. The privacy focused consumers won't be enough to sustain Apple if that happens.

krrishd 9y ago

> it's something people want I feel the same as you do, but are we sure that the mainstream public actually WANTS privacy, especially when compared to the utility companies are providing by taking it away?

macinjosh 9y ago
I don't think the tech community gives the general public enough credit when it comes to privacy. If you asked someone whether they wanted a phone that has more privacy risks but also more features or a phone that has less features but more privacy I don't think the former would win hands down. Maybe more would pick the former but a big chunk would pick the latter and that is OK for Apple. They've never needed the majority of the market.
- krrishd 9y ago
  If you blatantly told the consumer, yes. However, most of the privacy-risking utility barely reminds us of what we're giving up, so really it feels like we're losing nothing and gaining utility. The lack of privacy has to feel tangible in consequence for consumers to care, IMO. Right now it doesn't.

pwython 9y ago

I'm one of the few in the "tech world" that isn't so much pro-privacy. Google can read my email, Apple can track my movements, my Amazon Echo can even listen in when it wants. The end result is a huge benefit to me. How is any AI supposed to know what I want, if I try to be an anonymous user? I prefer targeted ads. I prefer submitting my information to "robots" in the hopes that my user experience is tailored to what I want. I see all of these articles on HN on how to break free from Google or some other eco-system because they're "evil." I dunno, I guess I don't have a CIA-level job that most of these commenters have where they need to be off the grid. "Alexa, play me that song I like. And while you're at it, order me a case of my favorite beer. Thanks."

Barrin92 9y ago
I see it this way too. For way too many people privacy seems to have turned into a kind of religious end in and of itself. I think evaluating privacy in real, material terms as in ("what actually happens to me if I gave up my privacy here, and what do I get?") makes more sense than treating it as quasi sacred.
- PatentTroll 9y ago
  What if you found out today that your neighbors have been watching you undress for the past year? In material terms, nothing has changed and there is no material harm to you, but knowledge of that level of intrusive exposure without consent is something most people object to.
  - Barrin92 9y ago
    I genuinely don't really care about things like this. I mean sure It'd be a little odd if my neighbour would stare at me but I generally don't mind, as you said no harm done
- giobox 9y ago
  In countries that are signatories to the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) it is _sacred_, given it enshrines a right to privacy in Article 8 for some 800 million people. The Court is pretty judicially active in enforcing the rule as well, even in member states that have governments with crappy human rights records like Russia. America and a few others are arguably outliers in the western world for failing to recognize privacy, and the right to private family life, as a fundamental right in some form of constitutional legislation.

jswny 9y ago

I seriously doubt that there is a significant number of customers that Apple attracts by being pro-privacy. On HN and similar environments, sure, plenty of people here value privacy, as do I. However, don't think for a second that the community on HN is in any way representative of Apple's customer base at all. Apple customers buy Apple products because they work well, look nice, are popular here in the US, etc., but it's NOT because Apple has a strong privacy stance. The majority of Apple customers couldn't care less about privacy (and probably don't know much about it either) and given the chance, would choose Siri working well and not returning search results from Bing over more privacy any day. So, I agree with your sentiment, but I do not agree with your assessment that Apple's stance on privacy is anything even remotely close to a significant factor in attracting customers.

JauntTrooper 9y ago
That's probably true in the US, though I wonder if it is more important internationally. There are a lot of people living under potentially abusive dictatorships.
baddox 9y ago
I'm not so sure. It becomes a lot harder to explain Apple's very public focus on privacy features if you don't accept that it is a significant factor in smartphone buyers' decisionmaking.
- solaceb 9y ago
  In the past, Apple has marketed certain products towards enthusiasts and power-users, which gave those products a certain "prestige" that elevated Apple's image more generally. (I'm thinking about Pro products here, as they were marketed towards arts professionals). Perhaps Apple seeks to take a similar marketing angle here -- by appeal to computer enthusiasts' desire to privacy, maybe they gain some prestige more generally? I'm not sure.
  - naravara 9y ago
    Makes sense to me. Apple's sweet spot for marketing is people who don't care very much about tinkering with their stuff, but are fussy enough about how it looks and works to pay a premium for good design that works out of the box. Prioritizing privacy and security are one of those things that fit as being fussy about things working well, but not wanting to put the time into configuring them to be so. If that crowd likes your stuff and recommends them, then the less technically savvy folks will pick up on the preferences of that crowd and it build's Apple's brand as making premium products.

Asdfbla 9y ago

While I don't really believe Apple will not also eventually succumb to the idea of making more money by incorporating tracking and selling out users, I really liked their initiatives for privacy-preserving data collection like the differential privacy approach they promised last year. I hope they publish more in that direction.