5 ms·

"In reality, Apple collects more information about its customers than Facebook because it offers more products and services." Was/is all that data collection n

"In reality, Apple collects more information about its customers than Facebook because it offers more products and services." Was/is all that data collection necessary? Did they (or Microsoft) make decisions about data collection based on perceived competition from Facebook or Google. Considering e.g. how ads were integrated into MS software products (e.g. the "free" versions of Office software that appeared a number of years ago) I think the answer is yes, at least for MS. I believe all these companies (AAPL, MS, FB, GOOG, AMZN, a few others) react to each other and often adjust their short-term and long-term goals accordingly, even when they might be thought not to be competing.

gt_ 9y ago
Right. They look at what others have gotten away with to predict what they themselves can get away with. And they harvest maximum legal amounts of data in the meantime, so they can execute any future loophole they decide beneficial to profit at that time. It’s all exploitative authoritarian capitalism.
kerng 9y ago
They show ads, but not based on your detailed personal profile, or content of your mail and things like that. Microsoft is a software company, not an ad company. I remember Microsoft making a big deal out of that at one point, saying that Google "reads" your email and stuff. That was really quite long ago, now things are even more personalized for Google and FB, whereas Apple and Microsoft has never been so deeply involved in the personalized ads business. There core business models are different.
- fuchur 9y ago
  So the data isn't necessary at all, yet they still collect it.
  - feelin_googley 9y ago
    They may spin it as necessary for "diagnostic" purposes or some such, to improve "user experience". This may be true but at the same time they reserve the right to use the data however they wish. It may have much higher value if used for commercial purposes. Will they ever do that? Hopefully not, but they are in a position to do it and thats the problem -- they are creating a company asset (user data) that is also a potential liability for users who value privacy. When Apples CEO says "we could have monetized our users but we didnt" that should raise a red flag. Why are they even in a position to monetize users? Its hardware. His comments are pure marketing; hes trying to differentiate Apple from these other companies (yet hes admitting Apple could easily do as they do). If Apple was really "doing the right thing" as to privacy, they would not be collecting data by default, they would not have integrated Facebook and other such ad-driven companies into iOS (perhaps they have finally removed them now), they would be training users to think twice before uploading private data into "the cloud". That is, if Apple was really concerned about user privacy. All collection would be optional and certainly would not be encouraged or enabled by default. The default would be no data collection. There is a consistent, predictable effort to flag or downvote every comment that expresses any skepticism of Apple. This is really sad. No company is perfect. I am not anti-Apple; I have been using their hardware since the Apple ][. If users want Apple to improve then suppressing all commentary is not going to help. I think constructive criticism could actually improve the situation. Companies are "listening". The truth is that Apple has been aggressively collecting user data just like these other companies, likely at least in part for "competitive purposes". They have invested heavily in building data centers to hold user data. Todays Apple computers start dialing in to Apple servers the moment the user powers them on. Whether they use the data to serve ads is not the issue. Apple is not training users to be wary of such collection. Quite the opposite. It just doesnt fit with "Privacy is a fundamental human right." Users who want privacy (all thirteen of them, for now) may not want their data in the possession of third parties, stored in some data center. This is just common sense. Those users are the models to follow if privacy is really, truly important. Why would a company try to frustrate the user who wants to manage their own privacy? If such users are marginalised (e.g. limited hardware functionality unless one participates in data collection, because Apple is upselling users after purchase on "Apple services"), if Apple subscribes to the belief of other web companies that all users want their data stored with third parties (truly, the third parties are the ones who want it), then this is making privacy much more difficult to achieve. Apple privacy terms state users are not "required" to submit data, but if they dont some services wont work. It is the same type of "subtle language" as referred to in the recently leaked Facebook memo. Ive got plenty of karma points to sacrafice. Its worth it. Apple can most certainly improve but not without honest feedback.
- polskibus 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure that changed with Windows 10 and telemetry you can't switch off completely.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- feelin_googley 9y ago
  If the user is being shown an advertisement when opening a local software program then that means a request is being made automatically to some remote server. That is data collection. If the user clicks it, thats more data collection. And so on. For the user, there is simply no need for a local program, e.g. a "word processor", to be connecting to the internet at startup. That connection attempt is for the needs of Microsoft, not the user. It sacrafices user privacy for the benefit of Microsoft. IMO, they would not have made these sort of changes were it not for the success of Google and similar ad-supported web businesses. As another commenter points out, Windows 10 is apparently full of this type of behavior. Telemetry is data collection. Lets not forget about Bing. More Google mimicry. LinkedIn, like Facebook a seemingly benign and useful "service", is one of most egregious data collectors, and is a major threat to user privacy. They are part of Microsoft. Microsoft wants user data and has paid billions to get it.

