9 ms·

Trying to sell something to privacy obsessed tech segment is a futile effort. They are never happy and don’t want to pay for anything anyway. But that is not t

by rapsey 7y ago

Trying to sell something to privacy obsessed tech segment is a futile effort. They are never happy and don’t want to pay for anything anyway. But that is not their target market anyway. It is the general public and these comments are just noise.

propertymagnate 7y ago
I don't think that's true, there's quite a thriving privacy based market for the tech obsessed. take librem one and purism's products, the VPN market, the pinephone, proton mail, or lavabit as examples. https://puri.sm/ https://puri.sm/ https://lavabit.com/ https://lavabit.com/ https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ https://protonmail.com/ https://protonmail.com/ But yes, these comments are likely just noise.
- rapsey 7y ago
  Thriving as in their own miniscule segment destined to remain marginal. Definitely not apple target market.
  - fwn 7y ago
    This sounds to me like moving the goalpost. First it was both: > Trying to sell something to privacy obsessed tech segment is a futile effort. They are never happy and don’t want to pay for anything anyway. But that is not their target market anyway. Now just > But that is not their target market anyway.
    - rapsey 7y ago
      I was replying to a comment about negative comments here and that they are not who apple is targeting so the negativity here is just noise. Those listed companies exist in an entirely different universe to apple and talking about them is entirely irrelevant here. Their existence proves nothing.
      - fwn 7y ago
        Other peoples concerns are not "noise" in any other than a derogative way and listing companies that refute a substantial part of your comment under your comment is not "entirely irrelevant". edit (for clarity): Saying that Apples mass-market approach spares them from catering to privacy concerned, somewhat still niche interests would've been a completely valid comment. The message would not have needed the false part.
  - propertymagnate 7y ago
    I'm not arguing that, I'm responding to this part of your comment, by showing products the privacy obsessed segment are presumably happy with as they are paying for: "Trying to sell something to privacy obsessed tech segment is a futile effort. They are never happy and don’t want to pay for anything anyway."
    - rapsey 7y ago
      Human languages are not code. Statements have meaning within a context.
    - criley2 7y ago
      I think you're both right. He's saying that from the perspective of the largest private business in the world with $100B+ yearly revenues, derping about on services worth a few million in revenue is just noise. Apple isn't going to shift it's business to capture a $10M/yr market or whatever it is. And you're off here being like "BUT THEY DO EXIST (even if they are so trivially small that they wouldn't even make a rounded-up single line on Apple's financial disclosures)". From Apple and his perspective, these tiny businesses are irrelevant.
- ignoramous 7y ago
  For every puri.sm I'd wager there is a SilentCircle. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12047219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12047219
  - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
    How is this different than any other industry? Most start-ups fail, security industry or otherwise.
    - ignoramous 7y ago
      Sorry I wasn't elaborate. What I was trying to say was SilentCircle had the money, the people, the pedigree, the vision and yet failed. Privacy is a hard sell and one of the reasons is that it is expensive and comes at a cost of inconvenience, unfortunately, given then way BigTech has shaped its offerings over the years. puri.sm may yet execute well and take-off but privacy remains a seriously hard problem to tackle (due to govt, ad-net, big-tech) yet easily a problem to get passionate about.
      - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
        I still don’t see how this suggests security is not a lively, profitable industry. The same anecdote could apply in spades to food startups, telecom startups, sports analytics startups, makeup startups and dozens of other types of businesses.
- paulcarroty 7y ago
  lavabit.com returns? Good news for me.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Are they profitable? Because they exist don’t mean they are “thriving”.
  - propertymagnate 7y ago
