6 ms·

I agree with you entirely, except in the case of Apple. I don't like closed systems either, especially when it comes to security, but, for some reason, I trust

I agree with you entirely, except in the case of Apple. I don't like closed systems either, especially when it comes to security, but, for some reason, I trust that when Apple closes a system, it's for security reasons. Their history with the Secure Enclave on iOS devices has given me a track record of security that I trust and, although it's still a closed system, the fact that they release white papers on every secure system gives me far more confidence than closed systems distributed by other companies. I won't trust the industry when this becomes the norm but, until Apple does something to violate my trust, they've made it a point to earn trust when it comes to privacy and security.

gigatexal 9y ago
I know and that's why I still buy their stuff but as soon as that trust is broken it's a firesale on hardware over at gigatexal's. I mean they are a corporation with a lot of people depending on them for their fortunes, should the era of excess market returns fail or slow what avenues of revenue might they turn to next? I think perhaps it was a huge deposit in terms of trust when they left Google's mapping service for maps to roll their own now that i think about it.
- SkyMarshal 9y ago
  What do you mean by "huge deposit in terms of trust" re rolling their own maps? Am I interpreting correctly that that was a good thing?
  - newscracker 9y ago
    My guess is that the GP meant “huge deficit in trust” and autocorrect or fast typing made that into “huge deposit in trust”. So GP is saying that Apple ditching Google Maps to roll out its own wasn’t a good idea at that time and eroded trust (on that topic, Apple Maps is still pathetic and comical outside of the U.S. and a few other countries).
    - gigatexal 9y ago
      Nope I meant what I wrote. Ditching Google for mapping was probably for two reasons: quit giving google data from iOS users using maps, and corollary to that, garner more support from those more security minded.
      - newscracker 9y ago
        I value Apple’s stance on privacy, and I agree that Apple balking at Google’s terms to get user information from maps was the right decision. But I don’t believe it added any deposit of trust from Maps — on the contrary, its own implementation was so poor to get trashed in the press and was the main reason Scott Forstall was fired. I’ll say it again, based on personal experience (even recently), Apple Maps is still pathetic to be completely useless in many Asian countries. It didn’t and doesn’t garner any trust in those places.
        gigatexal 9y ago
        I think it's gotten better but if I want to get to a place and trust that I can get to a really hard to find place I use google maps. From a user's perspective I agree. But if Apple could or did, I'd use Apple's search engine over Google's (a la the use case for duckduckgo), just so I wasn't funding Google. But I make compromises like anyone else.
        amygdyl 9y ago
        Imagine you are now the only person who has to be satisfied with the confidence you feel in map products. Otherwise you equally weight everything giving nobody any preference other than no data and no location. Now you realize that everyone has disabled maps until you switch them on because you rely on API location information. However the five years since you began enforcing privacy has allowed everyone to reach parity.. partly because nobody is piggy backing the others. I can't think of the way I could trade off the what next situation I just described: get everyone using power hungry chips to get you a chance at the bad guy .. how does it work if you balance the players?
  - pchristensen 9y ago
