7 ms·

> Apple always does what is in the best interest of Apple. Everything else is just marketing. I don’t truly believe Apple is interested in user privacy as a co

> Apple always does what is in the best interest of Apple. Everything else is just marketing. I don’t truly believe Apple is interested in user privacy as a core value but it is a hell of a differentiator compared to Google. On this topic, my interests and theirs happen to align for the time being.

tmashb 5y ago
Approach and hypocrisy matters. Apple did boast about privacy and security many times before...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Siira 5y ago
You can't win in a duopoly.
- kwere 5y ago
  yeah but with buzz marketing you can catch the fat cutsomer and avoid antitrust oversee
NicoJuicy 5y ago
Remember iAd? Didn't work, so they try something else to differentiate. If this wouldn't work, they will just adjust targets.
- simondotau 5y ago
  You have the causation inverted here. iAd failed because they refused to compromise on user privacy.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    You have the timeline wrong. They failed for multiple reasons: > With tight creative control of ads, an insistence on taking a 30% cut of all ad revenues, and a prickly attitude to sharing customer data, the platform won few fans in the media industry. But iAd launched before their "protection of user privacy' stance. Not after it. = They couldn't monetize it, so only after that they attack it and "protect user privacy".
    - simondotau 5y ago
      > But iAd launched before their "protection of user privacy' stance. Not after it. That's a disingenuous claim. While iAd did predate Apple pushing privacy as a mainstream marketing angle, it certainly did not predate Apple taking a strong position on consumer privacy. This had been a theme in Apple's corporate decisions for at least the past fifteen years, likely longer. Furthermore your own quoted paragraph belies your own assertion. iAd failed in part because of Apple's "prickly attitude to sharing customer data". Quotes from a contemporary article: But advertisers became increasingly perturbed that Apple refused to give them access to the wealth of data iAd had on its consumers from Apple’s hundreds of millions of iTunes accounts. Stefan Bardega, media agency ZenithOptimedia’s chief digital officer, told us: “iAd has long been a story of unfulfilled potential. Apple has unique customer level data that is hugely interesting to advertisers but has struggled to access that data in a way that doesn’t conflict with the core business.” Another media agency ... said: “For me, they never understood that they needed to behave like a media owner, rather they could go it alone charging what they wanted, not sharing data, no third-party tracking...” https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-apple-is-pulling-direct-sales-support-for-iad-2016-1?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-apple-is-pulling-dire...
      - NicoJuicy 5y ago
        I didn't eliminate that from my quote?! Apple made their direction a buying argument after iAd, it doesn't mean they didn't had a stance before it. If you believe Apple's marketing, how do you explain Google not bowing to China and therefore not bowing to China's influence, while Apple seems to be doing just that. Eg. https://www.wired.com/story/apple-china-censorship-apps-flag/ https://www.wired.com/story/apple-china-censorship-apps-flag... Caring about user privacy shouldn't have exceptions, no?
sneak 5y ago
Apple does a lot to actively destroy the privacy of iOS users, though. They assume you desire privacy from everyone but Apple. You can’t even get free iOS apps without giving them your phone number.
- spicybright 5y ago
  I absolutely agree, but you COULD say one company holding your data is better than lots of them having it too.
  - dontblink 5y ago
    Who do you think has been a better steward? One thing to consider is the security lapses of each. What company has the best security record?
    - spicybright 5y ago
      I have no knowledge in general of this stuff, but my assumption is that your average company is horrible with security, but huge corporations dump tons of money into security (being a big target with the most users) making it more effective. Not saying breaches never happen with apple or google of course, it's just less often than your trusty todo list app being pwned and your clear text passwords being dumped online. You raise a very good point though. You can't judge the security of a company by any metric except their record. It would be interesting to have a registry that logs breaches, how severe they are, and give an overall rating to them.
  - SahAssar 5y ago
    That depends if they all get the same data. I'd much rather have multiple services, each of them isolated to the data that is relevant to providing their specific service than one service having it all.
- koolba 5y ago
  Since when do you need a phone number for iOS? How would that work on an iPad?
crossroadsguy 5y ago
And that’s also an exact recipe of how to prioritise decisions that help (or seem to help) only in the short term. Luckily they’re too expensive to be the biggest player in most of the world. But they’re part of a duopoly.

