16 ms·

Apple Robbed the Mob’s Bank

84 points by ch_sm 5y ago

warrenm 5y ago
Great quote: >Apple has taken money from a party that is so unsympathetic that it can’t appeal to a greater authority for redress. Apple has brazenly, in broad daylight, stormed into the Bank of Facebook, looted its most precious resource, and, camouflaged under the noble cause of giving privacy controls to the consumer, fled the scene.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  >Apple has taken money from a party Facebook does not already have money from future ad revenue, therefore Apple cannot have “taken” it. > that is so unsympathetic that it can’t appeal to a greater authority for redress. Facebook cannot appeal to a greater authority for redress because no crimes were committed against them. The rest of the quote is also hyperbolic nonsense. “[Apple] fled the scene” does not make the slightest bit of sense.
  - throwaway3699 5y ago
    The "money" here is data, not dollars.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Then it makes no sense for the author to use the word money instead of data. And even if you substitute data, Facebook does not already have future data, just like they do not already have future ad revenue.
      - socialist_coder 5y ago
        I thought it was pretty apt analogy... makes perfect sense to me. Comparing it to one criminal gang robbing another - yes! It sounds like you are trying to interpret it very literally?
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Analogies have to be consistent in their relationships between the objects of the analogies. I broke down the inconsistencies. The utility of an analogy that compares every business offering a better product to consumers as a thief robbing another thief is pretty useless to me. I guess the internet came in and robbed all the travel agents, secretaries, map makers, and other obviated middlemen too. And Facebook and Google robbed all the ad agencies. And then “fled the scene”.
        shkkmo 5y ago
        I don't think you understood the analogy at all. The analogy is not "robbery" but "rob the mob". Namely, the idea that if your target is reprehensible enough, you can get away with things that you otherwise couldn't.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Does that imply that Apple would not “get away” with their privacy moves if Facebook was not reprehensible? I do not see why Apple would have to “get away” with anything. They did something their customers like, what difference does it make if Facebook is reprehensible or not?
      - unethical_ban 5y ago
        Of course Facebook doesn't LITERALLY have future data, we aren't in the future. I don't see how one can miss the point here.
  - analog31 5y ago
    Traditionally, the value of a business was related to the net present value of its future earnings. I don't know if that's an ironclad rule in today's investment world. But I think that reasonably anticipated future revenue is still a form of value.
  - warrenm 5y ago
    It's called "humor"
  - telendram 5y ago
    Ever heard of the concept of "selling your business" ? On what ground is it valued, at sell time, if not based on the promise of future equivalent revenues ? This is hard, concrete, evaluated, value.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >Facebook does not already have money from future ad revenue, therefore Apple cannot have “taken” it. Suuuuuure they can... This is a thing! There was a recent financial scandal where a company started out by buying accounts receivable at a small discount and ended up loaning money for hypothetical accounts receivable from hypothetical customers. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-04-06/greensill-capital-financed-imaginary-invoices-for-gupta-s-liberty https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-04-06/greens...
nerbert 5y ago
When the truth is explained, sometimes it can flow in such a fluid way that it is beautiful.
- xbar 5y ago
  I found some premises compelling, but the ones necessary to reach the conclusions were missing.
S_A_P 5y ago
Is this an article trying to generate sympathy for Facebook, claiming Apple is just as bad in this case and that they dont really care about privacy? Seems kinda suspect to me. Maybe I misinterpreted the tone here. I dont think Apple is all good and Facebook is all bad, but in the aggregate Apple does do more for privacy than Facebook and Facebook does want to know as much as possible about your life to push that into selling ads.
- nerbert 5y ago
  I read it more as an article looking back at things and describing the dynamics at play / unspoken intentions & the result. Apple pulled off a huge power move against Google and Facebook, and it paid off beautifully. It's worth taking a minute to describe what just happened.
- echelon 5y ago
  No sympathy for Facebook, but the article illuminates the vast anticompetitive hammer that Apple yields. Apple shouldn't be in charge of commerce on iPhone. It's as if there were only two electric companies, and they charged Tesla 30% to charge your car. The electric company is now in charge of the ads being beamed into your skull, because they had all the power and wanted more ways to make money. It's cute to say that it's in the name of consumer privacy and all, but really the powerful company is just thirsty for more. Apple is a monopoly's monopoly.
  - eecc 5y ago
