9 ms·

Apple’s main business is hardware, and software that helps sell the hardware. Any revenue from data is likely a seperate, minor stream; and for it to become a s

by setr 8y ago

Apple’s main business is hardware, and software that helps sell the hardware. Any revenue from data is likely a seperate, minor stream; and for it to become a significant one, likely requires significant changes in Apple’s operations. Like any other hardware company, they don’t need google’s kind of data collection to make money. But DDG is primarily funded by search, and the search business is funded by ads, which are more valuable based on targetting quality, which is improved by... data. About the unique user, specifically. For DDG to grow while maintaining search as it’s primary business, it’s difficult to imagine them not eventually (or at least, being heavily incentivized to) approach/mimic google-style of data collection — because data collection is their money maker. Apple is unique amongst FAANG in being non-data-reliant, from the start; they never had strong incentives to turn to it, and took the opportunity to stand against it, improving their primary business without any immediate loss (they’re hit by opportunity cost for it, but otherwise).

latexr 8y ago
I don’t disagree that DDG might turn evil. What I disagree with is the premise that they are not evil only because they are small.
aeontech 8y ago
Apple's Services revenue hit 10 billion per quarter in the last earnings report, and it's growing steadily. Yeah, it doesn't compare to hardware sales, but I don't think it can be called a minor insignificant stream any more, can it?
- setr 8y ago
  What does services actually consist of? From [1], it looks like the major components are the app store, iTunes/Music (purchases, I assume) and the iCloud? I'm not seeing the data dependency that would incentivize Apple to look to Google for advice, at least not in this category. The closest might be recommendation systems, but afaik even Netflix only collects from its own information pools, and the main chunk of it is probably for their custom shows; Amazon definitely doesn't track that much data about their users, because their recommendation system might actually be useful if it did. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Apple_Inc._services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Apple_Inc._services
  - aeontech 8y ago
    Sure, I am not disagreeing with you. Just pointing out that Apple is making data services work as a revenue stream just fine, without the privacy invasion. Your comment read a little bit like it was implying that Apple's privacy stance is only realistic because they are not making money on services, and if they were making money on services, they would start invading privacy.
    - kiriakasis 8y ago
      Here there is a big difference still, their services are a marketfront. This is a lot different from Youtube for example. Also keeping an internal profile of registered user is very different from squeezing every cent of advertising out all available user data
  - truncate 8y ago
    Amazon I think tracks whatever it can. Whenever I visit a product, even if I didn't buy it the product (or something similar) will show up as "Continue shopping ...", and not very later as ads on my Facebook feed. It almost creeps me out (I use quite a few filters on uBlock), considering there is no visible facebook "Like" button on Amazon. Not sure how it works, but whatever I see on Amazon shows up as ads on Facebook.
davidhyde 8y ago
DDG’s “product” is a privacy centric search. Once they get big why would they throw their product away and become like the competition? That simply does not make any sense because the only reason why most people use them is the privacy aspect. Good on Apple and DDG for realising that privacy has value and using that to grow their product.
- tyingq 8y ago
  Brin and Page pretty much say it's inevitable that a commerical search engine will succumb to "evil". The only solution they present is an academic/non-profit run search engine. http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html (scroll down to "Appendix A: Advertising and Mixed Motives")
  - andrepd 8y ago
    The owners of a commercial search engine say that it's inevitable that a commercial search engine will succumb to evil. Hmmm.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - ezrast 8y ago
      Not to put too fine a point on it, they once said that - the linked paper from Brin and Page was published in 1998, when they were still students.
      - tyingq 8y ago
        Notably, though, just a few months before they launched as a commercial operation.
    - booleandilemma 8y ago
      Reminds me of the Onion article: https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527/amp https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na...
jacobsenscott 8y ago
I believe apple has ridden the hardware train about as far as it goes. There's no money in laptops and desktops anymore. The latest android phones are good enough. The "apple store experience" has become a dystopian nightmare compared to almost any other form of shopping. Constant pressure to increase earnings will inevitably force them to move a larger and larger percentage of their business to data and start striping away privacy features. A real concern for privacy has only ever existed in the open source world, and google and apple have effectively crushed that threat.
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  Apple has nearly 1 billion iOS users and 70 million MacOS users. If Apple had invested more heavily in their MacOS ecosystem, rather than letting products like the Mac Pro rot for half a decade, they may have eaten at the marketshare of their competitors. As is, many of the Mac diehards I know have migrated their kids off the platform in the past year or two, and some have made the leap themselves. Its a sea of change from just a few years ago.
kllrnohj 8y ago
Apple collects and uses data all the time. Their marketing kind of claims they don't, but their privacy policy is very clear that they do. For example they continuously collect GPS position + list of WiFi APs from iPhone users to build their crowd-source'd wifi location database: "To provide location-based services on Apple products, Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. Where available, location-based services may use GPS, Bluetooth, and your IP Address, along with crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower locations, and other technologies to determine your devices’ approximate location." They also state: "We also use personal information to help us create, develop, operate, deliver, and improve our products, services, content and advertising, and for loss prevention and anti-fraud purposes." It's quite eye opening to compare how Apple's marketing describes their privacy policy vs. how Apple's legal describes it.
- briandear 8y ago
  Perhaps research “Differential Privacy” to better understand what they are actually doing. You are seemingly suggesting that they do Google-style data collection where data is attached to a specific user. It’s a disingenuous interpretation of their privacy policy (both the marketing version and the legal version.) https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Differential_Privacy_Overview.pdf https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Differential_Privacy_Over... What should actually be eye opening is how Apple actually does protect privacy. They should be applauded and not condemned.
  - bitpush 8y ago
    What part of handing over keys to iCloud to Chinese govt need to be applauded? The sooner people realize big corportations including Apple, Google will do things to generate profit, the better. Wallstreet, for better or worse, wont be kind if Tim Cook came in and said we decided to forego profit because differential privacy
    - simonh 8y ago
      Apple obeys the laws of the countries is operates in. Are you suggesting they should not? On your second point, they Tim Cook has already said on their earnings calls that they could have monetized user data if they wanted to and chose not to. In fact they built Apple Maps at huge cost specifically so they would not have to give personal data to Google. They've been very clear about this.
Lucadg 8y ago
Maybe we should start thinking about growth. All kind of bad decisions are taken in the name of growth. Maybe some companies could just provide a service, be profitable and grow just to a natural size not focusing on growth itself. That would require a new way of thinking the role of companies in human society.
- usrusr 8y ago
  This is incompatible with dominant funding models: private VC funding requires that the non-failures get exploited enough to make up for the failures. Publicly traded shares make it impossible to prevent shareholders who think that the company could grow to 10x from buying out those who think that it can or should only grow to x. Employee-owned coops will see their de-facto ruling bureaucrats seek to rule a bigger organisation, because that's the kind of personality who rises into those positions. The only funding model that has a chance to stay "happy-sized" (and where it's even possible that claims like "we care for our customers" are not lies) are owner-run bootstrapped shops and they often enough do stay that way. But for the same reason they hardly ever make it into the news.
  - vladTheInhaler 8y ago
    Then perhaps we as a society need to engineer more diseconomies of scale.
PostThisTooFast 8y ago
Cook keeps saying that Apple's future is in services. Then again, they do stupid things like eliminating the basic hardware features that people use to consume those services, like the headphone jacks people would have used to listen to Apple Music.

