6 ms·

> I think Apple's business model is entirely harmful Between Apple and Google, you think APPLE'S business model is the harmful one?! We're talking about (1) ac

by exogen 9y ago

> I think Apple's business model is entirely harmful Between Apple and Google, you think APPLE'S business model is the harmful one?! We're talking about (1) actually charging for their products vs. (2) tracking your every move and collecting all the personal information about you they possibly can so they can sell you ads better, right? I'm actually not sure I can even name a tech company with a business model as simple and honest as Apple's.

evv 9y ago
I reluctantly agree. Apple has a bunch of dirty practices that makes me thing twice about buying their products, but their market position does incentivize them to protect my privacy. In contrast, Google is incentivized to provide a thick pipe between the highest bidder and the screen in my hand.
bb88 9y ago
Honestly, I feel like this is an argument for watching HBO vs NBC, say. HBO makes a "honest" product and charges for it, while NBC uses the platform to sell advertising. NBC must therefore be "dishonest" because they're showing you 30 second ads. Despite the fact the business model of serving content for with ads has been a successful (and accepted) business model for decades. Google's privacy policy is open. No one is forcing you to use it, just as no one is forcing you to watch NBC. https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
- extr 9y ago
  It is a similar argument, but I think there is an important qualitative difference between TVs and smartphones. One is inherently passive, I interact with it on my own terms. The worst case is they show too many ads and I get pissed and cancel my service. I have some power in the relationship, they need my money month to month. The other is an integral part of my daily life and knows virtually everything about me, who I communicate with, where I go, and is almost mandatory in modern society. I have no control over the software that runs on it, and the organization that does control it already has my money. If I want to exit the relationship, there are maybe one or two serious competitors (depending on if you include non-google android).
  - bb88 9y ago
    > One is inherently passive, I interact with it on my own terms. No one is forcing you to interact with Google. You choose to interact with them because they have the content that you want, or they provide a service that you like. And more importantly, you've accepted their privacy terms by using their service. In other words, you have interacted with them on your terms.
    - netword 9y ago
      Legally, possibly, but ethically and from the position of most consumers? No. Google (and many other web services) do all sorts of tracking, even if you aren't using their services directly, particularly with Web ads, tracking via social integration buttons, etc, which I would argue is much less than consensual. This can even happen without their having to agree to having a Google account, let alone reading (and understanding the legalese in) their privacy policy (and all of its implications for what they can do with their data). I highly doubt the vast majority of Internet users know how much information and value is being extracted by private companies from their just being on the web.
      - bb88 9y ago
        > but ethically and from the position of most consumers? No. I once had a friend frequent this record store, because every time he walked in the store, the owner would tell him, "You need to listen to this." And my friend would walk out of the store with a fresh vinyl pressed record with songs that he would spend hours listening to. Was my friend be tracked? Yes. Did he experience targeted advertising? Yes. Was he subjected to unethical or immoral behavior? I don't know, but he kept coming back. If you are the one opening up the browser and going to websites that do such unsavory things, such as trying to understand their customers to provide better content, then isn't the onus on you to not visit those sites?
        bb88 9y ago
        I love how this ended up with a down vote. Sometimes speaking a painful truth is painful.
vacri 9y ago
> Between Apple and Google, you think APPLE'S business model is the harmful one?! Google provides services to everyone in the world. Apple provides services to the social elite, and only them. A person of moderate means living in Ghana? Apple doesn't care about you; you may as well be invisible. > I'm actually not sure I can even name a tech company with a business model as simple and honest as Apple's. Because sending in the swat team when you think a journalist has a preview model of your doohickey is "simple" and "honest"? Apple does the same sort of shady stuff as any other BigCorp, they're just better at making things look fashionable, so people tend to give them a pass on it. After all, this is the same corp that patented the black oblong with rounded corners. There is nothing 'simple' about Apple's business model.
- mantas 9y ago
  > Google provides services to everyone in the world. Apple provides services to the social elite, and only them. A person of moderate means living in Ghana? Apple doesn't care about you; you may as well be invisible. If Google wasn't dumping prices, there would be a local cheaper alternative. Now it's impossible to compete with them. Ad-supported will always be cheaper than pro-privacy and there is no enough people to pay little premium to have cheap-but-pro-privacy device/service. The only way to stay afloat is to sell with hefty premium like Apple does. But then it's not really affordable to poor people. Apple doesn't care about "elite". They charge price they see fair and provide their services to anyone who can pay that price.
  - vacri 9y ago
    > If Google wasn't dumping prices, there would be a local cheaper alternative Apple's not dumping prices. Where is Ghana's local cheaper alternative to Apple? > The only way to stay afloat is to sell with hefty premium like Apple does There are plenty of other companies that are surviving without the hefty premium Apple charges. Apple managed to reach $200B in liquid cash assets; clearly their path is not "the only way". > Apple doesn't care about "elite". They charge price they see fair and provide their services to anyone who can pay that price. ... how do you think elitism works? s/Apple/High-priced lawyers/, to see how empty that argument is against elitism.
gyaru 9y ago
I don't really see why you're comparing them both, they are both in essential 2 big companies that wants to control their customers in certain ways, sell them products and keep them in their ecosystem. If Apple could actually take advantage of the potential customer information they have access to in the same way I'm pretty sure they would.
- exogen 9y ago
  It was OP who compared them by calling out Apple, I just highlighted the absurdity of it. And no, Apple specifically highlights at every event that they have no interest in collecting such customer data and it’s a differentiating factor of their products. That has been a key point of theirs for the past few years.