    Thriving may be a bit strong - These are small potatoes compared to apple, sure, but these are tech obsessed people buying privacy orientated products. Librem 5 raised over $2.1 million https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/10/purism-librem-5-crowdfunding-ends-raised-2-million https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/10/purism-librem-5-crowdfun... The VPN market is measured in the billions. https://www.statista.com/statistics/542817/worldwide-virtual-private-network-market/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/542817/worldwide-virtual... People spend money in this area. The privacy orientated crowd is willing to put their money where their mouth is. Please keep orientating products towards it. edit: sorry, for some reason I'm unable to reply to the comment below. Purism raised 2.1 million pre-selling their the librem 5, not in shares or anything.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Needing to raise money kind of means they aren’t profitable. As far as the “VPN market” according to the link, they are mostly referring to businesses using VPNs in the enterprise not individual users.
      - toper-centage 7y ago
        Needing to raise money means they don't have the luxury of volume to produce any product and that it is a risky business. Having raised the money, though, is proof that they are indeed profitable.
        jakelazaroff 7y ago
        Unless I misunderstand you, this is not correct. Uber, for example, has raised billions of dollars and has never made so much as a cent of profit.
    - 7y ago
- sneak 7y ago
  The total number of users of those systems, for all time, combined, is smaller than the average new iPhone users per day.
robkop 7y ago
Just anecdotal data but I for one am very happy to be switching to apple this year after almost a decade of android. I'm only too happy to pay a premium if that gives me some control over my own privacy.
- galangalalgol 7y ago
  Except now you don't have control over your own device. I don't think they are orthogonal goals. Give me root on my iPhone and I'll switch for the privacy. Leaving gapps off an Android install is becoming crippling.
  - untog 7y ago
    "control over your device" isn't a big concern for many in the way privacy is, though. Certainly, in the early days of smartphones I rooted my Android phones and iPhones but these days I just see my smartphone as a utility that I want to work well. There isn't really anything I want to do with my iPhone that Apple blocks me from doing.
    - throwayEngineer 7y ago
      They block tons of competition in the App store.
      - isbjorn16 7y ago
        Which isn't really privacy related. I value privacy more than a robust and fair market. I can understand why others wouldn't, but I'm not the one spending their money, nor are they the ones spending mine.
        throwayEngineer 7y ago
        I imagine you are doing something truly horrible if you need privacy over quality.
goodmachine 7y ago
Last time I checked, 25% of the internet used a VPN at least once a month. We can argue (somebody here will) as to the actual level of privacy conferred, but the segment is far from miniscule: https://thebestvpn.com/vpn-usage-statistics/ https://thebestvpn.com/vpn-usage-statistics/
- faitswulff 7y ago
  I'm very skeptical that 25% of internet consumers use a VPN. I'd be more easily convinced that 25% of internet traffic is via VPN, but even that seems far fetched. I'm also extremely skeptical that you'd find accurate results on a random site's smattering of website resources.
- anoncake 7y ago
  But how many of them use it to bypass geoblocking or to bypass censorship? Those who bypass censorship presumably also value privacy, but from their government and not necessarily from corporations.
- rapsey 7y ago
  And the vast majority of it is to access geoip restricted content, to get around government filters and for corporate use.
- paulcole 7y ago
  I’m not sure if asking TheBestVPN.com how many people use VPNs is going to get you a reliable answer.
  - jimbokun 7y ago
    All sources are linked at the bottom of the article.
    - paulcole 7y ago
      Try to find the one that confirms that. I did and failed.
village-idiot 7y ago
I’d say Apple is doing just fine when it comes to convincing people to pay.
turk73 7y ago
Part of the problem is that if you value your privacy you just don't use Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. You can't trust them no matter what. I never would have thought it would turn out this way for Google. I trusted anarcho-capitalists but they ended up being less anarcho and more capitalist.
orbital-decay 7y ago
>They are never happy and don’t want to pay for anything anyway. I'm probably not obsessed with privacy, but I put it fairly high on my priority list, and I'm sure as hell I can and will pay for it, if it's not just an illusion. I can see value when there's value. It remains to be seen whether Apple can provide it, though.

