4 ms·

>alternatives like Apple I would never trust Apple because they have consistently lied and cheated me - For instance, they throttled the speed on my iPhone, th

>alternatives like Apple I would never trust Apple because they have consistently lied and cheated me - For instance, they throttled the speed on my iPhone, they hid the fact that my iPhone has more probability to bend and finally, as a cherry on top, they refused to honor warranty for a design flaw of theirs. When they realized they fault, instead of making a free replacement, they charged me $30 for it. Given all these experienced with Apple, to my eyes, Apple is no different than Google and I wouldn't trust any word of theirs as they've consistently been exposed time and again lying to consumers. So, I don't know where you got the idea of Apple being "entitled" to be in that list, but I'd say it's the right thing that they aren't. >pro-privacy alternatives like Apple I don't believe this. There is no evidence to support this as Apple runs on proprietary code. And you and I don't have access to the source code, so we have no idea what's going on on their servers. Ever wondered how Apple gets its data for its Apple maps? For all you know, they could be collecting your location information to build their database. Isn't that a privacy violation? I work in the Analytics industry, inside an iPhone, using Charles proxy, you'll be able to see random requests hit Apple's servers from time to time. For all you know, this could be info about you. You can't prove it nor disprove it. I would never dare put all my trust into a single for-profit corporation whose sole goal is to maximize revenues and has been consistently exposed for unethical practices to its customers. So, hope that answers why Apple isn't exactly a consideration. [1] http://bgr.com/2017/12/28/iphone-battery-apple-apology-letter-battery-replacement/ http://bgr.com/2017/12/28/iphone-battery-apple-apology-lette... [2] https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/5/24/17389220/apple-bendgate-internal-documents-iphone-6-plus https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/5/24/17389220/a... [3] https://9to5mac.com/2018/06/07/class-action-lawsuit-apple-watch/ https://9to5mac.com/2018/06/07/class-action-lawsuit-apple-wa...

nemothekid 8y ago
>And you and I don't have access to the source code, so we have no idea what's going on on their servers Consider this: for 90% of the population, that is also true of any FOSS solution. I'm tired of the "you don't have access to the source code" argument. I don't inspect the microcode that runs on my CPU - why should I trust Intel and not Apple? And for a greater portion of the population, that source code may as well be mud. This article is about alternatives to Google on the basis of privacy. Isn't a company that doesn't base its core business model on mining your data an improvement for a vast majority of users?
- grumdan 8y ago
  Even if you don't inspect it personally, there's a greater community of people who don't get their paycheck from Apple who may be looking at the code. Regarding the Intel comparison, you have no choice but to trust them, but by using Apple products, you are trusting Intel and Apple, which is worse than just trusting Intel.
  - dmitriid 8y ago
    > who may be looking may be This is called faith
    - grumdan 8y ago
      I agree, though I prefer the word trust; I think in the end most security arguments basically move trust around between entities, so I would either trust the open-source community or Apple. In this case I decided trust the open-source community more than Apple, since the incentives of people inspecting open-source code probably align better with my own interests than the incentives of Apple.
      - dmitriid 8y ago
        > the incentives of people inspecting open-source code probably align better with my own interests than the incentives of Apple. The incentives of any people are: earn enough money for a peaceful existence. When Heartbleed happened, it turned out that only a handful of people in the entire world have the expertise to do a full audit of the OpenSSL code. And their work is ridiculously expensive. And the audit didn't happen until someone paid for it [1] (I'm not entirely sure it ever completed [2]). People may actually have less incentives to inspect open-source code because there's always the question of life, money, time, work-life balance etc. etc. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/ncc-group-to-audit-openssl-for-security-holes/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/ncc-group-to-audit-openssl-for... [2] http://isopensslauditedyet.com http://isopensslauditedyet.com
- cyphar 8y ago
jpttsn 8y ago
What was the latest price of source code you inspected?

nemothekid 8y ago

>And you and I don't have access to the source code, so we have no idea what's going on on their servers Consider this: for 90% of the population, that is also true of any FOSS solution. I'm tired of the "you don't have access to the source code" argument. I don't inspect the microcode that runs on my CPU - why should I trust Intel and not Apple? And for a greater portion of the population, that source code may as well be mud. This article is about alternatives to Google on the basis of privacy. Isn't a company that doesn't base its core business model on mining your data an improvement for a vast majority of users?

grumdan 8y ago
Even if you don't inspect it personally, there's a greater community of people who don't get their paycheck from Apple who may be looking at the code. Regarding the Intel comparison, you have no choice but to trust them, but by using Apple products, you are trusting Intel and Apple, which is worse than just trusting Intel.
- dmitriid 8y ago
  > who may be looking may be This is called faith
  - grumdan 8y ago
    I agree, though I prefer the word trust; I think in the end most security arguments basically move trust around between entities, so I would either trust the open-source community or Apple. In this case I decided trust the open-source community more than Apple, since the incentives of people inspecting open-source code probably align better with my own interests than the incentives of Apple.
    - dmitriid 8y ago
      > the incentives of people inspecting open-source code probably align better with my own interests than the incentives of Apple. The incentives of any people are: earn enough money for a peaceful existence. When Heartbleed happened, it turned out that only a handful of people in the entire world have the expertise to do a full audit of the OpenSSL code. And their work is ridiculously expensive. And the audit didn't happen until someone paid for it [1] (I'm not entirely sure it ever completed [2]). People may actually have less incentives to inspect open-source code because there's always the question of life, money, time, work-life balance etc. etc. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/ncc-group-to-audit-openssl-for-security-holes/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/ncc-group-to-audit-openssl-for... [2] http://isopensslauditedyet.com http://isopensslauditedyet.com
cyphar 8y ago

jpttsn 8y ago

What was the latest price of source code you inspected?