19 ms·

I could almost see Apple buying DuckDuckGo, given that a) Apple cares about their users' privacy, and b) Apple cares about having control over the entire user e

I could almost see Apple buying DuckDuckGo, given that a) Apple cares about their users' privacy, and b) Apple cares about having control over the entire user experience. DuckDuckGo would fit right in with both of those core pieces of Apple (no pun intended). I don't think it'll actually happen, but it doesn't seem too far-fetched.

beaner 9y ago
Apple doesn't care about it's users' privacy. It only ever started making a big deal about privacy when people started criticizing Google for hoarding too much personal info and using it to target ads, which people think is evil. Apple doesn't do these things (it's not Apple's business model), so they began heavily marketing "privacy" as something you'd get from them and not the competition. They make sort of okay attempts at privacy, but since they don't collect a lot, they don't need to do a lot, and many of the things they have done have been weak, easily exploitable, or hacked. "Privacy" for Apple is a marketing term like "unbelievable," "magic," and "revolutionary."
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rtpg 9y ago
  They also made a political stand on the search warrant for that one iPhone that they could have unlocked. A stand that wasn't even popular among the general public ("companies should help police investigate terrorists" polls very well). Being super pedantic, Apple doesn't care about anything, just like a company can't care... but I think it's safe to say that it's not last on the list of things they prioritize.
  - willtim 9y ago
    It seemed more like a marketing stunt to me. The issue was about a single iPhone with a warrant to search it. Apple made it a very public debate about all iPhones.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      It's difficult to do with just one phone and toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube. If they do it for the US, what do they do when it's a dissident in China and the party wants the phone unlocked?
    - infogulch 9y ago
      It wasn't about all iPhones? As soon as this case started there were twenty other cases just waiting in the wings to jump on it as soon as the tool that law enforcement wanted Apple to create existed at all. Most of them were trivial cases: drugs, petty crime etc. I've never used an iPhone, but I'm glad Apple put their foot down. The government is a terrible custodian of slippery slopes, don't give them any more.
  - beaner 9y ago
    I don't think this was a particularly difficult thing to do. they're an almost $800 billion company with one of the most valuable brands in the world and the most loyal followers. They have more of an ability to stand up to these things than anyone. And if they lost, it's not like anything particularly bad was going to happen to them. They'd just have to cede the info. And it was the right thing to do anyway. They had basically nothing at stake.
    - daveFNbuck 9y ago
      They weren't being asked for info. They were being asked to develop and sign an OS update to bypass any iPhone's security.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - Osmium 9y ago
      > They had basically nothing at stake. Except the human cost and resulting PR nightmare if a terrorist attack happened that they could have in principle prevented (e.g. if the terrorist had collaborators, and information on the phone helped find them). > I don't think this was a particularly difficult thing to do. Very easy to say when you're not the one responsible for that $800bn company ... if you're a decent human being, you're probably not worried about your own wealth in that situation, but the livelihoods of all your employees and other entities that rely on you. Every decision carries weight. The value of your company is not always empowering; the higher its value, the larger the consequences if you're wrong.
      - bigbugbag 9y ago
        Sorry if I bust your little bubble of joy here but: Apple is not made of decent human beings and do not care for employees that much. Just look at how their devices are manufactured. Apple cares about profits and money, just look at their tax evasion schemes and how they store their cash overseas waiting for a tax break to bring it back to the US.
  - piyush_soni 9y ago
    That was a great 'free' PR boost for them actually, which less informed people take as Apple's great stand on privacy. Apple helped FBI in every possible way for months in their investigation (had also unlocked dozens of phones for them before), even gladly gave away the suspect's iCloud data (so much for customer privacy). It's only when FBI made their next request (to create a backdoor/loophole in brute-force unlocking) public instead of private, when Tim Cook 'had to' show they cared about users' privacy. [0][1] [0] "Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response" : https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-b... [1] : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-20/the-behind-the-scenes-fight-between-apple-and-the-fbi https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-20/the-behin...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - simonh 9y ago