gt_ 9y ago

Right. They look at what others have gotten away with to predict what they themselves can get away with. And they harvest maximum legal amounts of data in the meantime, so they can execute any future loophole they decide beneficial to profit at that time. It’s all exploitative authoritarian capitalism.

kerng 9y ago

They show ads, but not based on your detailed personal profile, or content of your mail and things like that. Microsoft is a software company, not an ad company. I remember Microsoft making a big deal out of that at one point, saying that Google "reads" your email and stuff. That was really quite long ago, now things are even more personalized for Google and FB, whereas Apple and Microsoft has never been so deeply involved in the personalized ads business. There core business models are different.

fuchur 9y ago
So the data isn't necessary at all, yet they still collect it.
- feelin_googley 9y ago
  They may spin it as necessary for "diagnostic" purposes or some such, to improve "user experience". This may be true but at the same time they reserve the right to use the data however they wish. It may have much higher value if used for commercial purposes. Will they ever do that? Hopefully not, but they are in a position to do it and thats the problem -- they are creating a company asset (user data) that is also a potential liability for users who value privacy. When Apples CEO says "we could have monetized our users but we didnt" that should raise a red flag. Why are they even in a position to monetize users? Its hardware. His comments are pure marketing; hes trying to differentiate Apple from these other companies (yet hes admitting Apple could easily do as they do). If Apple was really "doing the right thing" as to privacy, they would not be collecting data by default, they would not have integrated Facebook and other such ad-driven companies into iOS (perhaps they have finally removed them now), they would be training users to think twice before uploading private data into "the cloud". That is, if Apple was really concerned about user privacy. All collection would be optional and certainly would not be encouraged or enabled by default. The default would be no data collection. There is a consistent, predictable effort to flag or downvote every comment that expresses any skepticism of Apple. This is really sad. No company is perfect. I am not anti-Apple; I have been using their hardware since the Apple ][. If users want Apple to improve then suppressing all commentary is not going to help. I think constructive criticism could actually improve the situation. Companies are "listening". The truth is that Apple has been aggressively collecting user data just like these other companies, likely at least in part for "competitive purposes". They have invested heavily in building data centers to hold user data. Todays Apple computers start dialing in to Apple servers the moment the user powers them on. Whether they use the data to serve ads is not the issue. Apple is not training users to be wary of such collection. Quite the opposite. It just doesnt fit with "Privacy is a fundamental human right." Users who want privacy (all thirteen of them, for now) may not want their data in the possession of third parties, stored in some data center. This is just common sense. Those users are the models to follow if privacy is really, truly important. Why would a company try to frustrate the user who wants to manage their own privacy? If such users are marginalised (e.g. limited hardware functionality unless one participates in data collection, because Apple is upselling users after purchase on "Apple services"), if Apple subscribes to the belief of other web companies that all users want their data stored with third parties (truly, the third parties are the ones who want it), then this is making privacy much more difficult to achieve. Apple privacy terms state users are not "required" to submit data, but if they dont some services wont work. It is the same type of "subtle language" as referred to in the recently leaked Facebook memo. Ive got plenty of karma points to sacrafice. Its worth it. Apple can most certainly improve but not without honest feedback.
polskibus 9y ago
I'm pretty sure that changed with Windows 10 and telemetry you can't switch off completely.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
feelin_googley 9y ago
If the user is being shown an advertisement when opening a local software program then that means a request is being made automatically to some remote server. That is data collection. If the user clicks it, thats more data collection. And so on. For the user, there is simply no need for a local program, e.g. a "word processor", to be connecting to the internet at startup. That connection attempt is for the needs of Microsoft, not the user. It sacrafices user privacy for the benefit of Microsoft. IMO, they would not have made these sort of changes were it not for the success of Google and similar ad-supported web businesses. As another commenter points out, Windows 10 is apparently full of this type of behavior. Telemetry is data collection. Lets not forget about Bing. More Google mimicry. LinkedIn, like Facebook a seemingly benign and useful "service", is one of most egregious data collectors, and is a major threat to user privacy. They are part of Microsoft. Microsoft wants user data and has paid billions to get it.