4 ms·
Although I share this dream I’m unsure whether Apple is pursuing the security and privacy of their users for intrinsic reasons or just to be not Google. Meaning
by spockz 7y ago
Although I share this dream I’m unsure whether Apple is pursuing the security and privacy of their users for intrinsic reasons or just to be not Google. Meaning that when they get all users and Google is gone that they can turn all the tracking they like.
- Despegar 7y agoThey're never going to "get all users" because you need Apple hardware. And unless they plan on selling $50 iPhones that's never going to happen.
- spockz 7y agoOf course, I meant all users that care about privacy and security.
- majewsky 7y agoCaring about privacy and security does not magically make you wealthy enough to afford Apple hardware.
- checktheorder 7y agoAnd even if one can afford Apple hardware, I'd bet on there being significant overlap between the "has keen interest in security" and "likes to fix own hardware" crowds. I could easily afford to have an all-Apple household. I don't, because I don't like Apple's attitude towards individuals fixing something rather than buying new.
- asdjlkadsjklads 7y agoThis feels pedantic and totally besides the point. The author was describing "gets all users" as in, gets all users that Apple can get. What's next, would you point out how people in the 3rd world wouldn't be buying Apple/Google phones either? The point was, when Apple has all of the market share they can expect to get, will they turn around and flip tracking on and etc. Please don't deviate topics for solely pedantic reasons. I generally love pedantic distinctions, but this i think added little to no value.
- mrec 7y agoI don't think it's pedantic at all. spockz's scenario was explicitly "they get all users and Google is gone" (my emphasis). That is, Apple would be able to re-enable tracking because at that point users would have nowhere else to go. The counter-arguments were that this would never happen because Apple's unlikely to deviate from the luxury pricing model that's worked so well for them. If Apple "gets all users that Apple can get" then turns tracking back on, while Android is still around with the same tracking but at a small fraction of the price, there's no reason for privacy-conscious users to stick with Apple.
- tim58 7y ago> there's no reason for privacy-conscious users to stick with Apple. There is a cost of switching platforms.
- zepto 7y agoOne which users were obviously willing to pay if they switched to Apple because of privacy concerns, and do would be willing to pay again if that need was met elsewhere.
- sieabahlpark 7y agoTheir goal has and always will be to get you into the Apple ecosystem where they have complete control over what you can do. Hope you never your Apple account revoked. Good luck recovering everything you've purchased. Oh and all the features of the ecosystem stop as well.
- saagarjha 7y agoThis is a separate issue and one inherent to every platform that encourages lock-in (which today unfortunately includes pretty much every major one).
- sieabahlpark 7y agoI don't think they have it mastered as well as Apple does, you're locked out of OS updates, iOS updates, all entertainment, iMessage, etc. You essentially turn everything into a paperweight.
- saagarjha 7y agoI think you can get updates without signing in to iCloud.
- specialist 7y agoApple's revenue comes from end users. Google's revenue comes from advertisers. Attribute incentives and motivations accordingly.
- tannhaeuser 7y agoI'm completely with you. Cynical me says Apple is merely siding with privacy to make their walled garden attractive and protect iOS-exclusive content and apps. Actually, Apple's cancelled iAd program has already shown they're not above privacy invasion. But for now, Apple differentiating on privacy with plausible economic reasoning is a good enough guarantee for consumers I guess. In the end, only new legislation and tech (provable privacy, while also letting advertisers have their unique visitor stats, but no profiling) will overcome the demise of public media and monopolization of the web, and maybe bring back value and trust in online media. As for Google, it's a bit premature to worry about them ;) and they aren't stupid after all.
- saagarjha 7y agoRumor has it that iAd executives left because they felt that Apple wasn't allowing them to collect the data they wanted.
- tim58 7y ago> Meaning that when they get all users and Google is gone that they can turn all the tracking they like. I don't think we have to worry about that. Apple has a small (10-20%) portion of the global market. In many sub markets Apple is struggling against the competition. What we do have to worry about is digital privacy being unevenly distributed with people that have more money being able to afford more privacy.
- zrm 7y ago> What we do have to worry about is digital privacy being unevenly distributed with people that have more money being able to afford more privacy. That's assuming it's only a matter of Apple vs. Google and there is nothing to be said about it by Mozilla or Purism or anyone else whose products don't require Apple money to use. And even if that turned out to be the case, it could sink the whole silly edifice anyway because advertisers want the customers with money. Tracking people who don't buy anything isn't nearly as valuable.
- ryandrake 7y agoNot a huge Apple fanboy here, but it should be acknowledged that Apple did an about face and started pushing on user privacy loooong before it was a competitive marketing checkbox vs. other tech companies. Locationgate happened what, 8 years ago?