      But in the article you link to as [0] it also says Apple had already refused to comply with an All Writs Act request in an unrelated case several months previously. It doesn’t seem that the under seal request would have made any difference to their actual decision, which they’d already made. This pretty much kills dead any suggestion that they somehow changed their mind for PR reasons, in fact they pretty clearly didn’t want to publicise it hence the seal request. Also the PR boost from this is far from free. Aside from the huge cost of engineering all this security into the system, to the point of delaying major new features by years in order to get the security architecture into place, its also costing them a chunk of the Chinese market. The Chinese government is absolutely not happy with this sort of consumer privacy stance and has been cracking down on security services and features on the iOS platform. They’ve banned VPN software and features, banned communications apps, even screwing with Apple by barring the iTunes media business, and stalling Apple Pay. Going up against the US government arguably does Apple no harm, but setting themselves directly at odds with core Chinese government political goals such as pervasive monitoring and censorship of all forms of communications is going to be a real battle. If they just wanted a marketing advantage, they’d just build in some anti add-tracking features and be done. Security and privacy is so appallingly bad on Android even a perfunctory effort there would put them miles ahead at little cost. The extreme lengths they’re going to goes way beyond anything remotely necessary for a marketing advantage. Finally, Apples stance on accessibility shows just how serious they are about serving their users. The cost of their accessibility efforts must be dramatically higher than any possible financial or marketing benefit and they’ve been doing it for decades across platforms to little or no fanfare.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    Was is a political stand for user privacy or was it a show of power "government cannot force us to do anything" stand ? They were probably just defending their business model, as a hardware seller the minute it is known worldwide that the US government has a backdoor in their flagship device, apple is over.
- 0xbear 9y ago
  You get the behavior you reward. If consumers buy their products for their privacy features, we will get more privacy features. What's not to like?
- IBM 9y ago
  Apple was good about privacy and security long before they ever started talking about it. They only started talking about it after the celeb "iCloud hack" (which turned out not to be an iCloud vulnerability [1]). The fact that they market privacy and security is a good thing if you care about those things. Previously you were just relying on their business model being different from Google's or Microsoft's, but now they're on the record (repeatedly) which also sets them up for a PR crisis if they back down from those positions. There are plenty of Apple haters that would jump at the opportunity. [1] https://9to5mac.com/2016/03/17/opinion-apple-pr-allegations/ https://9to5mac.com/2016/03/17/opinion-apple-pr-allegations/
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    The link you give is opinion from a pro apple website, which starts by stating "there was no hack" and "it has nothing to do with icloud security" then proceeds to describe a very common hack and point out some security flaw in icloud. Try using the official apple statement[1] next time which clearly states that it was a targeted attack and not a breach leading to a full leak. Of course it was a privacy issue (iphone automatically uploading pictures online) and a weak security design (no 2FA, no email warning of access from an unknown IP, no browser authentication, etc.). There is stronger security on accessing your humble bundle game library. Also there was a serious icloud vulnerability allowing for bruteforce attack and bypassing account lockout restrictions and secondary authentication[2][3], that it was not used for the fappening does not make it less real. [1]: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2014/09/02Apple-Media-Advisory/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2014/09/02Apple-Media-Advisor... [2]: https://github.com/Pr0x13/iDict https://github.com/Pr0x13/iDict [3]:http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/31749/hacking/idict-hack-any-icloud-account.html http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/31749/hacking/idict-hack...
- millstone 9y ago
  Disagree strongly. Apple pays a serious price for their privacy stance, which they would rather not pay. Doing machine learning on-device makes it less effective. Apple's directions aren't as good as they could be because Maps randomly segments trips and masks its users identity. Apple's App Store revenues are lower because they limit how apps can identify users. This difference is deeper than business models. Compare Google's Hands Free with Apple Pay for example: the same business model (collecting interchange fees) but Apple's approach preserves user's privacy at the cost of some convenience, while Google's is arguably more convenient but informs both Google and the merchant as soon as you enter into the store.