by exogen 9y ago

evv 9y ago

I reluctantly agree. Apple has a bunch of dirty practices that makes me thing twice about buying their products, but their market position does incentivize them to protect my privacy. In contrast, Google is incentivized to provide a thick pipe between the highest bidder and the screen in my hand.

bb88 9y ago

Honestly, I feel like this is an argument for watching HBO vs NBC, say. HBO makes a "honest" product and charges for it, while NBC uses the platform to sell advertising. NBC must therefore be "dishonest" because they're showing you 30 second ads. Despite the fact the business model of serving content for with ads has been a successful (and accepted) business model for decades. Google's privacy policy is open. No one is forcing you to use it, just as no one is forcing you to watch NBC. https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/

extr 9y ago
It is a similar argument, but I think there is an important qualitative difference between TVs and smartphones. One is inherently passive, I interact with it on my own terms. The worst case is they show too many ads and I get pissed and cancel my service. I have some power in the relationship, they need my money month to month. The other is an integral part of my daily life and knows virtually everything about me, who I communicate with, where I go, and is almost mandatory in modern society. I have no control over the software that runs on it, and the organization that does control it already has my money. If I want to exit the relationship, there are maybe one or two serious competitors (depending on if you include non-google android).
- bb88 9y ago
  > One is inherently passive, I interact with it on my own terms. No one is forcing you to interact with Google. You choose to interact with them because they have the content that you want, or they provide a service that you like. And more importantly, you've accepted their privacy terms by using their service. In other words, you have interacted with them on your terms.
  - netword 9y ago
    Legally, possibly, but ethically and from the position of most consumers? No. Google (and many other web services) do all sorts of tracking, even if you aren't using their services directly, particularly with Web ads, tracking via social integration buttons, etc, which I would argue is much less than consensual. This can even happen without their having to agree to having a Google account, let alone reading (and understanding the legalese in) their privacy policy (and all of its implications for what they can do with their data). I highly doubt the vast majority of Internet users know how much information and value is being extracted by private companies from their just being on the web.
    - bb88 9y ago
      > but ethically and from the position of most consumers? No. I once had a friend frequent this record store, because every time he walked in the store, the owner would tell him, "You need to listen to this." And my friend would walk out of the store with a fresh vinyl pressed record with songs that he would spend hours listening to. Was my friend be tracked? Yes. Did he experience targeted advertising? Yes. Was he subjected to unethical or immoral behavior? I don't know, but he kept coming back. If you are the one opening up the browser and going to websites that do such unsavory things, such as trying to understand their customers to provide better content, then isn't the onus on you to not visit those sites?
      - bb88 9y ago
        I love how this ended up with a down vote. Sometimes speaking a painful truth is painful.

vacri 9y ago

> Between Apple and Google, you think APPLE'S business model is the harmful one?! Google provides services to everyone in the world. Apple provides services to the social elite, and only them. A person of moderate means living in Ghana? Apple doesn't care about you; you may as well be invisible. > I'm actually not sure I can even name a tech company with a business model as simple and honest as Apple's. Because sending in the swat team when you think a journalist has a preview model of your doohickey is "simple" and "honest"? Apple does the same sort of shady stuff as any other BigCorp, they're just better at making things look fashionable, so people tend to give them a pass on it. After all, this is the same corp that patented the black oblong with rounded corners. There is nothing 'simple' about Apple's business model.

mantas 9y ago
> Google provides services to everyone in the world. Apple provides services to the social elite, and only them. A person of moderate means living in Ghana? Apple doesn't care about you; you may as well be invisible. If Google wasn't dumping prices, there would be a local cheaper alternative. Now it's impossible to compete with them. Ad-supported will always be cheaper than pro-privacy and there is no enough people to pay little premium to have cheap-but-pro-privacy device/service. The only way to stay afloat is to sell with hefty premium like Apple does. But then it's not really affordable to poor people. Apple doesn't care about "elite". They charge price they see fair and provide their services to anyone who can pay that price.
- vacri 9y ago
  > If Google wasn't dumping prices, there would be a local cheaper alternative Apple's not dumping prices. Where is Ghana's local cheaper alternative to Apple? > The only way to stay afloat is to sell with hefty premium like Apple does There are plenty of other companies that are surviving without the hefty premium Apple charges. Apple managed to reach $200B in liquid cash assets; clearly their path is not "the only way". > Apple doesn't care about "elite". They charge price they see fair and provide their services to anyone who can pay that price. ... how do you think elitism works? s/Apple/High-priced lawyers/, to see how empty that argument is against elitism.

gyaru 9y ago

I don't really see why you're comparing them both, they are both in essential 2 big companies that wants to control their customers in certain ways, sell them products and keep them in their ecosystem. If Apple could actually take advantage of the potential customer information they have access to in the same way I'm pretty sure they would.

exogen 9y ago
It was OP who compared them by calling out Apple, I just highlighted the absurdity of it. And no, Apple specifically highlights at every event that they have no interest in collecting such customer data and it’s a differentiating factor of their products. That has been a key point of theirs for the past few years.