4 ms·

Because the EFF reliably argues that what apple is doing is "bad" and we should open things up so default (govt) laws apply instead of the apple walled garden r

Because the EFF reliably argues that what apple is doing is "bad" and we should open things up so default (govt) laws apply instead of the apple walled garden rules. What has happened is apple has taken on things that EFF / govt have failed to succeed at in the broader internet / app / tech space. They are leveraging their market power to demand concessions that users would NEVER get negotiating individually, and that govt has completely ignored in the online marketplace world. These are things as simple as crystal clear trial terms where ongoing monthly cost is in EXACT same font as promo rates and much more. Why isn't that the rule everywhere? Even if it was the rule, where is the enforcement? We see overseas call center scammers ripping off folks blatantly day and night - crickets. So the moralizing from these folks who seem to do nothing to solve real programs is tiresome. The market is speaking, and it's away from trust in govt and eff and into trust in Apple with correspondingly insane profit margins to apple as trust is substituted. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but I'd like to see a LOT more done by govt against MANY MANY pure online scams and bad behavior. Instead, EFF and the govt are fixated on folks like apple that frankly are showing the EFF up horribly by creating spaces online that users like. And yes, that includes the CSAM content stuff that EFF freaked out about. Average users will WANT these controls for their kids etc.

simondotau 4y ago
My trust of Apple is derived from observing how they make money. Applying the same analysis, I can't say the same for the US Government or my own country's government. Or even the EFF, which (and I realise this is a controversial thing to say) does NOT have any economic incentive to protect my privacy.
Apocryphon 4y ago
> The market is speaking, and it's away from trust in govt and eff and into trust in Apple with correspondingly insane profit margins to apple as trust is substituted. That's not how the market works. Consumers don't like, choose to funnel donations away from the EFF/taxes away from the government to Apple on the basis of "trust" in terms of all of this specific debate on privacy and the walled garden.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  But that is what they are doing. They don't feel safe in the EFF / govt controlled internet at large. They are constantly ripped off, scam called, misled and hassled elsewhere. Everything from lying promo offers that jump hugely after X days, hard to cancel subscriptions and endless bad behavior such as spam calls / texts and emails and mail with misleading headlines (urgent: last chance). Our representatives are no better. I donated to the "defenders of rights" the democrats last cycle. You are SCREWED if you do this, you CANNOT get off their mailing list, because they resell your name 100x - your rights, in practice, are FAR secondary to their need for power and your money. They epitomize horrible behavior as they preach about tech CEO's, it's totally pathetic. More on the dems good behavior here: https://medium.com/@jjdanek/ngp-van-and-the-endless-deluge-of-political-spam-email-a10f05255531 https://medium.com/@jjdanek/ngp-van-and-the-endless-deluge-o... I'm sure republicans are no better, but I don't donate to them so have no clue. So yes, when it comes to user trust, folks are picking a corporation (Apple) vs their govt reps (dems and republicans). What you learn in business is TRUST is literally the highest margin product you can have. You can sell the EXACT same product, but if you are trusted, you can charge more, the value of a trusted brand is huge. And apple has a trusted brand on metrics that matter to most users (and hated by scammers trying to exploit them). Folks like match.com are exploiters with a TON of scam / dark behavior in their playbook, even as they fight apple for "users". And apple knows this. Here is something interesting - when Apple sponsors something, because their brand is so strong, they often don't have a nonprofit announce their sponsorship AT ALL. They don't need the brand buff. So you won't (normally) see titles like "The Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta, powered by ExxonMobil" with Apple as a sponsor.
  - hyperdimension 4y ago
    I don't know if you're the author of that medium post, but instead of privacy@ and support@, the author/you really need(s) to be emailing legal@. They're the ones who can 'softly nudge' the rest of the organization into compliance.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Most users don't care about any of that stuff, they just like how Apple products look and feel, they are not thinking about all of these issues. I just feel like the previous comment was setting up a false dichotomy to argue for popular support for a position most people aren't even aware of.

simondotau 4y ago

My trust of Apple is derived from observing how they make money. Applying the same analysis, I can't say the same for the US Government or my own country's government. Or even the EFF, which (and I realise this is a controversial thing to say) does NOT have any economic incentive to protect my privacy.

Apocryphon 4y ago

> The market is speaking, and it's away from trust in govt and eff and into trust in Apple with correspondingly insane profit margins to apple as trust is substituted. That's not how the market works. Consumers don't like, choose to funnel donations away from the EFF/taxes away from the government to Apple on the basis of "trust" in terms of all of this specific debate on privacy and the walled garden.

onphonenow 4y ago
But that is what they are doing. They don't feel safe in the EFF / govt controlled internet at large. They are constantly ripped off, scam called, misled and hassled elsewhere. Everything from lying promo offers that jump hugely after X days, hard to cancel subscriptions and endless bad behavior such as spam calls / texts and emails and mail with misleading headlines (urgent: last chance). Our representatives are no better. I donated to the "defenders of rights" the democrats last cycle. You are SCREWED if you do this, you CANNOT get off their mailing list, because they resell your name 100x - your rights, in practice, are FAR secondary to their need for power and your money. They epitomize horrible behavior as they preach about tech CEO's, it's totally pathetic. More on the dems good behavior here: https://medium.com/@jjdanek/ngp-van-and-the-endless-deluge-of-political-spam-email-a10f05255531 https://medium.com/@jjdanek/ngp-van-and-the-endless-deluge-o... I'm sure republicans are no better, but I don't donate to them so have no clue. So yes, when it comes to user trust, folks are picking a corporation (Apple) vs their govt reps (dems and republicans). What you learn in business is TRUST is literally the highest margin product you can have. You can sell the EXACT same product, but if you are trusted, you can charge more, the value of a trusted brand is huge. And apple has a trusted brand on metrics that matter to most users (and hated by scammers trying to exploit them). Folks like match.com are exploiters with a TON of scam / dark behavior in their playbook, even as they fight apple for "users". And apple knows this. Here is something interesting - when Apple sponsors something, because their brand is so strong, they often don't have a nonprofit announce their sponsorship AT ALL. They don't need the brand buff. So you won't (normally) see titles like "The Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta, powered by ExxonMobil" with Apple as a sponsor.
- hyperdimension 4y ago
  I don't know if you're the author of that medium post, but instead of privacy@ and support@, the author/you really need(s) to be emailing legal@. They're the ones who can 'softly nudge' the rest of the organization into compliance.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Most users don't care about any of that stuff, they just like how Apple products look and feel, they are not thinking about all of these issues. I just feel like the previous comment was setting up a false dichotomy to argue for popular support for a position most people aren't even aware of.