6 ms·

Because Apple makes its money by selling you hardware and services, not by selling advertising. Companies ultimately serve whoever they make their money from;

Because Apple makes its money by selling you hardware and services, not by selling advertising. Companies ultimately serve whoever they make their money from; and none of the other big tech players have a comprehensive business model where the end user is the customer instead of the product. And because it has positioned itself as the single most prominent privacy-conscious champion in big tech through repeated actions over the course of many years. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Apple depending on where your priorities are (lack of openness and cultivating an ecosystem based on locking you into it by not interoperating with anyone else are great places to start); but it's hard to make an argument that anyone else in big tech even comes close to the amount of trustworthiness Apple has demonstrated for their users. The fact that Apple actually pushing an ad to its users is headline news speaks volumes to the trust they've earned (and damaged by doing so). Do you think it'd make headlines if Google showed its users an ad? Or Microsoft? Or Meta?

charcircuit 1y ago
Privacy and advertising are not mutually exclusive.
- triska 1y ago
  Privacy is also about having control over your own space, both physically and digitally, and being free from unwanted intrusion or interference. For me, such a notification is an unwanted intrusion, and it is not compatible with privacy.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Almondsetat 1y ago
  Privacy and targeted advertising are, which is the name of the game
- tommoose 1y ago
  This is technically correct, but supporting examples are statistically insignificant.
- pmontra 1y ago
  Advertising on old style TV, newspapers, billboards did not impact on privacy. Even non targeted advertising on the web can impact privacy because our browsers send requests to the ad servers and that's the beginning of fingerprinting, even with Javascript disabled.
  - trinix912 1y ago
    The only way it would work on the web while fully preserving privacy would be if (1) ads were stored on the server of the website you're accessing or proxied by it, and (2) the website owner would never give the ad provider server logs. It can be done (and used to be).
    - Xss3 1y ago
      When i first got into web hosting in the early noughties this is how i remember it being done. Want to advertise my game server on some site? Provide an image url and a link url. That was it.
JimDabell 1y ago
> And because it has positioned itself as the single most prominent privacy-conscious champion in big tech through repeated actions over the course of many years. I just want to highlight this because Hacker News can be incredibly dismissive about this. Apple’s focus on privacy is a competitive advantage. Consumers value it, and Apple’s competitors have business models that undermine it. Even if you think Tim Cook is the literal devil and Apple will do absolutely anything for a buck, Apple’s focus on privacy is still relevant. Privacy is valuable to Apple. It’s a wedge they can use against their competitors. Google doesn’t make their fortune selling hardware, they make it selling ads. Privacy is something that gets in the way of Google’s profits. Because Apple are in this position, it’s profitable to them to champion privacy. It’s something they can do that’s valuable to customers that their competitors are at a disadvantage with. You don’t have to be a fan of Apple, and you don’t have to trust Apple. All you have to do is believe they want to make money. Being pro-privacy is profitable to Apple, and so they act accordingly.
- bambax 1y ago
  The incident we are discussing absolutely disproves this! Apple is happy to jeopardize privacy and the very idea of it, for a quick buck blasting an ad to all its users. They don't care one way or the other. But the truth is, nobody really cares about privacy, least of all, users. Nobody ever bought an iPhone because of "privacy"; people buy iPhones because they work, and because they seem cool. Everyone's happy to hand over data to any service. Facebook has three billion users.
  - JimDabell 1y ago