  - ariwilson 9y ago
    Apple's just worse than Google at building these kind of heavily data driven web applications, which they've chosen to paper over to the public with a strong stance on privacy. It's a smart business move.
  - dxhdr 9y ago
    > Apple's App Store revenues are lower because they limit how apps can identify users. I think this is less about privacy and more about control. Only Apple apps are allowed to track Apple users.
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      But Apple chooses to implement things in ways that make it way harder for them to do this. Eg Touch ID and facial recognition on the device only, not in the cloud.
      - dpark 9y ago
        That's because of the horrible press they'd get if you couldn't unlock your phone without cell service, or if it took ten seconds when the network was spotty.
      - jhasse 9y ago
        Fingerprints and data for face unlock aren't stored in the cloud on Android either. Wouldn't make any sense anyway since I surely want to unlock my phone without Internet access.
- hellofunk 9y ago
  > but since they don't collect a lot Apple doesn't need to collect anything at all for privacy to be a concern. The iPhone stores as much of your information as any other phone by another maker. Which is why Apple's devices are notable for privacy-minded folks, since their hardware and software make it much more difficult to crack into the device than with other phones. There is nothing "magical", as you say, about how Apple does this. The difference is that, for whatever reason, they do in fact seem to care more about privacy than other companies. Whether that is driven by market sentiment or not does not change this fact.
- urda 9y ago
  > Apple doesn't care about it's users' privacy Not sure where this idea came from, but this is so far from the truth it isn't even funny. 1) Focus on encryption everywhere. 2) Privacy controls built into iOS way sooner than Android ever had. 3) Fought (and won) against the FBI demanding a universal backdoor. 4) Developed on-device machine learning tech, even if it isn't as powerful as the collective, it protects users privacy. 5) Fully detailed white papers around iMessage security and encryption. ... and the list goes on. Saying things like that first sentence is just gross negligence to discussing and reporting on facts here on HN.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    1) focus on encryption is not the same as focus of strong crypto end to end encryption with forward secrecy. 2) anybody will look good compared to the worst offender 3) because it threatened their business model and profit (also see this[1]) 4) I don't get how this protects privacy, not destroying something is only protection in mafia's lingo. and the debunking list goes on too. The idea that Apple does not care about user privacy come from the fact that apple does not care user privacy (also US laws such as patriot act and edward snowden revelations). The just like to keep it in their own hands because apple wants to keep control and customers locked in due to being a hardware seller. [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-20/the-behind-the-scenes-fight-between-apple-and-the-fbi https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-20/the-behin...
    - urda 9y ago
      In case you may be confused why you are being downvoted (and rightly so), here's some further reading that should help set you right: https://www.apple.com/privacy/ https://www.apple.com/privacy/
- stephenr 9y ago
  > They make sort of okay attempts at privacy, but since they don't collect a lot, they don't need to do a lot Not collecting data in the first place is a pretty big part of respecting user privacy. Numerous parts of the iCloud-related tech stack in iOS/macOS devices do peer-to-peer syncing between account-linked devices specifically so that data isn't sent to Apple servers. That isn't something you just do by chance and then capitalise on later. > many of the things they have done have been weak, easily exploitable, or hacked [citation needed]
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
  Apple has a very strict internal culture of privacy. All new features which request user data must go through a rigid internal review process, for example. It's not just skin-deep.
- m-p-3 9y ago
  Their privacy-initiatives runs on Courage™.
- _jal 9y ago
  > many of the things they have done have been weak, easily exploitable, or hacked What specific things are you referring to?
craftyguy 9y ago
> a) Apple cares about their users' privacy Well, except for the whole switching-to-google thing..
- Gaelan 9y ago