    Apple took a huge hit business-wise by rolling their own (adequate but inferior to Google's) maps. One of the reasons they made the split was that Google wanted user and usage data that Apple was unwilling to share. Google was offering vector map data (as opposed to tile-based) in exchange for that user data, and Apple refused. So, Apple bought user information protection (or, at least soloing) in exchange for loss of map quality. I believe that's the "deposit of trust"
  - baxtr 9y ago
    I remember to have read that they shut down the G maps because Google expected them to force users to sign in for the full experience (eg turn-by-turn navigation, which at that time was only featured on android). That was the point at which Apple had to walk away from the deal
meuk 9y ago
Well, Apple's security track record is not exactly great (I mean, it's not as bad, but it's not OpenBSD, for example). There's the iCloud leak, and the macOS High Sierra password bug. Admittedly, those are software bugs - but does it make a difference? I would argue that creating a closed platform creates security by obscurity. I think this will work to some extent in practice, but it allows Apple to put in backdoors.
zitterbewegung 9y ago
They have deliberately hobbled Apple maps, Safari, Siri, and anything else that would be enhanced by big data for the sole fact for a secure experience . They created Identificaton systems that are easy to use and deployed them to all iPhones . If there is any company that actually cares about not monitoring your behavior it is Apple. They have the best track record comparing it to other big players .
- ariwilson 9y ago
  Or, more pessimistically, they couldn't get Apple Maps, Safari, Siri working well with big data so they hobbled them and claimed it was for a secure experience.
  - chowchowchow 9y ago
    This comment only makes sense if you accept the premise that the working well with big data is more valuable than a secure experience.
    - ariwilson 9y ago
      I would take the bet that something that provides direct revenue incentives is worth more than something that only an admittedly vocal minority of users even care about, let alone might spend more for.
      - chowchowchow 9y ago
        Isn't Apple's entire business model selling to a minority of users who are willing to spend more for their products?
        ariwilson 9y ago
        It's not self-evident that the minority of users who care about privacy is related to the minority of users who prefer Apple products.
ghostcluster 9y ago
I think Apple uses 'security reasons' as a cover to advance their monopolistic business models, in a way to keep their platforms locked down, and a way to extract a minimum 30% transaction osst and yearly fee for access to their walled gardens.
- evanextreme 9y ago
  My hypothesis is that Apple uses 'security reasons' as an excuse for their lack of dominance in voice assistants + machine learning. Siri's suggestions are virtually nonexistent compared to Google, Amazon, or even Microsoft's offerings. Siri's extensibility is entirely local, meaning that all new functions you want to develop for Siri need to be packed inside an iOS app for the user to install rather than a cloud function. Siri's 'app suggestions' to the user are also inferior, usually defaulting to the apps you used most recently.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  monopolistic business models Apple are far from a monopoly, they don't even have a majority of the phone market, their PC share is still in single digits.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Monopoly isn't defined by share of whatever market description you find convenient, it's defined by pricing power: whether the seller can raise prices over some range without losing sales to competitors. There's lots of times when things in what intuitively descriptively are the same market by some product description are different markets in practice because people don't, in practice, substitute between them in response to price movement.
    - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
      From Wikipedia: A monopoly (from Greek μόνος mónos ["alone" or "single"] and πωλεῖν pōleîn ["to sell"]) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity.