    > Apple shouldn't be in charge of commerce on iPhone. So who should be? Facebook? Google? Microsoft? Adobe? Disney? Samsung? How many APIs and app packaging do you think app developers would bother working with? How much time do you think it would take for the network effect to desertify all-but-one? Given the only incentive for these stores would be user monetization, how long would it take for the winner to make confetti out of your privacy? If Apple's strategy is "Privacy is a luxury item we embed in our products", how would breaking Apple's monopoly on Apple's products affect Privacy?
    - 5y ago
kjakm 5y ago
I find it hard to believe that people can complain about the _concept_ of ATT with a straight face. All that is being asked of you is that you ask the user for permission to track them. If you genuinely have an issue with that you need to reevaluate your business + your ethics.
- jdminhbg 5y ago
  The article is about the difference between ATT (opt-in) and Apple’s first-party tracking (opt-out).
- telendram 5y ago
  The problem is about ATT being only triggered for _all other_ Ad networks, but _not_ for Apple's own Ad network, which is sneakily enabled by default. Sounds like an obvious monopoly abuse to me. I hope some government (European maybe?) do something about it.
coldcode 5y ago
Yet people have been paying for groceries with checks in grocery stores for decades. I did some work for one of the companies that mine data from checks (20 yrs ago), it was amazing how much they could get from scanning the front of a piece of paper. This data was then used by the chain, as well as being sold to all sorts of other companies. No one gave them permission, but you can't stop scanning a check if you want to use it. It's still done today, but of course now we have credit/debit and loyalty cards, and you think that's not used by the grocery chains to track your purchases? Unless you refuse to use a loyal card and use a more anonymous system like Apple Pay the store can't really track you, but the issuer knows who you are (but can't connect you to what you bought that I know of). None of this is new. Unless you pay with cash and wear a disguise, you are giving something to them. I wish Apple did not sell ads of any kind (the don't need even more money), but using knowledge you gain just from a transaction to make money, simply because you have to exchange some information to get what you want, is as old as selling anything (Omar in the market sees you bought two sets of flowers, assumes you are an adulterer, turns you in for a reward to the Czar).
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  I would really like Apple/Google Pay to get a copy of the receipt from the terminal. Paper receipts are a nuisance. The problem is that then Apple/Google has a copy of my receipt. I wonder if this could be done in a way that protects consumer privacy.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    This would be amazing - I've seen something akin to this on some of my Amex cards - but for very few retailers. There are obvious privacy issues (though it could be easily made so only the purchaser can see the details) - and if someone were to get it right it'd be Apple. I'm sad they didn't make it a base part of Apple Pay.
    - lozaning 5y ago
      I see this happen when i use my Amex card with merchants that use square POS systems. The data comes through to me in the Cash App.
strict9 5y ago
>Facebook couldn’t explain in detail why ATT will harm consumers because, in doing so, it would need to reveal just how it personalizes ads — through observing conversions on third-party websites and apps. This is one important factor that very few FB users realize. The secret sauce is aggregating data captured outside of FB, which is hard to visualize and grasp for most people. More than once friends/family have asked me if FB really can hear via your microphone, and my response is usually met with blank stares: no, they aren't listening to your microphone, they know much more about you from the sites you've visited.
- xbar 5y ago
  Also, they are listening to your microphone.
  - danaris 5y ago
    This may be true in some cases (I certainly don't have enough information to refute it categorically), but is absolutely not universally so. For instance, on iOS, they cannot access your microphone without your express permission (though once they have obtained it once, you'd have to go into the Settings app and explicitly revoke it), and they cannot do so while the app is not open. Similarly, in Safari on macOS, any website needs to ask permission to access the microphone/webcam, and you can revoke the permission if you want. (This isn't quite as obvious, but if you add the Website Preferences button to your toolbar, it becomes much moreso: I strongly recommend doing this for anyone using Safari.) I know there's a fairly widespread idea that all smartphones act as always-on microphones and cameras for the shady tech overlords (or the government; whichever the person's particular fear is about), but the whole point of Apple's stance on privacy is preventing that sort of invasive, pervasive, surveillance from taking place from iPhones and other Apple devices.
  - derefr 5y ago
