10 ms·

"What does HN think? Is this a viable business differentiator for them, long term? Or will they have to shift to the 'dark side' of personalized data and servic

"What does HN think? Is this a viable business differentiator for them, long term? Or will they have to shift to the 'dark side' of personalized data and services to remain competitive in the future?" Honestly, I cant possibly trust Apple to always do the right thing. A corner stone of digital privacy and security is being in control of your systems and data which Apple takes away from its customers. When I buy and use Apple products - I have to have faith in Apple to do nothing wrong with my data or send me a malicious update that compromises my system. It is all closed source and you only get occasional white papers explaining technology in abstract terms about their intentions. There is no independent person(s) that can vouch for Apple's integrity in building the systems the way they claim so. That said, based on current status quo, I'd rather warily trust Apple with some of my personal data like GPS location, browsing history, Notes etc than Google or Facebook given the latter have a business motive to sell me out. So when my friends or relatives ask me what phone/computer I think they should buy, I opinionatedly recommend iPhone + GnuLinux for the tech savvy and iPhone and Mac for the non tech savvy. I also give them a mini 5 minute lecture about * Not allowing Location access to all the apps they download - Why would a calculator app need your location "Even while not using the app"?, * Paying for their email service - I use Fastmail. , * Enabling tracking prevention in their browser to prevent tracking cookies, * Using separate browser for FaceBook, Amazon and others while using FireFox only for personal/sensitive browsing needs.

Joeri 9y ago
Realistically though, your real world choice is android or iOS. Either a product which is half closed (play services) from a company that makes 90% of its revenue from ads, or a product which is entirely closed from a company that makes all of its revenue from selling products directly to their customers. In theory you can get AOSP and be in control, but in practice that’s not practical for normal people. My two cents: half closed is pretty much the same thing as fully closed from a trust perspective, and apple’s incentives are much less in conflict with user privacy than google’s.
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  You don't have to use Play Services, and this is very easy to do. You can also use Play Services piecemeal. The choice really is between open or closed. You can use Firefox as your default browser on Android but are limited to a bastardized version on iOS. You can run an OpenStreetMap app as your default map on Android, but you have no choice on iOS. You can build your own apps and run them indefinitely on Android, but you have to pay a $99 yearly fee (on top of the Mac tax) or rebuild every 7 days on iOS. I don't recommend iOS to anybody. People who think it is more secure don't understand defense in depth, and people who think it is more private don't understand that Pixel and Android One builds actually collect less information by default (before opting in on any of the dialogs).
  - seba_dos1 9y ago
    Remember that there's microG - free Play Services reimplementation: https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/
    - mcny 9y ago
      I tried the lineage version: I can't even register for signal (a messaging app) with microg enabled. The only workaround is to disable microg, register signal, then enable microg.
      - seba_dos1 9y ago
        Check if you have enabled GCM. With microG, anything that requires calling home is opt-in. If that's not it, report it. Every app I use works with microG, and any minor issues I had earlier were being resolved pretty quickly.
        mcny 9y ago
        I switched back to Lineage with open gapps but later I saw this https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android/issues/6895#issuecomment-325237926 https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android/issues/6895...
virgilp 9y ago
> A corner stone of digital privacy and security is being in control of your systems and data I see this as an opportunity that Mozilla has, and I'd submit an "idea" to them but I don't know how. Google got big by making ads suck less - they were the first that delivered non-intrusive ads that actually worked (and were personalized too, to boot - without being intrusive!) I wonder if there isn't a serious market for flipping the paradigm on its head. The marketers do need to deliver relevant messages to relevant persons... but I think they don't need to collect lots of personal data about you. What if someone trustworthy would flip the paradigm on its head? Say that you tell Firefox your interests, and, besides being a browser, it becomes a sort of "local ad exchange" too - when you visit "New Yorker", it says "I can display here an add about cars, or one about sleep pills, or one about cruises etc.". Instead of profiling the user - send extensive ad profiles to the browser, and let the browser pick locally based on user profile & preferences. It would be wasteful in that you potentially send a lot of ad metadata to a single browser... but, theoretically, all that metadata can be cached. And, I dunno, maybe it's not really that much metadata, afterall? It's a rough idea, but I feel it's one worth exploring that could provide genuine benefits both for (non-shady) marketers & for end-users.
- PakG1 9y ago
  Interesting, but I think that data would be only semi-useful for marketers. Situations change, needs change, and for some things, on a frequent basis. I imagine most users are disinterested in constantly going into their preferences to update what they're willing to view. It's much easier for them to let someone passively observe their life and web activity the way Facebook or Google do it. And except for a number of tech savvy tinfoil hats, most people would still choose convenience over privacy and security. The proof is in the numbers. So this would probably be dead in the water for Firefox because few marketers would find value in it. Hopefully, I'm wrong about people continuing to value convenience over privacy and security though.
  - virgilp 9y ago
    Well, Firefox _could_ passively observe your life and update your preferences (better than Facebook or Google do, if it's the primary browser - since they'd observe you across all activities). It's just that it wouldn't need to share that information with anyone except you - it stays local. That's what I love about the system - you can be as targeted/"privacy invasive" as you wish without actually invading anyone's privacy, since people stay firmly in control of their own data. To add to that, "private mode" would actually do what people expect it to do - keep them anonymous on the web, and not leak sensitive/ embarrassing information about themselves.
stcredzero 9y ago
Honestly, I cant possibly trust Apple to always do the right thing. A corner stone of digital privacy and security is being in control of your systems and data which Apple takes away from its customers. When I buy and use Apple products - I have to have faith in Apple to do nothing wrong with my data or send me a malicious update that compromises my system. For a user who doesn't have the foggiest idea about technology, to whom the whole thing is "magic," why isn't this rational? Do you closely examine the safety of chemicals in all of your cleaning products, household items, clothes, your car, and the devices in your home? For most people, probably no more than in a cursory sense, as it's not normally one's area of expertise. We have to "outsource" many aspects of daily life to experts. Paying for their email service - I use Fastmail. You've effectively outsourced your email security to Fastmail. How is that any different?
- reacharavindh 9y ago
  I was not calling Using Apple stuff irrational. I use an iPhone myself. I was just saying that I still don't "trust" it because Apple can go rogue if they want to and I can't do anything about it. If it was an open source eco system, there would be more eyes on the product that even if I personally don't read the source code entirely, some non-apple person does and Apple would be wary of the public eye. "Do you closely examine the safety of chemicals.." No, but they need to list the ingredients, get it certified by authorities, and labs can freely test for the ingredients without the company's input. Software is just not the same as chemicals. True, trusting FastMail is no different than trusting Apple. I didnt mean to say that FastMail was magically more secure. Just that they have no incentive to sell me out. I could've used any company for this. Just trying to not put all eggs in one basket. It is certainly a better choice than Google which creepily builds a profile of me to make money.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    How did the "more eyes" help discover the HeartBleed bug that was in open source code for two years?
    - 9y ago
nextos 9y ago
A great business differentiator, and something that could be much easier to execute at Apple (due to them controlling the whole stack) would be to create a fully trusted platform. That is, design all hardware and software in-house, and use formal methods (theorem proving, program analysis and model checking) to verify everything. Furthermore, adopt a Qubes-like architecture where external untrusted applications can be run in an isolated way.
QAPereo 9y ago
I switched over to fastmail last year and never looked back. I get no spam, it seems as secure as email can be in terms of the business model being aligned with my needs. Good idea for the separate browsers too, I never considered that. I would just throw a vpn you trust (or roll your own) in that list, along with uBlock Origin and uMatrix.