tmashb 5y ago

Approach and hypocrisy matters. Apple did boast about privacy and security many times before...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Siira 5y ago

You can't win in a duopoly.

kwere 5y ago
yeah but with buzz marketing you can catch the fat cutsomer and avoid antitrust oversee

NicoJuicy 5y ago

Remember iAd? Didn't work, so they try something else to differentiate. If this wouldn't work, they will just adjust targets.

simondotau 5y ago
You have the causation inverted here. iAd failed because they refused to compromise on user privacy.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  You have the timeline wrong. They failed for multiple reasons: > With tight creative control of ads, an insistence on taking a 30% cut of all ad revenues, and a prickly attitude to sharing customer data, the platform won few fans in the media industry. But iAd launched before their "protection of user privacy' stance. Not after it. = They couldn't monetize it, so only after that they attack it and "protect user privacy".
  - simondotau 5y ago
    > But iAd launched before their "protection of user privacy' stance. Not after it. That's a disingenuous claim. While iAd did predate Apple pushing privacy as a mainstream marketing angle, it certainly did not predate Apple taking a strong position on consumer privacy. This had been a theme in Apple's corporate decisions for at least the past fifteen years, likely longer. Furthermore your own quoted paragraph belies your own assertion. iAd failed in part because of Apple's "prickly attitude to sharing customer data". Quotes from a contemporary article: But advertisers became increasingly perturbed that Apple refused to give them access to the wealth of data iAd had on its consumers from Apple’s hundreds of millions of iTunes accounts. Stefan Bardega, media agency ZenithOptimedia’s chief digital officer, told us: “iAd has long been a story of unfulfilled potential. Apple has unique customer level data that is hugely interesting to advertisers but has struggled to access that data in a way that doesn’t conflict with the core business.” Another media agency ... said: “For me, they never understood that they needed to behave like a media owner, rather they could go it alone charging what they wanted, not sharing data, no third-party tracking...” https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-apple-is-pulling-direct-sales-support-for-iad-2016-1?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-apple-is-pulling-dire...
    - NicoJuicy 5y ago
      I didn't eliminate that from my quote?! Apple made their direction a buying argument after iAd, it doesn't mean they didn't had a stance before it. If you believe Apple's marketing, how do you explain Google not bowing to China and therefore not bowing to China's influence, while Apple seems to be doing just that. Eg. https://www.wired.com/story/apple-china-censorship-apps-flag/ https://www.wired.com/story/apple-china-censorship-apps-flag... Caring about user privacy shouldn't have exceptions, no?

sneak 5y ago

Apple does a lot to actively destroy the privacy of iOS users, though. They assume you desire privacy from everyone but Apple. You can’t even get free iOS apps without giving them your phone number.

spicybright 5y ago
I absolutely agree, but you COULD say one company holding your data is better than lots of them having it too.
- dontblink 5y ago
  Who do you think has been a better steward? One thing to consider is the security lapses of each. What company has the best security record?
  - spicybright 5y ago
    I have no knowledge in general of this stuff, but my assumption is that your average company is horrible with security, but huge corporations dump tons of money into security (being a big target with the most users) making it more effective. Not saying breaches never happen with apple or google of course, it's just less often than your trusty todo list app being pwned and your clear text passwords being dumped online. You raise a very good point though. You can't judge the security of a company by any metric except their record. It would be interesting to have a registry that logs breaches, how severe they are, and give an overall rating to them.
- SahAssar 5y ago
  That depends if they all get the same data. I'd much rather have multiple services, each of them isolated to the data that is relevant to providing their specific service than one service having it all.
koolba 5y ago
Since when do you need a phone number for iOS? How would that work on an iPad?

crossroadsguy 5y ago

And that’s also an exact recipe of how to prioritise decisions that help (or seem to help) only in the short term. Luckily they’re too expensive to be the biggest player in most of the world. But they’re part of a duopoly.