    That’s a superstition created exactly by the other information-gathering they do—and the information they share. You might think that Facebook knows about what you’re thinking about buying on Amazon because you’re talking to your spouse out loud about buying that thing. But more likely than not, it’s because you also mentioned it on Facebook Messenger — or Instagram, or WhatsApp. Or, because you already searched for the thing on Amazon, and Amazon sold that data to Facebook. Or because you watched a video about it on YouTube, or read a review article about it (which is what inspired you to be interested in buying it in the first place), and YouTube or that media conglomerate sold your data to Facebook/Amazon/etc. Likewise, if Amazon knows about your Facebook activity, that’s likely an example of data-sharing in the opposite direction — Facebook selling to Amazon. Of course, both Amazon and Facebook also partner with tons of other smaller third parties as well, to do ad-tech targeting that those third parties don’t bother to do themselves. Something people always wonder about is how Tumblr still exists, despite having the worst internal ad-tech ever. Well, they don’t need to make money showing you ads themselves; they can just sell your data to Facebook/Amazon/etc., to improve their ad targeting of you. Same goes for, say, Wordpress. Just because a blog doesn’t have ads on it, doesn’t mean it isn’t collecting your data and feeding it into one (or multiple) of the big five’s ad-tech backends.
Grustaf 5y ago
This is disingenuous. Using appstore buying behavior to target search ads in the appstore is not something many people would find creepy. Facebook advertisers being able to target people for being sick, pregnant, poor and similar, based on photos you liked on instagram or even browsing non-facebook sites, is an entirely different level of privacy breech.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- truth_ 5y ago
  "in-app purchases ade through the App Store" This is creepy.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    I suppose it’s creepier than straight app downloads, but still far less creepy than facebook ad targeting.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Apple’s empire grows. I wonder what they would have to do to generate anti trust concerns. They just sherlocked Tile and Facebook Ads in the last month alone.
- joshstrange 5y ago
  They may have sherlocked Tile (though I think this is debatable) but they absolutely did not sherlock Facebook Ads. Facebook Ads is far reaching and monitors you on and off their platform, showing ads in the app store using data about your App Store habits is a completely different ballgame.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    But it's based on purchases in other apps, which is exactly the kind of thing that Apple is preventing other apps from doing. This is clearly anti-competitive, at least in the EU.
drivingmenuts 5y ago
How often does an individual actually use the App Store? I’ve already figured out my app load out and since apps can’t exactly share data the way desktop apps do, that’s not likely to change - I can’t get a package that handles data better than the original, using the original files. Let them advertise there for now. It’s not like I’ll see it much.
xt00 5y ago
Another win for Apple is convincing people that it’s somewhat obvious that Apple should have a ton of data about me so I guess best to limit it to one place rather than allowing “anybody” to get access to it. But put that into the context of buying a laptop from say HP and saying to somebody, do you think HP should know virtually everything about your usage of that laptop? So I hope for the day where we end up with hardware that we truly own rather than them owning us..
- mistrial9 5y ago
  "I hope for the day where we end up with hardware that we truly own rather than them owning us.." so frustrating to read this in 2021, with memories of the personal computer in the 80s and 90s. The exact market placement of PC's was to break a dependence on a central account somewhere. Many, many people knew exactly what that meant, supported a plural market of hardware and software (in the West) with their individual purchases, and things were fun and interesting. Trading software and hardware was more like trading books and records - in the privacy of your town and home. So many positives to this model.
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  I actually don’t think the “general purpose computing hardware ownership” model scales in today’s world. Sure, enthusiasts will always buy them, but a locked down OS like iOS is a lot more resilient to the myriad of security threats out there. And there are a lot of them now. In my opinion as a consumer, I’m buying an iPhone because Apple curates the App Store and has strict rules for what gets on there. But to do that, they need a lot more info about me. We’ve entered the era of “computing as a service” outside the enthusiast / PC gamer realm. At the corporate level, this is literally becoming the case: the new model is to just outsource everything for corporate devices, including ownership of the machines, and lease them through a managed services agreement. But this rebundling is less obvious in the consumer space as PCs have largely been replaced by tablets and smartphones (which do follow more of an “as a service” model).
  - telendram 5y ago
    > I’m buying an iPhone because Apple curates the App Store Ahah, Ahahah.... AhaHAHAHAHAHAH Sure, the App Store is just full of Scam Applications that are "so hard to detect" that they top the App Store revenue chart, https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/02/09/developer-uncovers-scam-apps-making-millions-on-apple-app-store/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/02/09/developer-uncovers... but Hey, THANKS APPLE, they CURATED the App Store ! (PS: if you got scammed and get your bank account siphoned off, or lost all your bitcoin, this is obviously Your Fault. Now that you have a problem, let's correct the previous statement : Actually, Apple Never promised anything, right ?)
nowherebeen 5y ago
> it is that Apple’s PR department deserves a pay raise. I think the author confused the PR department with the business strategy department. They are the ones that really deserves the pay raise.
bhewes 5y ago
Apple is acting the same way they did when they kicked out Steve Jobs the first time doing everything they can to extract dollars with very little innovation.
- bhewes 5y ago
  The Apple police on here are fun. Not a single argument just downvotes. Love you guys!
  - bhewes 5y ago
    256 points more to go guys. Rather pathetic you hide behind the downvote. So keep them coming. Over the last decade HN use to be a place learn and discuss now it has turned into this sad.
wayneftw 5y ago
I don't understand why FB didn't instead try to appeal to people's desire for freedom. Instead of talking about ads they could have built a whole campaign around how Apple doesn't let people control their own devices. They could have helped us get real sideloading on iOS.
- cglong 5y ago
  Especially with the Epic lawsuit, Coalition for App Fairness, etc. so active right now. They could've had real sway here.
ChrisArchitect 5y ago
because this wasn't on here earlier? previous discussion yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27126501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27126501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27120693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27120693
ksec 5y ago
It is the same playbook as they did with Google. The $10B/ year placement fees for being default search engine on Apple devices, all while squeezing out most of the Data going to Google in the name of privacy. A fairly large potion of Facebook Ads are actually Ads for Apps or specifically Games. Previously the Ad network ( in this case Facebook ) would know what sort of Games you have installed, and show you some relevant ( or similar ) games that you may like. There is no point showing you FPS games if you dont play FPS games at all. With ATT no ad network, including but not limited to Facebook will not have any "newer" data. And they cant target those ads for you. This is what the whole "tracking" argument is all about. ( At least from Apple perspective ) But since Apple has all those Data, they can now sell those Ads themselves. Of course the argument is the definition of Tracking. And may be the vast majority understanding of what tracking really mean, portrayed by Apple differs greatly to the actual technical definition. Benedict Evans [1] has quite a few words on it. On the PR and media side it is the same playbook as they did with Qualcomm. Facebook and Qualcomm are evil, Apple are righteous. But when the trial did happen every single accusation Apple made against Qualcomm turns out to false before they were quickly settled. The amount of hypocrisy from Modern Day Apple is even worst than Google in early 2000s. [1] https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1387130787510751239?s=20 https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1387130787510751239...
- cglong 5y ago
  > But when the trial did happen every single accusation Apple made against Qualcomm turns out to false before they were quickly settled. Sorry, could you expound on this a bit? I don't recall hearing about this.
  - homarp 5y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19678453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19678453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19679675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19679675
  - ksec 5y ago
    The best source is actually reading all that was shown in court, so many juicy details in all shape and form. Along with evidence that confirm or reshape your certain belief with each individuals as well as companies. The 2nd best I found was somehow from Cnet [1] from Shara Tibken. The link is a high level summary, her twitter account has many more information. And it was at that moment I learned, It wasn't the reporter's problem for fake news. I discovered most Reporter's Twitter account actually report more useful information with very little bias. They were actually doing their job, wonderful and brilliantly old fashioned way. What was the problem is a lot of these were editorialised in print or online in order to drive click rate. I was on Apple's side at first, although I knew their explanation of "Double Dipping" and Patents Percentage of a Devices were false. But I still gave them many benefits of doubt and that Qualcomm was over charging. But when all the figure was shown, Intel throw in the towel, the amount of Hypocrisy from Apple was far beyond anything I have seen. I seen then have gain tremendous respect for Qualcomm as a business and how professional they were in the whole account. [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-and-qualcomm-settle-heres-what-it-means-for-your-next-iphone/ https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-and-qualcomm-settle-heres-wh...

