5 ms·

> I can't trust that Apple is honest about their privacy commitments This is a funny comment for me to read. Did anyone honestly think that Apple was touting p

> I can't trust that Apple is honest about their privacy commitments This is a funny comment for me to read. Did anyone honestly think that Apple was touting privacy as anything other than a competitive advantage for revenue maximization? They've had things like iAd, their services revenue has grown massively as hardware sales plateau, and they are nowhere near as "private" in certain countries either.

xpe 2y ago
I agree, but I might phrase it a little bit differently. I recommend thinking about corporate stances as actions and interests, not moral intentions. Don’t expect a corporation to do things for moral reasons. Trust them only to the extent that their actions are in their self interest. To be fair, some organizations do have charters and interests that make them more palatable than others. One takeaway to startups that hope to stand for something even after tremendous growth and leadership changes: you have to build governance and accountability structures into your organizational DNA if you truly want specific values to persist over the long run.
- Tarq0n 2y ago
  Sadly the openAI debacle has undermined faith in those kinds of structures as well.
  - Wobbles42 2y ago
    This is probably a good thing -- faith in such structures was never justified. Any relationship with a corporate entity is transactional in nature. A great deal of effort is often expended to manipulate us into feeling otherwise, but that is all it is. Companies don't have feelings. They aren't conscious entities with a capacity for guilt or morality. They are, in essence, software applications designed to execute on systems composed of human employees. In a sense they are the original AI agents.
    - syndeo 2y ago
      The end of that comment took me pretty quickly from "software applications?? nah" to "oh wow, y'know that's actually a pretty apt analogy"
  - xpe 2y ago
    Yes, OpenAI demonstrated one way not-for-profits can be commandeered. Altman appears to be quite astute at gaining power. Every organizational design and structure has the potential to be subverted. Like cybersecurity, there are many tradeoffs to consider: continuity, adaptability, mission flexibility, and more. And they don’t exist in isolation. People are often going to seek influence and power one way or the other. One more thing. Just because it is hard doesn’t mean we should work less hard on building organizations with durable values.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- amelius 2y ago
  Therefore it's better to stay the hell away from companies who actively seek to take away your freedom.
  - Wobbles42 2y ago
    I don't think there are any companies that care one way or the other about taking away your freedom. Companies are revenue maximizers, period. The ones that aren't quickly get displaced by ones that are. The simpler test is to stay away from any company that has anything to gain by taking away your freedom. THAT unfortunately is most of them. The depressing reality in consumer tech is that anything with a CPU doesn't belong to you, doesn't work for you, and will never do more than pretend to act in your best interest.
    - amelius 2y ago
      I've been running Linux on Intel/AMD boxes for decades without any such problems.
      - syndeo 2y ago
        Heard of the Intel Management Engine? https://www.zdnet.com/article/minix-intels-hidden-in-chip-operating-system/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/minix-intels-hidden-in-chip-op... Little doubt AMD has something similar.
        FMecha 2y ago
        AMD brands it AMD Secure Technology/Platform Security Processor, and the same backdoor concern is there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processo...
        amelius 2y ago
        Yeah but ultimately it's the US government doing that, not Intel. There is no business model behind it.
    - 2y ago
PaulRobinson 2y ago
iAd is stated as being built differently to how other adtech networks work. I personally believe that Apple is able to make different (better), choices in the name of a consumer privacy, than Google will. Android is built from the ground up to provide surveillance data to Google-controlled adtech - that's their revenue model. I don't begrudge them that, people should have choice, etc. but the revenue model is adtech first and foremost. Apple want services revenue, they like services revenue, but historically they're a vertically integrated tech platform manufacturer whose revenue model is building better platforms consumers want. It's true that the services model may start to compromise that - and they've definitely started to make some poor choices they might need to pull back on to protect the core platform model - but I do think we're not comparing like with like when we say that Apple is no different to any other company in this space.
- saagarjha 2y ago
  iAd doesn't exist anymore.
  - bluedevilzn 2y ago
    Yes but this exists - ads.apple.com
    - saagarjha 2y ago
      Those are App Store search ads I think
- kelvinjps10 2y ago
  You can use Android without Google
  - hajile 2y ago
    In practical terms, you can't without switching to another company with an android variant that is just as bad.
petesergeant 2y ago
I have no trouble believing a gay boomer from the South instinctively cares about personal privacy; he will have spent much of his early life needing to be very protective of his.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  That is why he does service in China where the government has full access to all cloud data.
- Wobbles42 2y ago
  I would agree that most people with that exact background would have learned the hard way to care about privacy. The single example that ascended to be the CEO of Apple though? That selection process would seem more relevant than any personal background. My base assumption is that any impressions we have about Tim Cook (or any other executive of a company that size) are a carefully crafted artifact of marketing and PR. He may be a real person behind the scenes, but his (and everyone's) media persona is a fictional character he is portraying.
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    It feels like if you'd expect someone to be something based on their background, _and_ they profess to be that thing, then the onus is on the person disputing it to come up with the evidence contra? > any impressions we have about Tim Cook ... is a fictional character he is portraying The relevant ones here are that he's gay, of a certain age, and from the South, and that he heads up a company who appear to invest heavily, over a long period of time, in privacy protections -- these all feel like they'd be easy to falsify if there existed evidence to the contrary.
AnonHP 2y ago
[dead]
firefax 2y ago
>Did anyone honestly think that Apple was touting privacy as anything other than a competitive advantage for revenue maximization? I think they're more willing to build out privacy enhancing features than other companies that don't rely on surveillance capitalism to make their money. "Small" things like Filevault add up.
fennecbutt 2y ago
Yup exactly. Do people jot remember that Apple never gave a damn about privacy for the longest time, then when Google, Facebook and others' ingestion of "meta data" became the public issue du jour that is when Apple started pushing the whole privacy thing. It's a selling point, nothing more.

xpe 2y ago

I agree, but I might phrase it a little bit differently. I recommend thinking about corporate stances as actions and interests, not moral intentions. Don’t expect a corporation to do things for moral reasons. Trust them only to the extent that their actions are in their self interest. To be fair, some organizations do have charters and interests that make them more palatable than others. One takeaway to startups that hope to stand for something even after tremendous growth and leadership changes: you have to build governance and accountability structures into your organizational DNA if you truly want specific values to persist over the long run.

