6 ms·
Feels more like their standard move, lock out competitors so they can control it for their own profit. Not that I mind them fucking with advertisers, but let's
by fezfight 4y ago
Feels more like their standard move, lock out competitors so they can control it for their own profit.
Not that I mind them fucking with advertisers, but let's not pretend Apple is benevolent here.
- joshstrange 4y agoThey aren't benevolent but there is such a thing as a mutually beneficial relationship. I'm fine with people making money off advertisement as long as they aren't selling my data directly and the number of companies I trust to do that is very low. In a lot of ways targeted ads and the like can be beneficial, it's about connecting people selling something the the people who want/need that thing, the problem is when data companies can just hoover up or buy that data and do gross things with it.
- bee_rider 4y agoI don't trust any company to do it because: * Even the competent companies have data leaks. * Even the competent companies will give it up if their government comes knocking. * Even a company which is relatively ethical now might someday be taken over by nickle-and-dime management.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- LadyCailin 4y agoThat's fine, but then you shouldn't give your info to apple at all. Or google, or facebook, or microsoft, or amazon, or ycombinator, for that matter. The fact is, unless you want to be a luddite (which you aren't, you're here, with an account, at least) then you have to trust at least some of these companies. So the question is, which ones can generally be trusted, and which can't? I personally trust apple more than facebook, ycombinator more than amazon, etc. Your ordering might be different, and that's fine, but you're drawing a bright line there, which only hurts yourself.
- smoldesu 4y ago> So the question is, which ones can generally be trusted, and which can't? Let's see... pretty much any of the companies listed as PRISM-compliant back during the Snowden leaks? It's fun to be pedantic about security, but Facebook and Apple both phone home to the NSA at the end of the day. Quibbling about these differences is a zero-sum game, since FAANG's lowest common denominator is total surveillance.
- heavyset_go 4y agoNot sure if you're aware, but this is the classic tu quoque fallacy on display.
- bee_rider 4y agoI don't think we need to trust these entities in order to interact with them. Unfortunately some information has to be leaked to engage with modern society, it is just a matter of trying to minimize it to the extent possible. It isn't trust, it is an exchange.
- LtWorf 4y agoCompanies need to increase revenue, so even if they don't do it right now there is no guarantee they will not.
- simonh 4y agoThey have consciously chosen to give up dozens of billions in potential revenue, because it would be against their customer's interests. That's got to count for something.
- philjohn 4y agoNot recalling AirTags until the privacy implications are fixed, says otherwise.
- simonh 4y agoIt can be both true that they have potential privacy problems with a product, and that they have given up dozens of billions in potential revenue due to privacy concerns.
- micromacrofoot 4y agoTile predated AirTags for nearly a decade and is still worse on privacy today. If you want to argue that consumer-level trackers shouldn't exist, that's fine, but it's not at all unique to Apple. Personally I don't think it's a solvable problem, and they shouldn't exist at all.
- philjohn 4y agoTile never became ubiquitous though - but yes, I agree, if it can't be done in a way that can be abused, it shouldn't be a product. But money talks, and Apple have decided they're comfortable with the risks because it's another brick in their ecosystem wall, and makes them money.
- Firmwarrior 4y agoAny half-competent EE can throw together the equivalent of a Tile or AirTag with off the shelf parts nowadays. That genie is out of the bottle and has been for years and years
- 4y ago
- threeseed 4y agoThis position doesn't even make any sense. - Google has a monopoly on ads on Google Search. - Facebook has a monopoly on ads on Facebook, Instagram etc. - Apple has a monopoly on ads on App Store, News+ etc. Every company has a monopoly on ads on their own properties.
- jensensbutton 4y agoThe issue is Apple considers anything running on an iphone to be their property.
- askafriend 4y agoHave you ever used a Nintendo Switch?
- threeseed 4y agoNo you can get a developer license and run anything you like.
- fezfight 4y agoThat costs 100 dollars a year. And you can't share what you made with anyone without getting Apples permission.