84 points by ch_sm 5y ago

Great quote: >Apple has taken money from a party that is so unsympathetic that it can’t appeal to a greater authority for redress. Apple has brazenly, in broad daylight, stormed into the Bank of Facebook, looted its most precious resource, and, camouflaged under the noble cause of giving privacy controls to the consumer, fled the scene.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
>Apple has taken money from a party Facebook does not already have money from future ad revenue, therefore Apple cannot have “taken” it. > that is so unsympathetic that it can’t appeal to a greater authority for redress. Facebook cannot appeal to a greater authority for redress because no crimes were committed against them. The rest of the quote is also hyperbolic nonsense. “[Apple] fled the scene” does not make the slightest bit of sense.
- throwaway3699 5y ago
  The "money" here is data, not dollars.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Then it makes no sense for the author to use the word money instead of data. And even if you substitute data, Facebook does not already have future data, just like they do not already have future ad revenue.
    - socialist_coder 5y ago
      I thought it was pretty apt analogy... makes perfect sense to me. Comparing it to one criminal gang robbing another - yes! It sounds like you are trying to interpret it very literally?
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Analogies have to be consistent in their relationships between the objects of the analogies. I broke down the inconsistencies. The utility of an analogy that compares every business offering a better product to consumers as a thief robbing another thief is pretty useless to me. I guess the internet came in and robbed all the travel agents, secretaries, map makers, and other obviated middlemen too. And Facebook and Google robbed all the ad agencies. And then “fled the scene”.
        shkkmo 5y ago
        I don't think you understood the analogy at all. The analogy is not "robbery" but "rob the mob". Namely, the idea that if your target is reprehensible enough, you can get away with things that you otherwise couldn't.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Does that imply that Apple would not “get away” with their privacy moves if Facebook was not reprehensible? I do not see why Apple would have to “get away” with anything. They did something their customers like, what difference does it make if Facebook is reprehensible or not?
    - unethical_ban 5y ago
      Of course Facebook doesn't LITERALLY have future data, we aren't in the future. I don't see how one can miss the point here.
- analog31 5y ago
  Traditionally, the value of a business was related to the net present value of its future earnings. I don't know if that's an ironclad rule in today's investment world. But I think that reasonably anticipated future revenue is still a form of value.
- warrenm 5y ago
  It's called "humor"
- telendram 5y ago
  Ever heard of the concept of "selling your business" ? On what ground is it valued, at sell time, if not based on the promise of future equivalent revenues ? This is hard, concrete, evaluated, value.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >Facebook does not already have money from future ad revenue, therefore Apple cannot have “taken” it. Suuuuuure they can... This is a thing! There was a recent financial scandal where a company started out by buying accounts receivable at a small discount and ended up loaning money for hypothetical accounts receivable from hypothetical customers. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-04-06/greensill-capital-financed-imaginary-invoices-for-gupta-s-liberty https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-04-06/greens...

nerbert 5y ago

When the truth is explained, sometimes it can flow in such a fluid way that it is beautiful.

xbar 5y ago
I found some premises compelling, but the ones necessary to reach the conclusions were missing.

S_A_P 5y ago

Is this an article trying to generate sympathy for Facebook, claiming Apple is just as bad in this case and that they dont really care about privacy? Seems kinda suspect to me. Maybe I misinterpreted the tone here. I dont think Apple is all good and Facebook is all bad, but in the aggregate Apple does do more for privacy than Facebook and Facebook does want to know as much as possible about your life to push that into selling ads.

nerbert 5y ago
I read it more as an article looking back at things and describing the dynamics at play / unspoken intentions & the result. Apple pulled off a huge power move against Google and Facebook, and it paid off beautifully. It's worth taking a minute to describe what just happened.
echelon 5y ago
No sympathy for Facebook, but the article illuminates the vast anticompetitive hammer that Apple yields. Apple shouldn't be in charge of commerce on iPhone. It's as if there were only two electric companies, and they charged Tesla 30% to charge your car. The electric company is now in charge of the ads being beamed into your skull, because they had all the power and wanted more ways to make money. It's cute to say that it's in the name of consumer privacy and all, but really the powerful company is just thirsty for more. Apple is a monopoly's monopoly.
- eecc 5y ago
  > Apple shouldn't be in charge of commerce on iPhone. So who should be? Facebook? Google? Microsoft? Adobe? Disney? Samsung? How many APIs and app packaging do you think app developers would bother working with? How much time do you think it would take for the network effect to desertify all-but-one? Given the only incentive for these stores would be user monetization, how long would it take for the winner to make confetti out of your privacy? If Apple's strategy is "Privacy is a luxury item we embed in our products", how would breaking Apple's monopoly on Apple's products affect Privacy?
  - 5y ago