gigatexal 9y ago

I know and that's why I still buy their stuff but as soon as that trust is broken it's a firesale on hardware over at gigatexal's. I mean they are a corporation with a lot of people depending on them for their fortunes, should the era of excess market returns fail or slow what avenues of revenue might they turn to next? I think perhaps it was a huge deposit in terms of trust when they left Google's mapping service for maps to roll their own now that i think about it.

SkyMarshal 9y ago
What do you mean by "huge deposit in terms of trust" re rolling their own maps? Am I interpreting correctly that that was a good thing?
- newscracker 9y ago
  My guess is that the GP meant “huge deficit in trust” and autocorrect or fast typing made that into “huge deposit in trust”. So GP is saying that Apple ditching Google Maps to roll out its own wasn’t a good idea at that time and eroded trust (on that topic, Apple Maps is still pathetic and comical outside of the U.S. and a few other countries).
  - gigatexal 9y ago
    Nope I meant what I wrote. Ditching Google for mapping was probably for two reasons: quit giving google data from iOS users using maps, and corollary to that, garner more support from those more security minded.
    - newscracker 9y ago
      I value Apple’s stance on privacy, and I agree that Apple balking at Google’s terms to get user information from maps was the right decision. But I don’t believe it added any deposit of trust from Maps — on the contrary, its own implementation was so poor to get trashed in the press and was the main reason Scott Forstall was fired. I’ll say it again, based on personal experience (even recently), Apple Maps is still pathetic to be completely useless in many Asian countries. It didn’t and doesn’t garner any trust in those places.
      - gigatexal 9y ago
        I think it's gotten better but if I want to get to a place and trust that I can get to a really hard to find place I use google maps. From a user's perspective I agree. But if Apple could or did, I'd use Apple's search engine over Google's (a la the use case for duckduckgo), just so I wasn't funding Google. But I make compromises like anyone else.
        amygdyl 9y ago
        Imagine you are now the only person who has to be satisfied with the confidence you feel in map products. Otherwise you equally weight everything giving nobody any preference other than no data and no location. Now you realize that everyone has disabled maps until you switch them on because you rely on API location information. However the five years since you began enforcing privacy has allowed everyone to reach parity.. partly because nobody is piggy backing the others. I can't think of the way I could trade off the what next situation I just described: get everyone using power hungry chips to get you a chance at the bad guy .. how does it work if you balance the players?
- pchristensen 9y ago
  Apple took a huge hit business-wise by rolling their own (adequate but inferior to Google's) maps. One of the reasons they made the split was that Google wanted user and usage data that Apple was unwilling to share. Google was offering vector map data (as opposed to tile-based) in exchange for that user data, and Apple refused. So, Apple bought user information protection (or, at least soloing) in exchange for loss of map quality. I believe that's the "deposit of trust"
- baxtr 9y ago
  I remember to have read that they shut down the G maps because Google expected them to force users to sign in for the full experience (eg turn-by-turn navigation, which at that time was only featured on android). That was the point at which Apple had to walk away from the deal

meuk 9y ago

Well, Apple's security track record is not exactly great (I mean, it's not as bad, but it's not OpenBSD, for example). There's the iCloud leak, and the macOS High Sierra password bug. Admittedly, those are software bugs - but does it make a difference? I would argue that creating a closed platform creates security by obscurity. I think this will work to some extent in practice, but it allows Apple to put in backdoors.

zitterbewegung 9y ago

They have deliberately hobbled Apple maps, Safari, Siri, and anything else that would be enhanced by big data for the sole fact for a secure experience . They created Identificaton systems that are easy to use and deployed them to all iPhones . If there is any company that actually cares about not monitoring your behavior it is Apple. They have the best track record comparing it to other big players .

ariwilson 9y ago
Or, more pessimistically, they couldn't get Apple Maps, Safari, Siri working well with big data so they hobbled them and claimed it was for a secure experience.
- chowchowchow 9y ago
  This comment only makes sense if you accept the premise that the working well with big data is more valuable than a secure experience.
  - ariwilson 9y ago
    I would take the bet that something that provides direct revenue incentives is worth more than something that only an admittedly vocal minority of users even care about, let alone might spend more for.
    - chowchowchow 9y ago
      Isn't Apple's entire business model selling to a minority of users who are willing to spend more for their products?
      - ariwilson 9y ago
        It's not self-evident that the minority of users who care about privacy is related to the minority of users who prefer Apple products.

ghostcluster 9y ago

I think Apple uses 'security reasons' as a cover to advance their monopolistic business models, in a way to keep their platforms locked down, and a way to extract a minimum 30% transaction osst and yearly fee for access to their walled gardens.

evanextreme 9y ago
My hypothesis is that Apple uses 'security reasons' as an excuse for their lack of dominance in voice assistants + machine learning. Siri's suggestions are virtually nonexistent compared to Google, Amazon, or even Microsoft's offerings. Siri's extensibility is entirely local, meaning that all new functions you want to develop for Siri need to be packed inside an iOS app for the user to install rather than a cloud function. Siri's 'app suggestions' to the user are also inferior, usually defaulting to the apps you used most recently.
tonyedgecombe 9y ago
monopolistic business models Apple are far from a monopoly, they don't even have a majority of the phone market, their PC share is still in single digits.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Monopoly isn't defined by share of whatever market description you find convenient, it's defined by pricing power: whether the seller can raise prices over some range without losing sales to competitors. There's lots of times when things in what intuitively descriptively are the same market by some product description are different markets in practice because people don't, in practice, substitute between them in response to price movement.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    From Wikipedia: A monopoly (from Greek μόνος mónos ["alone" or "single"] and πωλεῖν pōleîn ["to sell"]) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity.