8 ms·

There was zero confusion. Apple's new feature was universally rejected and if it cone to market will cause a severe loss of market share.

megablast 5y ago
I doubt that it was universal. Nothing ever is. But I haven't seen any positive discussions about it, which is odd.
- geoduck14 5y ago
  Case in point, I'm pretty apathetic about the whole thing
defaultname 5y ago
Severe loss of marketshare? It wouldn't even register. I don't like the feature. Putting this on the client device is dubious and should never have made it past the brainstorming stage. Having said that, technology companies, big and small, are bound in the US to do this. By law. If anything Apple was by far the laggard of the bunch (with reporting counts magnitudes lower than peers, despite a larger customer base). As I said in another comment, no company can protect you from your government. Much has been made about it being on device, which while a serious optics issue...the hot takes being given on here are manifestly absurd. Like, literally the company that holds all of your data, all of your passwords, all of your info and you need to invent slippery slopes to imagine up what they "might" do? If they want to have their way with your data, they could have been doing it for decades. They should never have announced two very different systems at the same time. Contrary to some of the insincere claims given in this very thread, there is massive disinformation and confusion about them. In the end I feel like 98% of the "the end is nigh!" comments are by long time Apple detractors who just see this glorious opening. And while I still hope that Apple says "Mea culpa, we're just going to scan on the ingress to iCloud Photos", whatever they do in a month this is going to be completely forgotten.
- cm2012 5y ago
  Yeah, I dislike Apple and want them to have less marketshare, but I doubt they will even lose 1% of revenue over this.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  > Having said that, technology companies, big and small, are bound in the US to do this. By law. Other companies scan their servers instead. And what law banned E2E encryption?
  - 29083011397778 5y ago
    This actually enables Apple to apply end-to-end encryption, while still complying with US CSAM laws. Users' content is scanned for CSAM, and is encrypted before leaving their phone. Whether one considers E2E encryption worth it if the content is still scanned before being encrypted is an exercise left to the reader. This potentially means all of iCloud, not just photos, could start to use E2E encryption as well - which is fantastic.
    - strangeattractr 5y ago
      So if we submit to having all our content scanned by them they'll even give us E2EE on iCloud? I guess they really do care about our privacy.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      Leaking information to Apple makes it not E2E. What law do you think banned real E2E encryption?
      - dpkonofa 5y ago
        There's no leak of content. None of your content ever gets sent to Apple...ever.
OrvalWintermute 5y ago
I do think it will result in a loss of market share if it comes to pass, if, for the simple reason that Apple will likely lose the Privacy Moat. Upcoming contenders like Purism [1] and the Pine Phone [2] will start gaining a great deal more traction from this. Other SV firms will sense business opportunity..... If merely 5% of the TAM around mobile is willing to prioritize non-spying features that would be enough to stand up very healthy businesses. It isn't like an iPhone is very customizable, repairable, or that usable with all the App restrictions Walled-Garden stuff. [1] https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ [2] https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/
- jsjohnst 5y ago
  > Upcoming contenders like Purism [1] and the Pine Phone [2] will start gaining a great deal more traction from this. I’ll bet you $500 to the charity of your choice that this won’t come to be. Set the terms on how you want to measure the outcome.
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    I don't bet - I trade and invest both early stage, and on public markets. Since you want to have a friendly competition around "put your money where your mouth is" will look into whether or not Purism is accepting investments and what the terms are. AAPL valuations are pretty lofty right now at ~$149 a share if you'd be interested in the reverse :)
- mdoms 5y ago
  Year of the Linux ~desktop~ telephone.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
quickthrowman 5y ago
> and if it cone to market will cause a severe loss of market share. AAPL closed 90 cents short of an all time high share price today. Why isn’t the market pricing in the loss of market share?
- Clubber 5y ago
  Because stock price is based on investors reactions to quarterly reports. Any loss in market share, if seen, will come when people usually buy new devices every x years don't. It's a hit to their brand from technically knowledgable people for sure though. When someone asks their tech friend if they should buy Apple, more people will likely say, "yabut," or "nah." We'll see if that makes a difference in a year or three. To me, it just feels icky. I'm sick of all the spying. I've been in computers since the Commodore. The current computer world is shit because of spying. It killed any passion I had left. It seems like no last vestige of privacy remains.
  - quickthrowman 5y ago
    Stock valuation models get updated a bit more frequently than quarterly, new information is incorporated into the share price all the time.
ineedasername 5y ago
The person above you gave an example of confusion. I'll admit that I was confused about how this new system would work as well. So there was confusion. As for market share, this might barely register on people's radar outside the tech community beyond "Apple is trying to prevent child porn."
tdsamardzhiev 5y ago
And who exactly will the market share go to? Do you thing the privacy-conscious folks will go to Google? Or a dumbphone? Or Purism maybe? I mean, no need to fret over my photos if I can't take photos, right?
Matthias1 5y ago
Here's an example of a confused commenter in this very thread. => https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28175002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28175002 There are legitimate privacy concerns, and Hacker News users are right to be upset. But that's not an excuse to pretend like this issue is broadly understood.