kjakm 5y ago

I find it hard to believe that people can complain about the _concept_ of ATT with a straight face. All that is being asked of you is that you ask the user for permission to track them. If you genuinely have an issue with that you need to reevaluate your business + your ethics.

jdminhbg 5y ago
The article is about the difference between ATT (opt-in) and Apple’s first-party tracking (opt-out).
telendram 5y ago
The problem is about ATT being only triggered for _all other_ Ad networks, but _not_ for Apple's own Ad network, which is sneakily enabled by default. Sounds like an obvious monopoly abuse to me. I hope some government (European maybe?) do something about it.

coldcode 5y ago

Yet people have been paying for groceries with checks in grocery stores for decades. I did some work for one of the companies that mine data from checks (20 yrs ago), it was amazing how much they could get from scanning the front of a piece of paper. This data was then used by the chain, as well as being sold to all sorts of other companies. No one gave them permission, but you can't stop scanning a check if you want to use it. It's still done today, but of course now we have credit/debit and loyalty cards, and you think that's not used by the grocery chains to track your purchases? Unless you refuse to use a loyal card and use a more anonymous system like Apple Pay the store can't really track you, but the issuer knows who you are (but can't connect you to what you bought that I know of). None of this is new. Unless you pay with cash and wear a disguise, you are giving something to them. I wish Apple did not sell ads of any kind (the don't need even more money), but using knowledge you gain just from a transaction to make money, simply because you have to exchange some information to get what you want, is as old as selling anything (Omar in the market sees you bought two sets of flowers, assumes you are an adulterer, turns you in for a reward to the Czar).

Consultant32452 5y ago
I would really like Apple/Google Pay to get a copy of the receipt from the terminal. Paper receipts are a nuisance. The problem is that then Apple/Google has a copy of my receipt. I wonder if this could be done in a way that protects consumer privacy.
- bombcar 5y ago
  This would be amazing - I've seen something akin to this on some of my Amex cards - but for very few retailers. There are obvious privacy issues (though it could be easily made so only the purchaser can see the details) - and if someone were to get it right it'd be Apple. I'm sad they didn't make it a base part of Apple Pay.
  - lozaning 5y ago
    I see this happen when i use my Amex card with merchants that use square POS systems. The data comes through to me in the Cash App.

strict9 5y ago

>Facebook couldn’t explain in detail why ATT will harm consumers because, in doing so, it would need to reveal just how it personalizes ads — through observing conversions on third-party websites and apps. This is one important factor that very few FB users realize. The secret sauce is aggregating data captured outside of FB, which is hard to visualize and grasp for most people. More than once friends/family have asked me if FB really can hear via your microphone, and my response is usually met with blank stares: no, they aren't listening to your microphone, they know much more about you from the sites you've visited.

