3 ms·
> It’s one of their weirder decisions. You can’t claim to be privacy king while simultaneously doing something like this. Maybe this is caused by Apple departme
by legacynl 6y ago
> It’s one of their weirder decisions. You can’t claim to be privacy king while simultaneously doing something like this. Maybe this is caused by Apple departments being siloed. The privacy champions are in a different silo?
They never claimed to be the 'privacy king'. They just suggested it, and people took the bait.
Apple is a company, and as such are only allowed to care about their bottom line. If privacy aligns with their bottom line, they'll use it for easy advertisement and goodwill, but if it doesn't then they'll forego privacy just as easily.
- FabHK 6y ago> Apple is a company, and as such are only allowed to care about their bottom line. That's a myth. It is neither descriptively the case, nor normatively an obligation, that a company maximise profits to the detriment of everything else. There is no such law, legal or economic. (There is shareholder value theory in economics which suggests that shareholder value maximisation is the optimal solution to the principal-agent problem, but that rests on very restrictive and utterly unrealistic conditions. Furthermore, shareholder value optimisation is not the same as short-term profit maximisation, either.)
- shawnz 6y agoOf course they are talking about the fiduciary duty of directors to act in the best interest of the company (which is not a myth). And who says that profit maximization necessarily has to be "short-term"? Clearly, marketing themselves on strong privacy guarantees is a long-term strategy.