    The reason why even the most die-hard Apple fans are up in arms about this is because it’s such a break from Apple’s normal standards. It’s the exception that proves the rule. This harms Apple more than it benefits them.
  - kasey_junk 1y ago
    No, it proves that large organizations have competing priorities and that they can make bad decisions.
bambax 1y ago
> lack of openness Lack of openness means lack of privacy. If we can't install apps on the side that have proper adblock filtering, then all the promises in the world are hollow.
- Veen 1y ago
  Lack of openness means a lack of privacy in theory, but in practice, openness often results in less privacy. The average user lacks the knowledge, time, and motivation to install and configure open systems to maximize privacy. They're likely to make mistakes that expose private data. A closed system that prioritizes privacy will result in more users benefiting from greater privacy overall, even if it does give the platform more control than is ideal. And that's the issue with the wallet ads: Apple makes users more secure on average, but it depends on user trust, which it just betrayed. Those who can take advantage of total control are a minority, and they are not really the people Apple cares about.
  - holowoodman 1y ago
    A non-open system is not verifyable and therefore not trustable. Therefore a non-open system can never deliver privacy. At best it can attempt to trick you into believing it does.
    - Veen 1y ago
      Risk isn’t an absolute. Open systems may be verifiable, but they are also more difficult to use, inconvenient, and lack the features users want. So most people won’t use them or will use them badly. Apple reduces privacy risk relative to open solutions used by non-expert users. The purist approach to privacy increases risk to ordinary users. It’s better to be pragmatic; Apple isn’t ideal, but it’s better than the realistic alternatives.
  - Xss3 1y ago
    Such a false dichotomy that open automatically means insecure and leaky due to user error. Sensible defaults and warnings about changing them is all you need to put any argument of 'bad for privacy' down.
matthewdgreen 1y ago
Apple needs to show revenue growth every single year. Their hardware and services businesses will eventually tap out, and then they'll start mining their users for data and advertising. It's a miracle they've managed to avoid it for so long, but they will eventually be forced to. It will probably coincide with Tim Cook's retirement, unfortunately.
hibikir 1y ago
The fact that they make money doing something doesn't stop hungry PMs and VPs from pushing other revenue sources. Amazon used to sell us items, now ad sales are a big part of their storefront's revenue. Cable used to not have ads. If you aren't paying, you are the product doesn't also imply that if you paying you are definitely not the product. To the modern exec, everything and everyone is the product. I an surprised that gig economy apps aren't also selling the eyeballs of their workers, making them watch ads to work.
blibble 1y ago
> Because Apple makes its money by selling you hardware and services, not by selling advertising. have you used the app store in the last few years? I search for my bank and the first results are a load of scammy crypto app ads then my actual bank app is at result number 3 this is the sort of behaviour I would have expected from Google
eviks 1y ago
> Because Apple makes its money by selling you hardware and services, not by selling advertising. and by selling ads, seriously, just open their app store. > And because it has positioned itself And they can continue that while simultaneously doing the opposite. There is no law against inconsistent behavior > Do you think it'd make headlines if Google showed its users an ad? Or Microsoft? Or Meta? Yes, of course, that's easy to find via a 5 sec google search https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/12/24128640/microsoft-windows-11-start-menu-ads-app-recommendations https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/12/24128640/microsoft-window... https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/5/23712440/gmail-ads-more-annoying-middle-inbox https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/5/23712440/gmail-ads-more-an...