xbar 5y ago
Also, they are listening to your microphone.
- danaris 5y ago
  This may be true in some cases (I certainly don't have enough information to refute it categorically), but is absolutely not universally so. For instance, on iOS, they cannot access your microphone without your express permission (though once they have obtained it once, you'd have to go into the Settings app and explicitly revoke it), and they cannot do so while the app is not open. Similarly, in Safari on macOS, any website needs to ask permission to access the microphone/webcam, and you can revoke the permission if you want. (This isn't quite as obvious, but if you add the Website Preferences button to your toolbar, it becomes much moreso: I strongly recommend doing this for anyone using Safari.) I know there's a fairly widespread idea that all smartphones act as always-on microphones and cameras for the shady tech overlords (or the government; whichever the person's particular fear is about), but the whole point of Apple's stance on privacy is preventing that sort of invasive, pervasive, surveillance from taking place from iPhones and other Apple devices.
- derefr 5y ago
  That’s a superstition created exactly by the other information-gathering they do—and the information they share. You might think that Facebook knows about what you’re thinking about buying on Amazon because you’re talking to your spouse out loud about buying that thing. But more likely than not, it’s because you also mentioned it on Facebook Messenger — or Instagram, or WhatsApp. Or, because you already searched for the thing on Amazon, and Amazon sold that data to Facebook. Or because you watched a video about it on YouTube, or read a review article about it (which is what inspired you to be interested in buying it in the first place), and YouTube or that media conglomerate sold your data to Facebook/Amazon/etc. Likewise, if Amazon knows about your Facebook activity, that’s likely an example of data-sharing in the opposite direction — Facebook selling to Amazon. Of course, both Amazon and Facebook also partner with tons of other smaller third parties as well, to do ad-tech targeting that those third parties don’t bother to do themselves. Something people always wonder about is how Tumblr still exists, despite having the worst internal ad-tech ever. Well, they don’t need to make money showing you ads themselves; they can just sell your data to Facebook/Amazon/etc., to improve their ad targeting of you. Same goes for, say, Wordpress. Just because a blog doesn’t have ads on it, doesn’t mean it isn’t collecting your data and feeding it into one (or multiple) of the big five’s ad-tech backends.

Grustaf 5y ago

This is disingenuous. Using appstore buying behavior to target search ads in the appstore is not something many people would find creepy. Facebook advertisers being able to target people for being sick, pregnant, poor and similar, based on photos you liked on instagram or even browsing non-facebook sites, is an entirely different level of privacy breech.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
truth_ 5y ago
"in-app purchases ade through the App Store" This is creepy.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  I suppose it’s creepier than straight app downloads, but still far less creepy than facebook ad targeting.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Apple’s empire grows. I wonder what they would have to do to generate anti trust concerns. They just sherlocked Tile and Facebook Ads in the last month alone.

joshstrange 5y ago
They may have sherlocked Tile (though I think this is debatable) but they absolutely did not sherlock Facebook Ads. Facebook Ads is far reaching and monitors you on and off their platform, showing ads in the app store using data about your App Store habits is a completely different ballgame.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  But it's based on purchases in other apps, which is exactly the kind of thing that Apple is preventing other apps from doing. This is clearly anti-competitive, at least in the EU.

drivingmenuts 5y ago

How often does an individual actually use the App Store? I’ve already figured out my app load out and since apps can’t exactly share data the way desktop apps do, that’s not likely to change - I can’t get a package that handles data better than the original, using the original files. Let them advertise there for now. It’s not like I’ll see it much.

xt00 5y ago

Another win for Apple is convincing people that it’s somewhat obvious that Apple should have a ton of data about me so I guess best to limit it to one place rather than allowing “anybody” to get access to it. But put that into the context of buying a laptop from say HP and saying to somebody, do you think HP should know virtually everything about your usage of that laptop? So I hope for the day where we end up with hardware that we truly own rather than them owning us..

mistrial9 5y ago
"I hope for the day where we end up with hardware that we truly own rather than them owning us.." so frustrating to read this in 2021, with memories of the personal computer in the 80s and 90s. The exact market placement of PC's was to break a dependence on a central account somewhere. Many, many people knew exactly what that meant, supported a plural market of hardware and software (in the West) with their individual purchases, and things were fun and interesting. Trading software and hardware was more like trading books and records - in the privacy of your town and home. So many positives to this model.
wayoutthere 5y ago
I actually don’t think the “general purpose computing hardware ownership” model scales in today’s world. Sure, enthusiasts will always buy them, but a locked down OS like iOS is a lot more resilient to the myriad of security threats out there. And there are a lot of them now. In my opinion as a consumer, I’m buying an iPhone because Apple curates the App Store and has strict rules for what gets on there. But to do that, they need a lot more info about me. We’ve entered the era of “computing as a service” outside the enthusiast / PC gamer realm. At the corporate level, this is literally becoming the case: the new model is to just outsource everything for corporate devices, including ownership of the machines, and lease them through a managed services agreement. But this rebundling is less obvious in the consumer space as PCs have largely been replaced by tablets and smartphones (which do follow more of an “as a service” model).
- telendram 5y ago
  > I’m buying an iPhone because Apple curates the App Store Ahah, Ahahah.... AhaHAHAHAHAHAH Sure, the App Store is just full of Scam Applications that are "so hard to detect" that they top the App Store revenue chart, https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/02/09/developer-uncovers-scam-apps-making-millions-on-apple-app-store/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/02/09/developer-uncovers... but Hey, THANKS APPLE, they CURATED the App Store ! (PS: if you got scammed and get your bank account siphoned off, or lost all your bitcoin, this is obviously Your Fault. Now that you have a problem, let's correct the previous statement : Actually, Apple Never promised anything, right ?)

