7 ms·

Apple Isn't Your Friend

• googlemike 8y ago
  Let’s just get the obvious stuff out of the way and acknowledge that multi-billion-dollar companies don’t have fundamental values outside of doing what best benefits their shareholders. There’s no reason to believe Tim Cook lacks his own genuinely held beliefs that are nice and altruistic, but major corporations are more like nation-states today. Agreed. Anyone who thinks of corporations (or nations) as their personal "friend" is most likely a tad confused. However, corporations are still entities with which you can interact in the real world. This means the level of trust with which you interact with said corporations is up to you. I am personally far more comfortable sending messages on iMessage w/ an iPhone, than with say Skype or Facebook Messenger.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • bradgessler 8y ago
    One should not assume Apple is taking a strong position on privacy and security for altruistic reasons. I assume they are competitively positioning themselves against Google, Facebook, etc. and will hopefully be rewarded by the market as more people wake up to the importance of privacy and security being designed into their hardware and software. Apple is simply betting that privacy and security is great for business. No more. No less.
    • crazygringo 8y ago
      Which is what makes me trust it the most. When someone takes an altruistic stance, it's easy for them to change their mind later if they decide $$$ is more important. But when I see that an organization's actions align with their profit motive... then I find it much easier to rely on them, at least as long as I expect their position relative to the market/competition to remain qualitatively the same.
  • bernardino 8y ago
    When Apple introduced Screen Time in this past keynote, I was pretty stoked about it, but not about Screen Time itself, but rather: when it seems every large corporation's product or application out there is tailored for more and more consumption (think Spotify, Snapchat, Netflix, Facebook, etc), where they disregard the mental well-being of their consumers, anything that tries to limit or stop that seems particularly grand, in my opinion.
    • reitanqild 8y ago
      It might be worth noting that Google announced similar features a few weeks before Apple. They'll come to my not flagship Nokia 6.1 2018 phone this summer since it is part of the androidone program.
• saagarjha 8y ago
  Sure, Apple may not be my "friend". But its competitors clearly make money by violating my privacy, and Apple doesn't, so it's clear why I would choose them.
  • mooshoeme 8y ago
    No you choose apple because its shiny. I'm sorry, no one actually uses Apple for the privacy.
    • saagarjha 8y ago
      > No you choose apple because its shiny That's an added benefit. My choices do not simply hinge around one characteristic of what I'm buying, but I do weigh privacy as an important one. > I'm sorry, no one actually uses Apple for the privacy. What do they use? How do you know this?
      • mooshoeme 8y ago
        I recognize what I said was a *little vague, and definitely was not constructive. (sorry) You made a good point about how you choose your products, I can't argue against the fact that you weight privacy as a factor in buying from Apple. However, I don't see that Apple protects your privacy enough that it should even be a factor. Sure they aren't exploiting your data now, but Apple still stores a bit of data about you forever. (https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/ https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/) I don't think you get very much control over it either. How do you not know a struggling Apple in 3 or 4 years may not be willing to exploit your data?
    • krechmidas 8y ago
      I’m in China, I use Apple for privacy and a foreign SIM so my data never touches any servers here. I did use Android but I’ve heard horror stories and decided to get an iPhone instead, price and shinyness doesn’t factor into it.
      • mirimir 8y ago
• scarface74 8y ago
  It's not that I think Apple is my friend, thier business and my interest align. I pay them money and they give me stuff. My iPhone doesn't have carrier crap, the Mac doesn't have any crapware on it.
  • Karupan 8y ago
    Second this. I take privacy pretty seriously and their track record has been better than their competitors so far. I don’t care if they are riding a popular public opinion as long as it leads to a better outcome for their users.
  • jayd16 8y ago
    I don't really get this logic. If your usage and data is worth something to Apple's competitors, its worth something to Apple too. Sure, "if you're not paying you're the product not the customer" but you could pay and still be the product all the same.
    • saagarjha 8y ago
      Their competitors cannot cash in public goodwill, but Apple can. Overall it seems as if this usage and data has no value to Apple because it's chosen that the good PR it gets from not collecting information outweighs the possible benefits that come from data collection.
      • gboudrias 8y ago
        It does have tangible, countable value. Apple may elect not to sell it for now, but they can change their mind at any time in the future. This is not to say that people shouldn't use them over demonstrably worse competitors (privacy-wise), just that there is no such thing as a company's soul, and they will betray your trust when the math adds up to it.
        • ggg9990 8y ago
          There is a company’s soul when it’s run and fully controlled by the founder. After that all bets are off.
• zaroth 8y ago
  I love to see Cook doubling down on their branding as a privacy-centric company. The work Apple has done to bring usable security and end-to-end encryption to the masses is, IMO, Nobel worthy.