Joeri 9y ago

Realistically though, your real world choice is android or iOS. Either a product which is half closed (play services) from a company that makes 90% of its revenue from ads, or a product which is entirely closed from a company that makes all of its revenue from selling products directly to their customers. In theory you can get AOSP and be in control, but in practice that’s not practical for normal people. My two cents: half closed is pretty much the same thing as fully closed from a trust perspective, and apple’s incentives are much less in conflict with user privacy than google’s.

lern_too_spel 9y ago
You don't have to use Play Services, and this is very easy to do. You can also use Play Services piecemeal. The choice really is between open or closed. You can use Firefox as your default browser on Android but are limited to a bastardized version on iOS. You can run an OpenStreetMap app as your default map on Android, but you have no choice on iOS. You can build your own apps and run them indefinitely on Android, but you have to pay a $99 yearly fee (on top of the Mac tax) or rebuild every 7 days on iOS. I don't recommend iOS to anybody. People who think it is more secure don't understand defense in depth, and people who think it is more private don't understand that Pixel and Android One builds actually collect less information by default (before opting in on any of the dialogs).
- seba_dos1 9y ago
  Remember that there's microG - free Play Services reimplementation: https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/
  - mcny 9y ago
    I tried the lineage version: I can't even register for signal (a messaging app) with microg enabled. The only workaround is to disable microg, register signal, then enable microg.
    - seba_dos1 9y ago
      Check if you have enabled GCM. With microG, anything that requires calling home is opt-in. If that's not it, report it. Every app I use works with microG, and any minor issues I had earlier were being resolved pretty quickly.
      - mcny 9y ago
        I switched back to Lineage with open gapps but later I saw this https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android/issues/6895#issuecomment-325237926 https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android/issues/6895...