  FTA: > As is expected with Apple now, searches and results are all encrypted and anonymized and cannot be attributed to any individual user. Once you click on the ‘Show Google results’ link, of course, you’re off to Google and its standard tracking will apply. Clicking directly on a website result will take you straight there, not through Google. Not perfect, but better than just opening Google directly.
  - matwood 9y ago
    Which is interesting, because one of the reasons I think Google is so good at search is that it personalizes results. When that personalization is removed will it still be as good?
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    > Once you click on the ‘Show Google results’ link, of course, you’re off to Google and its standard tracking will apply They are still exposing their users to Google's shenanigans...
0xbear 9y ago
That wouldn't make any sense given that DDG is thin UX veneer around Bing, and it doesn't maintain its own index.
- dmead 9y ago
  is that true? i thought DDG predates bing?
  - 0xbear 9y ago
    I believe they initially used Google as their backend. Don't quote me on that though. One thing I know for sure is their search is not really provided by them.
    - kobeya 9y ago
      They’ve always had their own backend.
    - randkyp 9y ago
      I thought their search was powered by Yahoo's BOSS service combined with their own crawler.
  - SyneRyder 9y ago
    Apparently DuckDuckGo now gets its web site results from a combination of Bing, Yahoo and Yandex. Its focus now seems to be on aggregating results from hundreds of niche search engines and choosing the best engine for a particular search. https://duck.co/help/results/sources https://duck.co/help/results/sources
    - 0xbear 9y ago
      And Yahoo, in turn, gets its results from Bing.
      - ChuckMcM 9y ago
Kiro 9y ago
> Apple cares about having control over the entire user experience. Considering DDG is a wrapper for Bing/Yahoo it would be quite the opposite.
- ChuckMcM 9y ago
  Bing/Yahoo/Yandex but the point that Apple is in the position DDG is in to protect user's privacy if they choose to with Siri/Spotlight etc. They can take the search from the phone, strip it of identifying information and forward it to Google then return the results they get back. You can test that they are doing that by searching for something directly on Google, and then searching for it on Siri. If the results page differ, there is a chance that Siri is not passing along state information to Google.
  - Kiro 9y ago
    Please see the part of the comment I quoted. My reply wasn't about privacy. The parent thinks that buying DDG would give Apple full control of the user experience, but is probably unaware of the fact that they wouldn't be in control at all since it's Bing/Yahoo/Yandex providing the actual results.
    - ChuckMcM 9y ago
      I don't understand your comment. Search engine providers provide results as json page without decoration. Everything about the user experience is controlled by the code converting that json into display. This is what DDG does. Everything about the user experience is controlled by the 'front end' which is making a call to the search engine service on its 'back end'. The only difference here is how much tracking/PII is part of the request that is sent to the search engine. I was saying you can test that by comparing Siri results with those obtained through a web browser which is forwarding cookies full of PII and tracking information.
- guroot 9y ago
  Source on this? I was under the impression DDG is it's own thing. Edit: Apparently they use yahoo and bing as a source for some of their results then filter and combine it with other things: https://web.archive.org/web/20150124074006/https://duck.co/help/results/sources https://web.archive.org/web/20150124074006/https://duck.co/h...
bigbugbag 9y ago
I think Apple do not give a damn about privacy outside of marketing and alignment with self interest. (see fappening for one high profile example). It will probably not happen as it seems to me ddg is not for sale.
- nextlevelwizard 9y ago
  What does "the fappening" have to do with privacy? Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't it just people's weak passwords being guessed and then their iCloud backups being "leaked"?
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    Pictures automatically being uploaded to icloud is the issue here. Apple will not and maybe cannot snoop in the iphone itself (only for the recent models) but it can, will and has been getting into icloud to give to third parties. This is mandatory by law for every company operating in the US. Had this privacy weakness not been in place, it would have been much more difficult to get the pictures. Probably would not have happened as it would have required getting close enough to the devices themselves.
    - fredsted 9y ago
      > Pictures automatically being uploaded to icloud is the issue here If you enable it in the iCloud settings...
    - nextlevelwizard 9y ago
      My images do not upload automatically
halloij 9y ago
What does duckduckgo actually have to buy?
skinnymuch 9y ago
How much will buying DuckDuckGo help if they can't continue using Yahoo, Bing, Yandex, results? I assume the major search engines won't be as happy letting Apple use their indexes as they are with small DuckDuckGo.