Tarq0n 2y ago
Sadly the openAI debacle has undermined faith in those kinds of structures as well.
- Wobbles42 2y ago
  This is probably a good thing -- faith in such structures was never justified. Any relationship with a corporate entity is transactional in nature. A great deal of effort is often expended to manipulate us into feeling otherwise, but that is all it is. Companies don't have feelings. They aren't conscious entities with a capacity for guilt or morality. They are, in essence, software applications designed to execute on systems composed of human employees. In a sense they are the original AI agents.
  - syndeo 2y ago
    The end of that comment took me pretty quickly from "software applications?? nah" to "oh wow, y'know that's actually a pretty apt analogy"
- xpe 2y ago
  Yes, OpenAI demonstrated one way not-for-profits can be commandeered. Altman appears to be quite astute at gaining power. Every organizational design and structure has the potential to be subverted. Like cybersecurity, there are many tradeoffs to consider: continuity, adaptability, mission flexibility, and more. And they don’t exist in isolation. People are often going to seek influence and power one way or the other. One more thing. Just because it is hard doesn’t mean we should work less hard on building organizations with durable values.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
amelius 2y ago
Therefore it's better to stay the hell away from companies who actively seek to take away your freedom.
- Wobbles42 2y ago
  I don't think there are any companies that care one way or the other about taking away your freedom. Companies are revenue maximizers, period. The ones that aren't quickly get displaced by ones that are. The simpler test is to stay away from any company that has anything to gain by taking away your freedom. THAT unfortunately is most of them. The depressing reality in consumer tech is that anything with a CPU doesn't belong to you, doesn't work for you, and will never do more than pretend to act in your best interest.
  - amelius 2y ago
    I've been running Linux on Intel/AMD boxes for decades without any such problems.
    - syndeo 2y ago
      Heard of the Intel Management Engine? https://www.zdnet.com/article/minix-intels-hidden-in-chip-operating-system/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/minix-intels-hidden-in-chip-op... Little doubt AMD has something similar.
      - FMecha 2y ago
        AMD brands it AMD Secure Technology/Platform Security Processor, and the same backdoor concern is there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processo...
      - amelius 2y ago
        Yeah but ultimately it's the US government doing that, not Intel. There is no business model behind it.
  - 2y ago

PaulRobinson 2y ago

iAd is stated as being built differently to how other adtech networks work. I personally believe that Apple is able to make different (better), choices in the name of a consumer privacy, than Google will. Android is built from the ground up to provide surveillance data to Google-controlled adtech - that's their revenue model. I don't begrudge them that, people should have choice, etc. but the revenue model is adtech first and foremost. Apple want services revenue, they like services revenue, but historically they're a vertically integrated tech platform manufacturer whose revenue model is building better platforms consumers want. It's true that the services model may start to compromise that - and they've definitely started to make some poor choices they might need to pull back on to protect the core platform model - but I do think we're not comparing like with like when we say that Apple is no different to any other company in this space.

saagarjha 2y ago
iAd doesn't exist anymore.
- bluedevilzn 2y ago
  Yes but this exists - ads.apple.com
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    Those are App Store search ads I think
kelvinjps10 2y ago
You can use Android without Google
- hajile 2y ago
  In practical terms, you can't without switching to another company with an android variant that is just as bad.

petesergeant 2y ago

I have no trouble believing a gay boomer from the South instinctively cares about personal privacy; he will have spent much of his early life needing to be very protective of his.

ImJamal 2y ago
That is why he does service in China where the government has full access to all cloud data.
Wobbles42 2y ago
I would agree that most people with that exact background would have learned the hard way to care about privacy. The single example that ascended to be the CEO of Apple though? That selection process would seem more relevant than any personal background. My base assumption is that any impressions we have about Tim Cook (or any other executive of a company that size) are a carefully crafted artifact of marketing and PR. He may be a real person behind the scenes, but his (and everyone's) media persona is a fictional character he is portraying.
- petesergeant 2y ago
  It feels like if you'd expect someone to be something based on their background, _and_ they profess to be that thing, then the onus is on the person disputing it to come up with the evidence contra? > any impressions we have about Tim Cook ... is a fictional character he is portraying The relevant ones here are that he's gay, of a certain age, and from the South, and that he heads up a company who appear to invest heavily, over a long period of time, in privacy protections -- these all feel like they'd be easy to falsify if there existed evidence to the contrary.

AnonHP 2y ago

[dead]

firefax 2y ago

>Did anyone honestly think that Apple was touting privacy as anything other than a competitive advantage for revenue maximization? I think they're more willing to build out privacy enhancing features than other companies that don't rely on surveillance capitalism to make their money. "Small" things like Filevault add up.

fennecbutt 2y ago

Yup exactly. Do people jot remember that Apple never gave a damn about privacy for the longest time, then when Google, Facebook and others' ingestion of "meta data" became the public issue du jour that is when Apple started pushing the whole privacy thing. It's a selling point, nothing more.