by setr 8y ago

latexr 8y ago

I don’t disagree that DDG might turn evil. What I disagree with is the premise that they are not evil only because they are small.

aeontech 8y ago

Apple's Services revenue hit 10 billion per quarter in the last earnings report, and it's growing steadily. Yeah, it doesn't compare to hardware sales, but I don't think it can be called a minor insignificant stream any more, can it?

setr 8y ago
What does services actually consist of? From [1], it looks like the major components are the app store, iTunes/Music (purchases, I assume) and the iCloud? I'm not seeing the data dependency that would incentivize Apple to look to Google for advice, at least not in this category. The closest might be recommendation systems, but afaik even Netflix only collects from its own information pools, and the main chunk of it is probably for their custom shows; Amazon definitely doesn't track that much data about their users, because their recommendation system might actually be useful if it did. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Apple_Inc._services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Apple_Inc._services
- aeontech 8y ago
  Sure, I am not disagreeing with you. Just pointing out that Apple is making data services work as a revenue stream just fine, without the privacy invasion. Your comment read a little bit like it was implying that Apple's privacy stance is only realistic because they are not making money on services, and if they were making money on services, they would start invading privacy.
  - kiriakasis 8y ago
    Here there is a big difference still, their services are a marketfront. This is a lot different from Youtube for example. Also keeping an internal profile of registered user is very different from squeezing every cent of advertising out all available user data
- truncate 8y ago
  Amazon I think tracks whatever it can. Whenever I visit a product, even if I didn't buy it the product (or something similar) will show up as "Continue shopping ...", and not very later as ads on my Facebook feed. It almost creeps me out (I use quite a few filters on uBlock), considering there is no visible facebook "Like" button on Amazon. Not sure how it works, but whatever I see on Amazon shows up as ads on Facebook.