beaner 9y ago

Apple doesn't care about it's users' privacy. It only ever started making a big deal about privacy when people started criticizing Google for hoarding too much personal info and using it to target ads, which people think is evil. Apple doesn't do these things (it's not Apple's business model), so they began heavily marketing "privacy" as something you'd get from them and not the competition. They make sort of okay attempts at privacy, but since they don't collect a lot, they don't need to do a lot, and many of the things they have done have been weak, easily exploitable, or hacked. "Privacy" for Apple is a marketing term like "unbelievable," "magic," and "revolutionary."

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rtpg 9y ago
They also made a political stand on the search warrant for that one iPhone that they could have unlocked. A stand that wasn't even popular among the general public ("companies should help police investigate terrorists" polls very well). Being super pedantic, Apple doesn't care about anything, just like a company can't care... but I think it's safe to say that it's not last on the list of things they prioritize.
- willtim 9y ago
  It seemed more like a marketing stunt to me. The issue was about a single iPhone with a warrant to search it. Apple made it a very public debate about all iPhones.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    It's difficult to do with just one phone and toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube. If they do it for the US, what do they do when it's a dissident in China and the party wants the phone unlocked?
  - infogulch 9y ago
    It wasn't about all iPhones? As soon as this case started there were twenty other cases just waiting in the wings to jump on it as soon as the tool that law enforcement wanted Apple to create existed at all. Most of them were trivial cases: drugs, petty crime etc. I've never used an iPhone, but I'm glad Apple put their foot down. The government is a terrible custodian of slippery slopes, don't give them any more.
- beaner 9y ago
  I don't think this was a particularly difficult thing to do. they're an almost $800 billion company with one of the most valuable brands in the world and the most loyal followers. They have more of an ability to stand up to these things than anyone. And if they lost, it's not like anything particularly bad was going to happen to them. They'd just have to cede the info. And it was the right thing to do anyway. They had basically nothing at stake.
  - daveFNbuck 9y ago
    They weren't being asked for info. They were being asked to develop and sign an OS update to bypass any iPhone's security.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - Osmium 9y ago
    > They had basically nothing at stake. Except the human cost and resulting PR nightmare if a terrorist attack happened that they could have in principle prevented (e.g. if the terrorist had collaborators, and information on the phone helped find them). > I don't think this was a particularly difficult thing to do. Very easy to say when you're not the one responsible for that $800bn company ... if you're a decent human being, you're probably not worried about your own wealth in that situation, but the livelihoods of all your employees and other entities that rely on you. Every decision carries weight. The value of your company is not always empowering; the higher its value, the larger the consequences if you're wrong.
    - bigbugbag 9y ago
      Sorry if I bust your little bubble of joy here but: Apple is not made of decent human beings and do not care for employees that much. Just look at how their devices are manufactured. Apple cares about profits and money, just look at their tax evasion schemes and how they store their cash overseas waiting for a tax break to bring it back to the US.
- piyush_soni 9y ago
  That was a great 'free' PR boost for them actually, which less informed people take as Apple's great stand on privacy. Apple helped FBI in every possible way for months in their investigation (had also unlocked dozens of phones for them before), even gladly gave away the suspect's iCloud data (so much for customer privacy). It's only when FBI made their next request (to create a backdoor/loophole in brute-force unlocking) public instead of private, when Tim Cook 'had to' show they cared about users' privacy. [0][1] [0] "Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response" : https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-b... [1] : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-20/the-behind-the-scenes-fight-between-apple-and-the-fbi https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-20/the-behin...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - simonh 9y ago
