5 ms·

What evidence do you have for this baseless accusation? Apple have been hammering Google on privacy for many years and they have an incredible track record on

What evidence do you have for this baseless accusation? Apple have been hammering Google on privacy for many years and they have an incredible track record on privacy when they’ve had their feet held to the fire with the FBI.

Dibes 9y ago
To play devil's advocate, I can see a world in which Apple as a publicly traded company is hard pressed into returning stronger results for its investors and turns to data as a way to expand. Not saying it will happen as there is no indicator that they need or want to. However, it is important to note that it isn't outside the realm of possibility at all.
- hnzix 9y ago
  Apple are pushing privacy as a key differentiator and also to justify their premium price tag. Selling out on privacy would torpedo that USP. Trust is gained in drops and lost in buckets. Yes in a world of infinite possibilities anything can happen, but realistically Apple is incentivized to maintain their privacy position.
  - mcny 9y ago
    (the following is pure speculation as usual) This is what the current leadership believes. Tim Cook is a clearly brilliant manager. I have no hesitation in endorsing his record on privacy (and genuineness and truthfulness). However, he is mortal. The next CEO might see things differently. The unique selling point you mentioned will be on the table. There will be analysts who will crunch the numbers on what portion of prospective Apple customers will refrain from buying Apple for some particular transgression and how much such transgression will bring in additional revenue. Apple can fend off these questions today because it has a huge chunk of the high end phone market. It would be stupid to ask Apple to do this not because it is immoral but rather because it will distract Apple from doing what it does very well: selling $1k iPhones.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - jacksmith21006 9y ago
    Pushing is different than reality though. "Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud users" Apple sold all their users data in China. Should that not count?
- deepbreath 9y ago
  It's happened before, with Microsoft, too. They've transitioned from an OS where you pay with cash (win7), to a spyware OS where you pay with cash and your data (win10).
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Keep in mind, Apple is the company that told a few angry shareholders that they should “get out of this stock” if they were upset about Apple’s environmental initiatives. Granted, that’s only a CEO change or two away, but the culture very much appears to be one where short term profit isn’t the be all end all.
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  Is Apple not handing over all their user data in China not an example of Apple already doing this? I meant if they did not they have to leave China like Google chose to do. It was for a buck versus Google thought the bucks to give up their users data not worth it.
SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
I'd say its more a question of incentives. Taking strong stands on privacy are convenient today, when they are a juggernaut of lifestyle computing hardware, but if a strong future competitor is eating into Apple's growth... they will monetize what they can - and they have a lot of data on their users - probably approaching google in scope, in many areas.
parthdesai 9y ago
>What evidence do you have for this baseless accusation? China.
wl78393 9y ago
Apple to US FBI: We will never unlock a device for you! See you in court! Apple to China: What can we do for you, comrades?
- Karunamon 9y ago
  The FBI doesn’t have the power to ban Apple from the US. There’s no legal framework to dissolve a corporation for a dispute about searches. China, on the other hand...
  - rock_hard 9y ago
    Still, Tim Cook needs to stop being such a fucking hypocrite! Not wanting to comply with a FBI request but then storing the iMessage private keys in Beijing.
textmode 9y ago
Is Apple collecting the minimum amount of user data possible? Do purchasers of Apple hardware decide which "features" Apple should offer? Do these purchasers decide what tradeoffs will be made between (a) not collecting user data (maximum privacy by design) and (b) collecting user data with the justification that a "feature" requires it (sacrafice user privacy as required by manufacturer's design)? Apple's CEO calls privacy a "fundamental human right". If by its design Apple hardware encourages or requires that right to be abridged (e.g. AppleID, AppStore, etc.), who makes the determination that the purchasers absolute fundamental right (hardware only, no data collection) is outweighed by the need to provide "features" that encourage or necessitate privacy tradeoffs (pre-installed software, ongoing "services", licenses to compile and install software, etc.). Who decides when the "fundamental right" to privacy should be diminished to support a "feature" chosen by the manufacturer? If there is (a) one type of hardware/software company that collects user data and sells advertisement, (b) a second type of hardware/software company that collects user data but does not sell advertisement, then is there (c) a third type of hardware/software company that does not collect user data? What would be the most ideal company for the privacy-conscious consumer: (a), (b) or (c)?
elenax 9y ago
What your say on Apple decision of setting Google as default browser. Enabling google have their users browsing activity. These billion dollar deals are not a myth afterall...
coretx 9y ago
Means, motive and opportunity. There is so much money to be made out of privacy infringement that it's safe to assume at least the border of crime will be touched. Either that, or a CEO will be wiped by the shareholders. Ergo, the accusation above is not so baseless at all.