nowherebeen 5y ago

> it is that Apple’s PR department deserves a pay raise. I think the author confused the PR department with the business strategy department. They are the ones that really deserves the pay raise.

bhewes 5y ago

Apple is acting the same way they did when they kicked out Steve Jobs the first time doing everything they can to extract dollars with very little innovation.

bhewes 5y ago
The Apple police on here are fun. Not a single argument just downvotes. Love you guys!
- bhewes 5y ago
  256 points more to go guys. Rather pathetic you hide behind the downvote. So keep them coming. Over the last decade HN use to be a place learn and discuss now it has turned into this sad.

wayneftw 5y ago

I don't understand why FB didn't instead try to appeal to people's desire for freedom. Instead of talking about ads they could have built a whole campaign around how Apple doesn't let people control their own devices. They could have helped us get real sideloading on iOS.

cglong 5y ago
Especially with the Epic lawsuit, Coalition for App Fairness, etc. so active right now. They could've had real sway here.

ChrisArchitect 5y ago

because this wasn't on here earlier? previous discussion yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27126501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27126501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27120693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27120693

ksec 5y ago

It is the same playbook as they did with Google. The $10B/ year placement fees for being default search engine on Apple devices, all while squeezing out most of the Data going to Google in the name of privacy. A fairly large potion of Facebook Ads are actually Ads for Apps or specifically Games. Previously the Ad network ( in this case Facebook ) would know what sort of Games you have installed, and show you some relevant ( or similar ) games that you may like. There is no point showing you FPS games if you dont play FPS games at all. With ATT no ad network, including but not limited to Facebook will not have any "newer" data. And they cant target those ads for you. This is what the whole "tracking" argument is all about. ( At least from Apple perspective ) But since Apple has all those Data, they can now sell those Ads themselves. Of course the argument is the definition of Tracking. And may be the vast majority understanding of what tracking really mean, portrayed by Apple differs greatly to the actual technical definition. Benedict Evans [1] has quite a few words on it. On the PR and media side it is the same playbook as they did with Qualcomm. Facebook and Qualcomm are evil, Apple are righteous. But when the trial did happen every single accusation Apple made against Qualcomm turns out to false before they were quickly settled. The amount of hypocrisy from Modern Day Apple is even worst than Google in early 2000s. [1] https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1387130787510751239?s=20 https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1387130787510751239...

cglong 5y ago
> But when the trial did happen every single accusation Apple made against Qualcomm turns out to false before they were quickly settled. Sorry, could you expound on this a bit? I don't recall hearing about this.
- homarp 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19678453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19678453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19679675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19679675
- ksec 5y ago
  The best source is actually reading all that was shown in court, so many juicy details in all shape and form. Along with evidence that confirm or reshape your certain belief with each individuals as well as companies. The 2nd best I found was somehow from Cnet [1] from Shara Tibken. The link is a high level summary, her twitter account has many more information. And it was at that moment I learned, It wasn't the reporter's problem for fake news. I discovered most Reporter's Twitter account actually report more useful information with very little bias. They were actually doing their job, wonderful and brilliantly old fashioned way. What was the problem is a lot of these were editorialised in print or online in order to drive click rate. I was on Apple's side at first, although I knew their explanation of "Double Dipping" and Patents Percentage of a Devices were false. But I still gave them many benefits of doubt and that Qualcomm was over charging. But when all the figure was shown, Intel throw in the towel, the amount of Hypocrisy from Apple was far beyond anything I have seen. I seen then have gain tremendous respect for Qualcomm as a business and how professional they were in the whole account. [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-and-qualcomm-settle-heres-what-it-means-for-your-next-iphone/ https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-and-qualcomm-settle-heres-wh...