5 ms·

A murderer who only murders one person instead of many is still a murderer. Given the recent reporting that Apple is aiming to build its own ad network[0] reall

A murderer who only murders one person instead of many is still a murderer. Given the recent reporting that Apple is aiming to build its own ad network[0] really puts it's privacy-first branding in perspective. This gave them plausible deniability to knock down Google a peg or two while planning to capture that territory for themselves. [0]: https://9to5mac.com/2022/08/03/apple-ads-expansion/ https://9to5mac.com/2022/08/03/apple-ads-expansion/

lelandfe 4y ago
Apple already has an ad network. And a JP Morgan analyst said that Apple’s focus on privacy will limit their ability to grow it: https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/06/15/apple-ad-business-could-reach-6b-by-2025-with-41b-from-search-ads https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/06/15/apple-ad-business... I agree that it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for them to have ads, but they do genuinely collect far less data than other platforms.
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  500 datapoints vs 10,000 is truly 20x less, but the distinction in fact has 0 meaning, both are equally bad.
  - lelandfe 4y ago
    Hm. Agree to disagree, then. It materially is impacting their ability to advertise. That's a good thing.
simonh 4y ago
A company collecting information on it's customers isn't murder. By itself it's not even unethical, after all they need to have a lot of data on customers to be able to provide many of their services. What matters is if there are actual unethical uses of that data, such as sharing with third parties that is inimical to the interests of users and to which they do not consent. Still not murder. Specifically on ads, that's actually about Apple advertising apps in the App Store, which is the store people on iOS go to to buy apps. Again, no murders involved so far as I'm aware, not even sharing data with third parties.
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  You are consciously focusing on part of argument which isnt relevant at all, everybody understands we don't talk about real murders. I strongly disagree the claim its not unethical - if I don't want to participate, I have no real way of doing so, apart form not buying their products at all. All internal settings re security lie about their behavior. Maximum security settings have only 1 morally defendable meaning - we have no business checking what user do, and respect this all the time. The fact that some search on their store may be sub-optimal is completely irrelevant. From company focusing its PR heavily on how they value their user's privacy thats highly unethical If I would be on some other forum I would use the expression "paid shills" a quite a lot here in this discussion, but I believe its mostly folks who put aside their smart and look on technology like this mainly through emotions. Which is always flawed approach long term.
  - simonh 4y ago
    Maximum security settings have only 1 morally defendable meaning - we have no business checking what user do, and respect this all the time. For example maximum security settings could include malware protection which might include application profiling, which would require logging application and therefore user activity. It just depends how you look at it.

lelandfe 4y ago

Apple already has an ad network. And a JP Morgan analyst said that Apple’s focus on privacy will limit their ability to grow it: https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/06/15/apple-ad-business-could-reach-6b-by-2025-with-41b-from-search-ads https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/06/15/apple-ad-business... I agree that it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for them to have ads, but they do genuinely collect far less data than other platforms.

saiya-jin 4y ago
500 datapoints vs 10,000 is truly 20x less, but the distinction in fact has 0 meaning, both are equally bad.
- lelandfe 4y ago
  Hm. Agree to disagree, then. It materially is impacting their ability to advertise. That's a good thing.

simonh 4y ago

A company collecting information on it's customers isn't murder. By itself it's not even unethical, after all they need to have a lot of data on customers to be able to provide many of their services. What matters is if there are actual unethical uses of that data, such as sharing with third parties that is inimical to the interests of users and to which they do not consent. Still not murder. Specifically on ads, that's actually about Apple advertising apps in the App Store, which is the store people on iOS go to to buy apps. Again, no murders involved so far as I'm aware, not even sharing data with third parties.

saiya-jin 4y ago
You are consciously focusing on part of argument which isnt relevant at all, everybody understands we don't talk about real murders. I strongly disagree the claim its not unethical - if I don't want to participate, I have no real way of doing so, apart form not buying their products at all. All internal settings re security lie about their behavior. Maximum security settings have only 1 morally defendable meaning - we have no business checking what user do, and respect this all the time. The fact that some search on their store may be sub-optimal is completely irrelevant. From company focusing its PR heavily on how they value their user's privacy thats highly unethical If I would be on some other forum I would use the expression "paid shills" a quite a lot here in this discussion, but I believe its mostly folks who put aside their smart and look on technology like this mainly through emotions. Which is always flawed approach long term.
- simonh 4y ago
  Maximum security settings have only 1 morally defendable meaning - we have no business checking what user do, and respect this all the time. For example maximum security settings could include malware protection which might include application profiling, which would require logging application and therefore user activity. It just depends how you look at it.