Dibes 9y ago

To play devil's advocate, I can see a world in which Apple as a publicly traded company is hard pressed into returning stronger results for its investors and turns to data as a way to expand. Not saying it will happen as there is no indicator that they need or want to. However, it is important to note that it isn't outside the realm of possibility at all.

hnzix 9y ago
Apple are pushing privacy as a key differentiator and also to justify their premium price tag. Selling out on privacy would torpedo that USP. Trust is gained in drops and lost in buckets. Yes in a world of infinite possibilities anything can happen, but realistically Apple is incentivized to maintain their privacy position.
- mcny 9y ago
  (the following is pure speculation as usual) This is what the current leadership believes. Tim Cook is a clearly brilliant manager. I have no hesitation in endorsing his record on privacy (and genuineness and truthfulness). However, he is mortal. The next CEO might see things differently. The unique selling point you mentioned will be on the table. There will be analysts who will crunch the numbers on what portion of prospective Apple customers will refrain from buying Apple for some particular transgression and how much such transgression will bring in additional revenue. Apple can fend off these questions today because it has a huge chunk of the high end phone market. It would be stupid to ask Apple to do this not because it is immoral but rather because it will distract Apple from doing what it does very well: selling $1k iPhones.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  Pushing is different than reality though. "Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud users" Apple sold all their users data in China. Should that not count?
deepbreath 9y ago
It's happened before, with Microsoft, too. They've transitioned from an OS where you pay with cash (win7), to a spyware OS where you pay with cash and your data (win10).
Karunamon 9y ago
Keep in mind, Apple is the company that told a few angry shareholders that they should “get out of this stock” if they were upset about Apple’s environmental initiatives. Granted, that’s only a CEO change or two away, but the culture very much appears to be one where short term profit isn’t the be all end all.
jacksmith21006 9y ago
Is Apple not handing over all their user data in China not an example of Apple already doing this? I meant if they did not they have to leave China like Google chose to do. It was for a buck versus Google thought the bucks to give up their users data not worth it.

SmirkingRevenge 9y ago

I'd say its more a question of incentives. Taking strong stands on privacy are convenient today, when they are a juggernaut of lifestyle computing hardware, but if a strong future competitor is eating into Apple's growth... they will monetize what they can - and they have a lot of data on their users - probably approaching google in scope, in many areas.

parthdesai 9y ago

>What evidence do you have for this baseless accusation? China.

wl78393 9y ago

Apple to US FBI: We will never unlock a device for you! See you in court! Apple to China: What can we do for you, comrades?

Karunamon 9y ago
The FBI doesn’t have the power to ban Apple from the US. There’s no legal framework to dissolve a corporation for a dispute about searches. China, on the other hand...
- rock_hard 9y ago
  Still, Tim Cook needs to stop being such a fucking hypocrite! Not wanting to comply with a FBI request but then storing the iMessage private keys in Beijing.

textmode 9y ago

Is Apple collecting the minimum amount of user data possible? Do purchasers of Apple hardware decide which "features" Apple should offer? Do these purchasers decide what tradeoffs will be made between (a) not collecting user data (maximum privacy by design) and (b) collecting user data with the justification that a "feature" requires it (sacrafice user privacy as required by manufacturer's design)? Apple's CEO calls privacy a "fundamental human right". If by its design Apple hardware encourages or requires that right to be abridged (e.g. AppleID, AppStore, etc.), who makes the determination that the purchasers absolute fundamental right (hardware only, no data collection) is outweighed by the need to provide "features" that encourage or necessitate privacy tradeoffs (pre-installed software, ongoing "services", licenses to compile and install software, etc.). Who decides when the "fundamental right" to privacy should be diminished to support a "feature" chosen by the manufacturer? If there is (a) one type of hardware/software company that collects user data and sells advertisement, (b) a second type of hardware/software company that collects user data but does not sell advertisement, then is there (c) a third type of hardware/software company that does not collect user data? What would be the most ideal company for the privacy-conscious consumer: (a), (b) or (c)?

elenax 9y ago

What your say on Apple decision of setting Google as default browser. Enabling google have their users browsing activity. These billion dollar deals are not a myth afterall...

coretx 9y ago

Means, motive and opportunity. There is so much money to be made out of privacy infringement that it's safe to assume at least the border of crime will be touched. Either that, or a CEO will be wiped by the shareholders. Ergo, the accusation above is not so baseless at all.