• Dravidian 8y ago
  Guys, please don't be so naive to forget Apple was indeed part of PRISM program. If Apple gets free chit because they said they didn't know about the program, then so does Google & Facebook. IMO, any multi-billion $ company with cash balance higher than several countries put together; does have bones under their rug.
  • saagarjha 8y ago
    Like you said, there are very few companies who have done nothing wrong. But there certainly are companies who are better than others, and it's fine to praise them for that, just as it's fine to call them out for their mistakes.
    • Dravidian 8y ago
      You're correct. But I feel that the innate californification of Apple along with systemetic PR showing Apple to be saviour of privacy is stopping privacy enthusiasts from putting Apple into same rigor as we do for Google, Facebook.
      • saagarjha 8y ago
        > the innate californification of Apple ?
    • Dravidian 8y ago
      You're correct. But in my opinion the innate californification of Apple & systemetic PR helping itself to project as saviour of privacy has prevented the privacy enthusiasts from putting Apple through same rigor as we do for Google, Facebook.
    • seba_dos1 8y ago
      Then go support Librem 5, Tinkerphones/OpenPhoenux, Pyra and other similar projects. Apple doesn't differ much from others like Google - at best it's just the friendliest of your enemies.
  • yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
• shiverflame 8y ago
  Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get what this is doing on HN. as far as I can tell this is just a long winded rant about the ad industry. The writer of which assumes he knows Apples morals, motives & business schemes. It doesn't give us any good reason to distrust apple other than that they are profiting from Facebooks recent scandal(s) & I say this as a Linux user, I am no fan of Apples closed system ideology
  • saagarjha 8y ago
    It's a privacy argument: Facebook has a track record of violating it, and Apple has done things to protect it. It's your choice if that's something that matters to you.
    • pritambaral 8y ago
      Apple has also done things to violate it (see Apple's compliance with the Chinese government). The difference between Facebook and Apple is that Facebook's primary business objective is making money off people's data, not that Apple will never violate their users' privacy.
• cromwellian 8y ago
  I think better evidence is just to point out what Apple is doing in China when principles and money go head to head. Apple has acquiesced to censorship of VPN apps by the government as well as turned over iCloud to be hosted on servers owned in part by the PLA. Apple could have refused, and gotten banned from the domestic Chinese market, but they made a decision to damage the liberties and privacy of their customers there, because the market is worth a lot to them. Cook even IIRC, humiliated himself by praising the CP management of the internet in China at a conference there. Edit, QUOTE: "During his speech, Cook declared that China’s vision “is a vision we at Apple share.” “The theme of this conference — developing a digital economy for openness and shared benefits — is a vision we at Apple share,” he proclaimed. “We are proud to have worked alongside many of our partners in China to help build a community that will join a common future in cyberspace.”"
  • tfehring 8y ago
    Frankly, as an American, why should I care about this as far as my own privacy is concerned? Of course Apple has a price for which they’ll “sell” user data, but all that this says is that that price is less than the profit that it makes off of those users...and that seems like a pretty obvious upper bound.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    • pritambaral 8y ago
      As neither an American nor a Chinese national, I think you should care because if Apple can do X with the Chinese government, Apple can do it with America too. I'm not saying it has. I'm not saying it will immediately begin doing so. But there's clearly a limit where they will, and all America has to do is push it to that limit. American governments and American intelligence agencies have shown repeatedly (via gag orders and secret courts) that they're not above making companies spy on their users (domestic and foreign) and forcing them to stay mum about it.
  • orev 8y ago
    This is not an apt comparison. There’s a big difference between choosing a certain direction in a free market and complying with government requirements in a limited market. Apple has set the bar at a certain height for privacy in whatever markets they participate in, and that is clearly higher than their competitors in those same markets. The Chinese government has forced them to lower the bar in that specific market not by choice. Why not just opt out of that market? Well, obviously it’s a huge market and that would be stupid, but also you can’t make changes if you don’t have a seat at the table. It’s a better strategy to maintain a presence there, be able to at least have a chance at influence, and already have a foothold if things change.
• ytch 8y ago
  >To be clear, we have no certainty of what Apple’s grand plan is Sp, the author don't know what apple want, just a conspiracy theorist? But under the same argument or deduction, any company isn't my friend, this author is not my friend, too.
• lord_ring_11 8y ago
  Didnt the article just say iAd failed because apple held high standards unlike cheaper ad prociders like g and f? Now he is comapling that apple lets customers down?
• satyajeet23 8y ago
  Gizmodo is still not over with Apple! I noticed this so many times. After the lawsuit between Apple and Gawker media - which is the parent of Gizmodo - they've been acting like this.
• jeffbax 8y ago
  In what deranged worldview is US Telecom an example of the “free market” at work? I think the author needs to look up what that term means and how tightly related and crony the industry is. Another sterling example of millennial clickbait “journalism”