megablast 5y ago

I doubt that it was universal. Nothing ever is. But I haven't seen any positive discussions about it, which is odd.

geoduck14 5y ago
Case in point, I'm pretty apathetic about the whole thing

defaultname 5y ago

Severe loss of marketshare? It wouldn't even register. I don't like the feature. Putting this on the client device is dubious and should never have made it past the brainstorming stage. Having said that, technology companies, big and small, are bound in the US to do this. By law. If anything Apple was by far the laggard of the bunch (with reporting counts magnitudes lower than peers, despite a larger customer base). As I said in another comment, no company can protect you from your government. Much has been made about it being on device, which while a serious optics issue...the hot takes being given on here are manifestly absurd. Like, literally the company that holds all of your data, all of your passwords, all of your info and you need to invent slippery slopes to imagine up what they "might" do? If they want to have their way with your data, they could have been doing it for decades. They should never have announced two very different systems at the same time. Contrary to some of the insincere claims given in this very thread, there is massive disinformation and confusion about them. In the end I feel like 98% of the "the end is nigh!" comments are by long time Apple detractors who just see this glorious opening. And while I still hope that Apple says "Mea culpa, we're just going to scan on the ingress to iCloud Photos", whatever they do in a month this is going to be completely forgotten.

cm2012 5y ago
Yeah, I dislike Apple and want them to have less marketshare, but I doubt they will even lose 1% of revenue over this.
pseudalopex 5y ago
> Having said that, technology companies, big and small, are bound in the US to do this. By law. Other companies scan their servers instead. And what law banned E2E encryption?
- 29083011397778 5y ago
  This actually enables Apple to apply end-to-end encryption, while still complying with US CSAM laws. Users' content is scanned for CSAM, and is encrypted before leaving their phone. Whether one considers E2E encryption worth it if the content is still scanned before being encrypted is an exercise left to the reader. This potentially means all of iCloud, not just photos, could start to use E2E encryption as well - which is fantastic.
  - strangeattractr 5y ago
    So if we submit to having all our content scanned by them they'll even give us E2EE on iCloud? I guess they really do care about our privacy.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    Leaking information to Apple makes it not E2E. What law do you think banned real E2E encryption?
    - dpkonofa 5y ago
      There's no leak of content. None of your content ever gets sent to Apple...ever.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago

I do think it will result in a loss of market share if it comes to pass, if, for the simple reason that Apple will likely lose the Privacy Moat. Upcoming contenders like Purism [1] and the Pine Phone [2] will start gaining a great deal more traction from this. Other SV firms will sense business opportunity..... If merely 5% of the TAM around mobile is willing to prioritize non-spying features that would be enough to stand up very healthy businesses. It isn't like an iPhone is very customizable, repairable, or that usable with all the App restrictions Walled-Garden stuff. [1] https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ [2] https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/

jsjohnst 5y ago
> Upcoming contenders like Purism [1] and the Pine Phone [2] will start gaining a great deal more traction from this. I’ll bet you $500 to the charity of your choice that this won’t come to be. Set the terms on how you want to measure the outcome.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  I don't bet - I trade and invest both early stage, and on public markets. Since you want to have a friendly competition around "put your money where your mouth is" will look into whether or not Purism is accepting investments and what the terms are. AAPL valuations are pretty lofty right now at ~$149 a share if you'd be interested in the reverse :)
mdoms 5y ago
Year of the Linux ~desktop~ telephone.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

quickthrowman 5y ago

> and if it cone to market will cause a severe loss of market share. AAPL closed 90 cents short of an all time high share price today. Why isn’t the market pricing in the loss of market share?

Clubber 5y ago
Because stock price is based on investors reactions to quarterly reports. Any loss in market share, if seen, will come when people usually buy new devices every x years don't. It's a hit to their brand from technically knowledgable people for sure though. When someone asks their tech friend if they should buy Apple, more people will likely say, "yabut," or "nah." We'll see if that makes a difference in a year or three. To me, it just feels icky. I'm sick of all the spying. I've been in computers since the Commodore. The current computer world is shit because of spying. It killed any passion I had left. It seems like no last vestige of privacy remains.
- quickthrowman 5y ago
  Stock valuation models get updated a bit more frequently than quarterly, new information is incorporated into the share price all the time.

ineedasername 5y ago

The person above you gave an example of confusion. I'll admit that I was confused about how this new system would work as well. So there was confusion. As for market share, this might barely register on people's radar outside the tech community beyond "Apple is trying to prevent child porn."

tdsamardzhiev 5y ago

And who exactly will the market share go to? Do you thing the privacy-conscious folks will go to Google? Or a dumbphone? Or Purism maybe? I mean, no need to fret over my photos if I can't take photos, right?

Matthias1 5y ago

Here's an example of a confused commenter in this very thread. => https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28175002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28175002 There are legitimate privacy concerns, and Hacker News users are right to be upset. But that's not an excuse to pretend like this issue is broadly understood.