    But in the article you link to as [0] it also says Apple had already refused to comply with an All Writs Act request in an unrelated case several months previously. It doesn’t seem that the under seal request would have made any difference to their actual decision, which they’d already made. This pretty much kills dead any suggestion that they somehow changed their mind for PR reasons, in fact they pretty clearly didn’t want to publicise it hence the seal request. Also the PR boost from this is far from free. Aside from the huge cost of engineering all this security into the system, to the point of delaying major new features by years in order to get the security architecture into place, its also costing them a chunk of the Chinese market. The Chinese government is absolutely not happy with this sort of consumer privacy stance and has been cracking down on security services and features on the iOS platform. They’ve banned VPN software and features, banned communications apps, even screwing with Apple by barring the iTunes media business, and stalling Apple Pay. Going up against the US government arguably does Apple no harm, but setting themselves directly at odds with core Chinese government political goals such as pervasive monitoring and censorship of all forms of communications is going to be a real battle. If they just wanted a marketing advantage, they’d just build in some anti add-tracking features and be done. Security and privacy is so appallingly bad on Android even a perfunctory effort there would put them miles ahead at little cost. The extreme lengths they’re going to goes way beyond anything remotely necessary for a marketing advantage. Finally, Apples stance on accessibility shows just how serious they are about serving their users. The cost of their accessibility efforts must be dramatically higher than any possible financial or marketing benefit and they’ve been doing it for decades across platforms to little or no fanfare.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Was is a political stand for user privacy or was it a show of power "government cannot force us to do anything" stand ? They were probably just defending their business model, as a hardware seller the minute it is known worldwide that the US government has a backdoor in their flagship device, apple is over.
0xbear 9y ago
You get the behavior you reward. If consumers buy their products for their privacy features, we will get more privacy features. What's not to like?
IBM 9y ago
Apple was good about privacy and security long before they ever started talking about it. They only started talking about it after the celeb "iCloud hack" (which turned out not to be an iCloud vulnerability [1]). The fact that they market privacy and security is a good thing if you care about those things. Previously you were just relying on their business model being different from Google's or Microsoft's, but now they're on the record (repeatedly) which also sets them up for a PR crisis if they back down from those positions. There are plenty of Apple haters that would jump at the opportunity. [1] https://9to5mac.com/2016/03/17/opinion-apple-pr-allegations/ https://9to5mac.com/2016/03/17/opinion-apple-pr-allegations/
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  The link you give is opinion from a pro apple website, which starts by stating "there was no hack" and "it has nothing to do with icloud security" then proceeds to describe a very common hack and point out some security flaw in icloud. Try using the official apple statement[1] next time which clearly states that it was a targeted attack and not a breach leading to a full leak. Of course it was a privacy issue (iphone automatically uploading pictures online) and a weak security design (no 2FA, no email warning of access from an unknown IP, no browser authentication, etc.). There is stronger security on accessing your humble bundle game library. Also there was a serious icloud vulnerability allowing for bruteforce attack and bypassing account lockout restrictions and secondary authentication[2][3], that it was not used for the fappening does not make it less real. [1]: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2014/09/02Apple-Media-Advisory/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2014/09/02Apple-Media-Advisor... [2]: https://github.com/Pr0x13/iDict https://github.com/Pr0x13/iDict [3]:http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/31749/hacking/idict-hack-any-icloud-account.html http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/31749/hacking/idict-hack...
millstone 9y ago