davidhyde 8y ago

DDG’s “product” is a privacy centric search. Once they get big why would they throw their product away and become like the competition? That simply does not make any sense because the only reason why most people use them is the privacy aspect. Good on Apple and DDG for realising that privacy has value and using that to grow their product.

tyingq 8y ago
Brin and Page pretty much say it's inevitable that a commerical search engine will succumb to "evil". The only solution they present is an academic/non-profit run search engine. http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html (scroll down to "Appendix A: Advertising and Mixed Motives")
- andrepd 8y ago
  The owners of a commercial search engine say that it's inevitable that a commercial search engine will succumb to evil. Hmmm.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - ezrast 8y ago
    Not to put too fine a point on it, they once said that - the linked paper from Brin and Page was published in 1998, when they were still students.
    - tyingq 8y ago
      Notably, though, just a few months before they launched as a commercial operation.
  - booleandilemma 8y ago
    Reminds me of the Onion article: https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527/amp https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na...

jacobsenscott 8y ago

I believe apple has ridden the hardware train about as far as it goes. There's no money in laptops and desktops anymore. The latest android phones are good enough. The "apple store experience" has become a dystopian nightmare compared to almost any other form of shopping. Constant pressure to increase earnings will inevitably force them to move a larger and larger percentage of their business to data and start striping away privacy features. A real concern for privacy has only ever existed in the open source world, and google and apple have effectively crushed that threat.

StudentStuff 8y ago
Apple has nearly 1 billion iOS users and 70 million MacOS users. If Apple had invested more heavily in their MacOS ecosystem, rather than letting products like the Mac Pro rot for half a decade, they may have eaten at the marketshare of their competitors. As is, many of the Mac diehards I know have migrated their kids off the platform in the past year or two, and some have made the leap themselves. Its a sea of change from just a few years ago.

kllrnohj 8y ago

Apple collects and uses data all the time. Their marketing kind of claims they don't, but their privacy policy is very clear that they do. For example they continuously collect GPS position + list of WiFi APs from iPhone users to build their crowd-source'd wifi location database: "To provide location-based services on Apple products, Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. Where available, location-based services may use GPS, Bluetooth, and your IP Address, along with crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower locations, and other technologies to determine your devices’ approximate location." They also state: "We also use personal information to help us create, develop, operate, deliver, and improve our products, services, content and advertising, and for loss prevention and anti-fraud purposes." It's quite eye opening to compare how Apple's marketing describes their privacy policy vs. how Apple's legal describes it.

briandear 8y ago
Perhaps research “Differential Privacy” to better understand what they are actually doing. You are seemingly suggesting that they do Google-style data collection where data is attached to a specific user. It’s a disingenuous interpretation of their privacy policy (both the marketing version and the legal version.) https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Differential_Privacy_Overview.pdf https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Differential_Privacy_Over... What should actually be eye opening is how Apple actually does protect privacy. They should be applauded and not condemned.
- bitpush 8y ago
  What part of handing over keys to iCloud to Chinese govt need to be applauded? The sooner people realize big corportations including Apple, Google will do things to generate profit, the better. Wallstreet, for better or worse, wont be kind if Tim Cook came in and said we decided to forego profit because differential privacy
  - simonh 8y ago
    Apple obeys the laws of the countries is operates in. Are you suggesting they should not? On your second point, they Tim Cook has already said on their earnings calls that they could have monetized user data if they wanted to and chose not to. In fact they built Apple Maps at huge cost specifically so they would not have to give personal data to Google. They've been very clear about this.

Lucadg 8y ago

Maybe we should start thinking about growth. All kind of bad decisions are taken in the name of growth. Maybe some companies could just provide a service, be profitable and grow just to a natural size not focusing on growth itself. That would require a new way of thinking the role of companies in human society.

usrusr 8y ago
This is incompatible with dominant funding models: private VC funding requires that the non-failures get exploited enough to make up for the failures. Publicly traded shares make it impossible to prevent shareholders who think that the company could grow to 10x from buying out those who think that it can or should only grow to x. Employee-owned coops will see their de-facto ruling bureaucrats seek to rule a bigger organisation, because that's the kind of personality who rises into those positions. The only funding model that has a chance to stay "happy-sized" (and where it's even possible that claims like "we care for our customers" are not lies) are owner-run bootstrapped shops and they often enough do stay that way. But for the same reason they hardly ever make it into the news.
- vladTheInhaler 8y ago
  Then perhaps we as a society need to engineer more diseconomies of scale.

PostThisTooFast 8y ago

Cook keeps saying that Apple's future is in services. Then again, they do stupid things like eliminating the basic hardware features that people use to consume those services, like the headphone jacks people would have used to listen to Apple Music.