charcircuit 1y ago

Privacy and advertising are not mutually exclusive.

triska 1y ago
Privacy is also about having control over your own space, both physically and digitally, and being free from unwanted intrusion or interference. For me, such a notification is an unwanted intrusion, and it is not compatible with privacy.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Almondsetat 1y ago
Privacy and targeted advertising are, which is the name of the game
tommoose 1y ago
This is technically correct, but supporting examples are statistically insignificant.
pmontra 1y ago
Advertising on old style TV, newspapers, billboards did not impact on privacy. Even non targeted advertising on the web can impact privacy because our browsers send requests to the ad servers and that's the beginning of fingerprinting, even with Javascript disabled.
- trinix912 1y ago
  The only way it would work on the web while fully preserving privacy would be if (1) ads were stored on the server of the website you're accessing or proxied by it, and (2) the website owner would never give the ad provider server logs. It can be done (and used to be).
  - Xss3 1y ago
    When i first got into web hosting in the early noughties this is how i remember it being done. Want to advertise my game server on some site? Provide an image url and a link url. That was it.

JimDabell 1y ago

> And because it has positioned itself as the single most prominent privacy-conscious champion in big tech through repeated actions over the course of many years. I just want to highlight this because Hacker News can be incredibly dismissive about this. Apple’s focus on privacy is a competitive advantage. Consumers value it, and Apple’s competitors have business models that undermine it. Even if you think Tim Cook is the literal devil and Apple will do absolutely anything for a buck, Apple’s focus on privacy is still relevant. Privacy is valuable to Apple. It’s a wedge they can use against their competitors. Google doesn’t make their fortune selling hardware, they make it selling ads. Privacy is something that gets in the way of Google’s profits. Because Apple are in this position, it’s profitable to them to champion privacy. It’s something they can do that’s valuable to customers that their competitors are at a disadvantage with. You don’t have to be a fan of Apple, and you don’t have to trust Apple. All you have to do is believe they want to make money. Being pro-privacy is profitable to Apple, and so they act accordingly.

bambax 1y ago
The incident we are discussing absolutely disproves this! Apple is happy to jeopardize privacy and the very idea of it, for a quick buck blasting an ad to all its users. They don't care one way or the other. But the truth is, nobody really cares about privacy, least of all, users. Nobody ever bought an iPhone because of "privacy"; people buy iPhones because they work, and because they seem cool. Everyone's happy to hand over data to any service. Facebook has three billion users.
- JimDabell 1y ago
  The reason why even the most die-hard Apple fans are up in arms about this is because it’s such a break from Apple’s normal standards. It’s the exception that proves the rule. This harms Apple more than it benefits them.
- kasey_junk 1y ago
  No, it proves that large organizations have competing priorities and that they can make bad decisions.

bambax 1y ago

> lack of openness Lack of openness means lack of privacy. If we can't install apps on the side that have proper adblock filtering, then all the promises in the world are hollow.

Veen 1y ago
Lack of openness means a lack of privacy in theory, but in practice, openness often results in less privacy. The average user lacks the knowledge, time, and motivation to install and configure open systems to maximize privacy. They're likely to make mistakes that expose private data. A closed system that prioritizes privacy will result in more users benefiting from greater privacy overall, even if it does give the platform more control than is ideal. And that's the issue with the wallet ads: Apple makes users more secure on average, but it depends on user trust, which it just betrayed. Those who can take advantage of total control are a minority, and they are not really the people Apple cares about.
- holowoodman 1y ago
  A non-open system is not verifyable and therefore not trustable. Therefore a non-open system can never deliver privacy. At best it can attempt to trick you into believing it does.
  - Veen 1y ago
    Risk isn’t an absolute. Open systems may be verifiable, but they are also more difficult to use, inconvenient, and lack the features users want. So most people won’t use them or will use them badly. Apple reduces privacy risk relative to open solutions used by non-expert users. The purist approach to privacy increases risk to ordinary users. It’s better to be pragmatic; Apple isn’t ideal, but it’s better than the realistic alternatives.
- Xss3 1y ago
  Such a false dichotomy that open automatically means insecure and leaky due to user error. Sensible defaults and warnings about changing them is all you need to put any argument of 'bad for privacy' down.

matthewdgreen 1y ago

Apple needs to show revenue growth every single year. Their hardware and services businesses will eventually tap out, and then they'll start mining their users for data and advertising. It's a miracle they've managed to avoid it for so long, but they will eventually be forced to. It will probably coincide with Tim Cook's retirement, unfortunately.

hibikir 1y ago

The fact that they make money doing something doesn't stop hungry PMs and VPs from pushing other revenue sources. Amazon used to sell us items, now ad sales are a big part of their storefront's revenue. Cable used to not have ads. If you aren't paying, you are the product doesn't also imply that if you paying you are definitely not the product. To the modern exec, everything and everyone is the product. I an surprised that gig economy apps aren't also selling the eyeballs of their workers, making them watch ads to work.

blibble 1y ago

> Because Apple makes its money by selling you hardware and services, not by selling advertising. have you used the app store in the last few years? I search for my bank and the first results are a load of scammy crypto app ads then my actual bank app is at result number 3 this is the sort of behaviour I would have expected from Google

eviks 1y ago

> Because Apple makes its money by selling you hardware and services, not by selling advertising. and by selling ads, seriously, just open their app store. > And because it has positioned itself And they can continue that while simultaneously doing the opposite. There is no law against inconsistent behavior > Do you think it'd make headlines if Google showed its users an ad? Or Microsoft? Or Meta? Yes, of course, that's easy to find via a 5 sec google search https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/12/24128640/microsoft-windows-11-start-menu-ads-app-recommendations https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/12/24128640/microsoft-window... https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/5/23712440/gmail-ads-more-annoying-middle-inbox https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/5/23712440/gmail-ads-more-an...