Disagree strongly. Apple pays a serious price for their privacy stance, which they would rather not pay. Doing machine learning on-device makes it less effective. Apple's directions aren't as good as they could be because Maps randomly segments trips and masks its users identity. Apple's App Store revenues are lower because they limit how apps can identify users. This difference is deeper than business models. Compare Google's Hands Free with Apple Pay for example: the same business model (collecting interchange fees) but Apple's approach preserves user's privacy at the cost of some convenience, while Google's is arguably more convenient but informs both Google and the merchant as soon as you enter into the store.
- ariwilson 9y ago
  Apple's just worse than Google at building these kind of heavily data driven web applications, which they've chosen to paper over to the public with a strong stance on privacy. It's a smart business move.
- dxhdr 9y ago
  > Apple's App Store revenues are lower because they limit how apps can identify users. I think this is less about privacy and more about control. Only Apple apps are allowed to track Apple users.
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    But Apple chooses to implement things in ways that make it way harder for them to do this. Eg Touch ID and facial recognition on the device only, not in the cloud.
    - dpark 9y ago
      That's because of the horrible press they'd get if you couldn't unlock your phone without cell service, or if it took ten seconds when the network was spotty.
    - jhasse 9y ago
      Fingerprints and data for face unlock aren't stored in the cloud on Android either. Wouldn't make any sense anyway since I surely want to unlock my phone without Internet access.
hellofunk 9y ago
> but since they don't collect a lot Apple doesn't need to collect anything at all for privacy to be a concern. The iPhone stores as much of your information as any other phone by another maker. Which is why Apple's devices are notable for privacy-minded folks, since their hardware and software make it much more difficult to crack into the device than with other phones. There is nothing "magical", as you say, about how Apple does this. The difference is that, for whatever reason, they do in fact seem to care more about privacy than other companies. Whether that is driven by market sentiment or not does not change this fact.
urda 9y ago
> Apple doesn't care about it's users' privacy Not sure where this idea came from, but this is so far from the truth it isn't even funny. 1) Focus on encryption everywhere. 2) Privacy controls built into iOS way sooner than Android ever had. 3) Fought (and won) against the FBI demanding a universal backdoor. 4) Developed on-device machine learning tech, even if it isn't as powerful as the collective, it protects users privacy. 5) Fully detailed white papers around iMessage security and encryption. ... and the list goes on. Saying things like that first sentence is just gross negligence to discussing and reporting on facts here on HN.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  1) focus on encryption is not the same as focus of strong crypto end to end encryption with forward secrecy. 2) anybody will look good compared to the worst offender 3) because it threatened their business model and profit (also see this[1]) 4) I don't get how this protects privacy, not destroying something is only protection in mafia's lingo. and the debunking list goes on too. The idea that Apple does not care about user privacy come from the fact that apple does not care user privacy (also US laws such as patriot act and edward snowden revelations). The just like to keep it in their own hands because apple wants to keep control and customers locked in due to being a hardware seller. [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-20/the-behind-the-scenes-fight-between-apple-and-the-fbi https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-20/the-behin...
  - urda 9y ago
    In case you may be confused why you are being downvoted (and rightly so), here's some further reading that should help set you right: https://www.apple.com/privacy/ https://www.apple.com/privacy/
stephenr 9y ago
> They make sort of okay attempts at privacy, but since they don't collect a lot, they don't need to do a lot Not collecting data in the first place is a pretty big part of respecting user privacy. Numerous parts of the iCloud-related tech stack in iOS/macOS devices do peer-to-peer syncing between account-linked devices specifically so that data isn't sent to Apple servers. That isn't something you just do by chance and then capitalise on later. > many of the things they have done have been weak, easily exploitable, or hacked [citation needed]
TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
Apple has a very strict internal culture of privacy. All new features which request user data must go through a rigid internal review process, for example. It's not just skin-deep.
m-p-3 9y ago
Their privacy-initiatives runs on Courage™.
_jal 9y ago
> many of the things they have done have been weak, easily exploitable, or hacked What specific things are you referring to?