virgilp 9y ago

> A corner stone of digital privacy and security is being in control of your systems and data I see this as an opportunity that Mozilla has, and I'd submit an "idea" to them but I don't know how. Google got big by making ads suck less - they were the first that delivered non-intrusive ads that actually worked (and were personalized too, to boot - without being intrusive!) I wonder if there isn't a serious market for flipping the paradigm on its head. The marketers do need to deliver relevant messages to relevant persons... but I think they don't need to collect lots of personal data about you. What if someone trustworthy would flip the paradigm on its head? Say that you tell Firefox your interests, and, besides being a browser, it becomes a sort of "local ad exchange" too - when you visit "New Yorker", it says "I can display here an add about cars, or one about sleep pills, or one about cruises etc.". Instead of profiling the user - send extensive ad profiles to the browser, and let the browser pick locally based on user profile & preferences. It would be wasteful in that you potentially send a lot of ad metadata to a single browser... but, theoretically, all that metadata can be cached. And, I dunno, maybe it's not really that much metadata, afterall? It's a rough idea, but I feel it's one worth exploring that could provide genuine benefits both for (non-shady) marketers & for end-users.

PakG1 9y ago
Interesting, but I think that data would be only semi-useful for marketers. Situations change, needs change, and for some things, on a frequent basis. I imagine most users are disinterested in constantly going into their preferences to update what they're willing to view. It's much easier for them to let someone passively observe their life and web activity the way Facebook or Google do it. And except for a number of tech savvy tinfoil hats, most people would still choose convenience over privacy and security. The proof is in the numbers. So this would probably be dead in the water for Firefox because few marketers would find value in it. Hopefully, I'm wrong about people continuing to value convenience over privacy and security though.
- virgilp 9y ago
  Well, Firefox _could_ passively observe your life and update your preferences (better than Facebook or Google do, if it's the primary browser - since they'd observe you across all activities). It's just that it wouldn't need to share that information with anyone except you - it stays local. That's what I love about the system - you can be as targeted/"privacy invasive" as you wish without actually invading anyone's privacy, since people stay firmly in control of their own data. To add to that, "private mode" would actually do what people expect it to do - keep them anonymous on the web, and not leak sensitive/ embarrassing information about themselves.

stcredzero 9y ago

Honestly, I cant possibly trust Apple to always do the right thing. A corner stone of digital privacy and security is being in control of your systems and data which Apple takes away from its customers. When I buy and use Apple products - I have to have faith in Apple to do nothing wrong with my data or send me a malicious update that compromises my system. For a user who doesn't have the foggiest idea about technology, to whom the whole thing is "magic," why isn't this rational? Do you closely examine the safety of chemicals in all of your cleaning products, household items, clothes, your car, and the devices in your home? For most people, probably no more than in a cursory sense, as it's not normally one's area of expertise. We have to "outsource" many aspects of daily life to experts. Paying for their email service - I use Fastmail. You've effectively outsourced your email security to Fastmail. How is that any different?

reacharavindh 9y ago
I was not calling Using Apple stuff irrational. I use an iPhone myself. I was just saying that I still don't "trust" it because Apple can go rogue if they want to and I can't do anything about it. If it was an open source eco system, there would be more eyes on the product that even if I personally don't read the source code entirely, some non-apple person does and Apple would be wary of the public eye. "Do you closely examine the safety of chemicals.." No, but they need to list the ingredients, get it certified by authorities, and labs can freely test for the ingredients without the company's input. Software is just not the same as chemicals. True, trusting FastMail is no different than trusting Apple. I didnt mean to say that FastMail was magically more secure. Just that they have no incentive to sell me out. I could've used any company for this. Just trying to not put all eggs in one basket. It is certainly a better choice than Google which creepily builds a profile of me to make money.
- scarface74 9y ago
  How did the "more eyes" help discover the HeartBleed bug that was in open source code for two years?
  - 9y ago

nextos 9y ago

A great business differentiator, and something that could be much easier to execute at Apple (due to them controlling the whole stack) would be to create a fully trusted platform. That is, design all hardware and software in-house, and use formal methods (theorem proving, program analysis and model checking) to verify everything. Furthermore, adopt a Qubes-like architecture where external untrusted applications can be run in an isolated way.

QAPereo 9y ago

I switched over to fastmail last year and never looked back. I get no spam, it seems as secure as email can be in terms of the business model being aligned with my needs. Good idea for the separate browsers too, I never considered that. I would just throw a vpn you trust (or roll your own) in that list, along with uBlock Origin and uMatrix.