by rapsey 7y ago

propertymagnate 7y ago

I don't think that's true, there's quite a thriving privacy based market for the tech obsessed. take librem one and purism's products, the VPN market, the pinephone, proton mail, or lavabit as examples. https://puri.sm/ https://puri.sm/ https://lavabit.com/ https://lavabit.com/ https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ https://protonmail.com/ https://protonmail.com/ But yes, these comments are likely just noise.

rapsey 7y ago
Thriving as in their own miniscule segment destined to remain marginal. Definitely not apple target market.
- fwn 7y ago
  This sounds to me like moving the goalpost. First it was both: > Trying to sell something to privacy obsessed tech segment is a futile effort. They are never happy and don’t want to pay for anything anyway. But that is not their target market anyway. Now just > But that is not their target market anyway.
  - rapsey 7y ago
    I was replying to a comment about negative comments here and that they are not who apple is targeting so the negativity here is just noise. Those listed companies exist in an entirely different universe to apple and talking about them is entirely irrelevant here. Their existence proves nothing.
    - fwn 7y ago
      Other peoples concerns are not "noise" in any other than a derogative way and listing companies that refute a substantial part of your comment under your comment is not "entirely irrelevant". edit (for clarity): Saying that Apples mass-market approach spares them from catering to privacy concerned, somewhat still niche interests would've been a completely valid comment. The message would not have needed the false part.
- propertymagnate 7y ago
  I'm not arguing that, I'm responding to this part of your comment, by showing products the privacy obsessed segment are presumably happy with as they are paying for: "Trying to sell something to privacy obsessed tech segment is a futile effort. They are never happy and don’t want to pay for anything anyway."
  - rapsey 7y ago
    Human languages are not code. Statements have meaning within a context.
  - criley2 7y ago
    I think you're both right. He's saying that from the perspective of the largest private business in the world with $100B+ yearly revenues, derping about on services worth a few million in revenue is just noise. Apple isn't going to shift it's business to capture a $10M/yr market or whatever it is. And you're off here being like "BUT THEY DO EXIST (even if they are so trivially small that they wouldn't even make a rounded-up single line on Apple's financial disclosures)". From Apple and his perspective, these tiny businesses are irrelevant.
ignoramous 7y ago
For every puri.sm I'd wager there is a SilentCircle. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12047219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12047219
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  How is this different than any other industry? Most start-ups fail, security industry or otherwise.
  - ignoramous 7y ago
    Sorry I wasn't elaborate. What I was trying to say was SilentCircle had the money, the people, the pedigree, the vision and yet failed. Privacy is a hard sell and one of the reasons is that it is expensive and comes at a cost of inconvenience, unfortunately, given then way BigTech has shaped its offerings over the years. puri.sm may yet execute well and take-off but privacy remains a seriously hard problem to tackle (due to govt, ad-net, big-tech) yet easily a problem to get passionate about.
    - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
      I still don’t see how this suggests security is not a lively, profitable industry. The same anecdote could apply in spades to food startups, telecom startups, sports analytics startups, makeup startups and dozens of other types of businesses.
paulcarroty 7y ago
lavabit.com returns? Good news for me.
scarface74 7y ago
Are they profitable? Because they exist don’t mean they are “thriving”.
- propertymagnate 7y ago
  Thriving may be a bit strong - These are small potatoes compared to apple, sure, but these are tech obsessed people buying privacy orientated products. Librem 5 raised over $2.1 million https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/10/purism-librem-5-crowdfunding-ends-raised-2-million https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/10/purism-librem-5-crowdfun... The VPN market is measured in the billions. https://www.statista.com/statistics/542817/worldwide-virtual-private-network-market/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/542817/worldwide-virtual... People spend money in this area. The privacy orientated crowd is willing to put their money where their mouth is. Please keep orientating products towards it. edit: sorry, for some reason I'm unable to reply to the comment below. Purism raised 2.1 million pre-selling their the librem 5, not in shares or anything.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Needing to raise money kind of means they aren’t profitable. As far as the “VPN market” according to the link, they are mostly referring to businesses using VPNs in the enterprise not individual users.
    - toper-centage 7y ago
      Needing to raise money means they don't have the luxury of volume to produce any product and that it is a risky business. Having raised the money, though, is proof that they are indeed profitable.
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        Unless I misunderstand you, this is not correct. Uber, for example, has raised billions of dollars and has never made so much as a cent of profit.
  - 7y ago
sneak 7y ago
The total number of users of those systems, for all time, combined, is smaller than the average new iPhone users per day.

robkop 7y ago

Just anecdotal data but I for one am very happy to be switching to apple this year after almost a decade of android. I'm only too happy to pay a premium if that gives me some control over my own privacy.

galangalalgol 7y ago
Except now you don't have control over your own device. I don't think they are orthogonal goals. Give me root on my iPhone and I'll switch for the privacy. Leaving gapps off an Android install is becoming crippling.
- untog 7y ago
  "control over your device" isn't a big concern for many in the way privacy is, though. Certainly, in the early days of smartphones I rooted my Android phones and iPhones but these days I just see my smartphone as a utility that I want to work well. There isn't really anything I want to do with my iPhone that Apple blocks me from doing.
  - throwayEngineer 7y ago
    They block tons of competition in the App store.
    - isbjorn16 7y ago
      Which isn't really privacy related. I value privacy more than a robust and fair market. I can understand why others wouldn't, but I'm not the one spending their money, nor are they the ones spending mine.
      - throwayEngineer 7y ago
        I imagine you are doing something truly horrible if you need privacy over quality.

goodmachine 7y ago

Last time I checked, 25% of the internet used a VPN at least once a month. We can argue (somebody here will) as to the actual level of privacy conferred, but the segment is far from miniscule: https://thebestvpn.com/vpn-usage-statistics/ https://thebestvpn.com/vpn-usage-statistics/

faitswulff 7y ago
I'm very skeptical that 25% of internet consumers use a VPN. I'd be more easily convinced that 25% of internet traffic is via VPN, but even that seems far fetched. I'm also extremely skeptical that you'd find accurate results on a random site's smattering of website resources.
anoncake 7y ago
But how many of them use it to bypass geoblocking or to bypass censorship? Those who bypass censorship presumably also value privacy, but from their government and not necessarily from corporations.
rapsey 7y ago
And the vast majority of it is to access geoip restricted content, to get around government filters and for corporate use.
paulcole 7y ago
I’m not sure if asking TheBestVPN.com how many people use VPNs is going to get you a reliable answer.
- jimbokun 7y ago
  All sources are linked at the bottom of the article.
  - paulcole 7y ago
    Try to find the one that confirms that. I did and failed.

village-idiot 7y ago

I’d say Apple is doing just fine when it comes to convincing people to pay.

turk73 7y ago

Part of the problem is that if you value your privacy you just don't use Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. You can't trust them no matter what. I never would have thought it would turn out this way for Google. I trusted anarcho-capitalists but they ended up being less anarcho and more capitalist.

orbital-decay 7y ago

>They are never happy and don’t want to pay for anything anyway. I'm probably not obsessed with privacy, but I put it fairly high on my priority list, and I'm sure as hell I can and will pay for it, if it's not just an illusion. I can see value when there's value. It remains to be seen whether Apple can provide it, though.