craftyguy 9y ago

> a) Apple cares about their users' privacy Well, except for the whole switching-to-google thing..

Gaelan 9y ago
FTA: > As is expected with Apple now, searches and results are all encrypted and anonymized and cannot be attributed to any individual user. Once you click on the ‘Show Google results’ link, of course, you’re off to Google and its standard tracking will apply. Clicking directly on a website result will take you straight there, not through Google. Not perfect, but better than just opening Google directly.
- matwood 9y ago
  Which is interesting, because one of the reasons I think Google is so good at search is that it personalizes results. When that personalization is removed will it still be as good?
- craftyguy 9y ago
  > Once you click on the ‘Show Google results’ link, of course, you’re off to Google and its standard tracking will apply They are still exposing their users to Google's shenanigans...

0xbear 9y ago

That wouldn't make any sense given that DDG is thin UX veneer around Bing, and it doesn't maintain its own index.

dmead 9y ago
is that true? i thought DDG predates bing?
- 0xbear 9y ago
  I believe they initially used Google as their backend. Don't quote me on that though. One thing I know for sure is their search is not really provided by them.
  - kobeya 9y ago
    They’ve always had their own backend.
  - randkyp 9y ago
    I thought their search was powered by Yahoo's BOSS service combined with their own crawler.
- SyneRyder 9y ago
  Apparently DuckDuckGo now gets its web site results from a combination of Bing, Yahoo and Yandex. Its focus now seems to be on aggregating results from hundreds of niche search engines and choosing the best engine for a particular search. https://duck.co/help/results/sources https://duck.co/help/results/sources
  - 0xbear 9y ago
    And Yahoo, in turn, gets its results from Bing.
    - ChuckMcM 9y ago

Kiro 9y ago

> Apple cares about having control over the entire user experience. Considering DDG is a wrapper for Bing/Yahoo it would be quite the opposite.

ChuckMcM 9y ago
Bing/Yahoo/Yandex but the point that Apple is in the position DDG is in to protect user's privacy if they choose to with Siri/Spotlight etc. They can take the search from the phone, strip it of identifying information and forward it to Google then return the results they get back. You can test that they are doing that by searching for something directly on Google, and then searching for it on Siri. If the results page differ, there is a chance that Siri is not passing along state information to Google.
- Kiro 9y ago
  Please see the part of the comment I quoted. My reply wasn't about privacy. The parent thinks that buying DDG would give Apple full control of the user experience, but is probably unaware of the fact that they wouldn't be in control at all since it's Bing/Yahoo/Yandex providing the actual results.
  - ChuckMcM 9y ago
    I don't understand your comment. Search engine providers provide results as json page without decoration. Everything about the user experience is controlled by the code converting that json into display. This is what DDG does. Everything about the user experience is controlled by the 'front end' which is making a call to the search engine service on its 'back end'. The only difference here is how much tracking/PII is part of the request that is sent to the search engine. I was saying you can test that by comparing Siri results with those obtained through a web browser which is forwarding cookies full of PII and tracking information.
guroot 9y ago
Source on this? I was under the impression DDG is it's own thing. Edit: Apparently they use yahoo and bing as a source for some of their results then filter and combine it with other things: https://web.archive.org/web/20150124074006/https://duck.co/help/results/sources https://web.archive.org/web/20150124074006/https://duck.co/h...

bigbugbag 9y ago

I think Apple do not give a damn about privacy outside of marketing and alignment with self interest. (see fappening for one high profile example). It will probably not happen as it seems to me ddg is not for sale.

nextlevelwizard 9y ago
What does "the fappening" have to do with privacy? Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't it just people's weak passwords being guessed and then their iCloud backups being "leaked"?
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Pictures automatically being uploaded to icloud is the issue here. Apple will not and maybe cannot snoop in the iphone itself (only for the recent models) but it can, will and has been getting into icloud to give to third parties. This is mandatory by law for every company operating in the US. Had this privacy weakness not been in place, it would have been much more difficult to get the pictures. Probably would not have happened as it would have required getting close enough to the devices themselves.
  - fredsted 9y ago
    > Pictures automatically being uploaded to icloud is the issue here If you enable it in the iCloud settings...
  - nextlevelwizard 9y ago
    My images do not upload automatically

halloij 9y ago

What does duckduckgo actually have to buy?

skinnymuch 9y ago

How much will buying DuckDuckGo help if they can't continue using Yahoo, Bing, Yandex, results? I assume the major search engines won't be as happy letting Apple use their indexes as they are with small DuckDuckGo.