5 ms·

It's pretty clear that Apple is positioning themselves in stark contrast to Google, they want to be the privacy/security company. Internet companies with advert

by IBM 12y ago

nitrogen 12y ago
It's pretty clear that Apple is positioning themselves in stark contrast to Google, they want to be the privacy/security company. Internet companies with advertising business models are a dime a dozen so that is a real advantage that differentiates Apple. It's difficult to reconcile this claim with their participation in PRISM et. al., previous long-term storage of cell tower locations, ownership of a mobile ad network, and wanton abuse of the patent system to stifle competition.
- viscanti 12y ago
  > and wanton abuse of the patent system to stifle competition. Use (or abuse) of the patent system seems entirely orthogonal to privacy/security.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    But definitely contradicts a "good citizen/respects you" persona.
    - goldfeld 12y ago
      Big corps would be hard pressed to be "good citizens" or bear anything resembling respectfulness. They're a multitude of individuals with often conflicting interests who are all given the general direction of going for profit. Maybe an exception could be a big company where a founder who really puts his grand vision/values above anything else is still in control, which is not the case (or has ever been for Apple.)
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        User IBM's original comment was that Apple is going for the "privacy/security" persona, which is kind of impossible if they're not also acting as a "good citizen" worthy of trust with one's privacy and security.
        nitrogen 12y ago
        Thanks, everyone, for reminding me why I stopped reading and commenting on Apple-related threads on HN. 27+ downvotes later, I still haven't changed my mind, but if you wish to try, logic works better than weak justifications for exploitative, sociopathic corporate behavior and targeted downvoting.
        josai 12y ago
        I don't think your downvotes relate to criticising Apple per se; they're due to a poor argument style. I am no great fan of Apple, but hurling vague accusations and FUD, then shifting the goalposts when anyone tries to refute you, adds little to the conversation besides noise. > I still haven't changed my mind Well you should have. You've been thoroughly shot down. The fact you don't accept that says more about you than anyone else.
        nitrogen 12y ago
        Thanks for your comment. Consider my response below to apply to the thread, not just to your comment specifically. ------ I don't think your downvotes relate to criticising Apple per se; they're due to a poor argument style. I'll admit I haven't invested my best efforts into my comments on this thread, but where other than an Apple thread would every single comment by one person be downvoted beyond -4? It's not worth the effort if one knows one's comments will be grayed out anyway. Even mpyne's much more thorough comment was downvoted, so it's clear that the downvotes aren't strictly targeting poor argumentation. Furthermore, if that were the case, there's no reason to target every single comment by a person equally, as inevitably some of them must be better argued than others. ------ then shifting the goalposts when anyone tries to refute you I never shifted any goalposts. All I said was that it's difficult to reconcile user IBM's claim that Apple wants to be the "privacy" company with their actual behavior, then provided clarifications when prompted. ------ You've been thoroughly shot down. Where? I see lots of disagreement, but no disproof. Show me the counterargument of the form, "Apple can be trusted despite these events because...". It's easy to shoot somebody down. Just yell louder. What I've yet to see is a solid refutation to any of the things I said. A downvote is argumentatively equivalent to yelling, "Shut up!" So let's see how many "Shut ups" there are, and how many refutations. It takes 5 counted downvotes to bring a comment from +1 to -4, where all of my other comments currently lie (I don't know how the HN anti-voting-ring algo turns clicks into actual downvotes, so there may be even more). However, beyond -4 points the comments can still get lighter. I'll assume that #aeaeae is the original -4 comment, since it's the darkest of my comments on this thread. I also have comments at #bebebe, #cecece and #dddddd. So I'll count #ae as 5, #be as 6, #ce as 7, and #dd as 8 or more. Original comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865747 - #dddddd - 8+ Location history - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865843 - #bebebe - 6 [Tracking] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866011 - #dddddd - 8+ [Logging] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866147 - #dddddd - 8+ Physical access - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866013 - #dddddd - 8+ Cloud sync - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866132 - #cecece - 7 Good citizen - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865835 - #dddddd - 8+ Worthy of trust - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865835 - #cecece - 7 Thanks, everyone - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866375 - #aeaeae - 5 ------ Total: 65+ downvotes That's 65 or more counts of "Shut up," not including mpyne's comment. How many actual comments? Still don't know - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865810 This again? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865877 Tracking semantics - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866094 User's devices - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865867 Do you have proof - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866098 Orthogonal - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865778 Big corps not good - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865871 ------ Total: 7 comments (4 one-liners) Only seven comments, four of which were one-liners with less content than most of my own comments. The remaining comments are mostly distractions from the actual claim, that Apple's past behavior doesn't lend itself to trust with one's privacy. So again, where's the refutation? MAC address randomization is awesome, but why can I trust Apple to take the position of the "privacy" company?
- kevinchen 12y ago
  - We still don't know whether or not the companies on the PRISM slides were participating voluntarily or even knowingly. - I don't see how constructing a database of cell tower locations violates privacy. They are beacons used for finding the user's location when they have location services turned on. - iAd is a joke of an ad network, and stores a negligible amount of user data compared to Google's. It's also relatively easy to reset tracking on iAd, for the few apps that do use it.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    - I don't see how constructing a database of cell tower locations violates privacy. They are beacons used for finding the user's location when they have location services turned on. They were storing location history: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/04/20/iphone.tracking/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/04/20/iphone.tracking/in...
    - glhaynes 12y ago
      On the user's devices.
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        Where anybody with physical access to their phone or their computer, or access to their cloud sync data, could get at it.
        feld 12y ago
        Do you have proof that it was synced to iCloud? I don't believe it ever was.
        nitrogen 12y ago
        It was definitely in computer sync data. I don't use iTunes, so couldn't say whether it went into the cloud from there. Edit: there are more ways for data to get into the "cloud" than "iCloud".
hatsix 12y ago
> It's pretty clear that Apple is positioning themselves in stark contrast to Google, they want to be the privacy/security company. Internet companies with advertising business models are a dime a dozen so that is a real advantage that differentiates Apple. Yes, Apple certainly wouldn't develop/release a product whose sole purpose is to track user's physical presence, with the primary use point being able to sell the ability to push 'app usage': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBeacon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBeacon http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/06/03/apples-ios-8-uses-ibeacon-tech-brings-location-aware-app-access-to-lock-screen http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/06/03/apples-ios-8-uses-... This is about the ability to track handsets, and how Apple wants to corner the market on tracking their own handsets.
- wikyd 12y ago
  The difference is that for iBeacon to track devices the user has to download an app related to the beacons and give permission. MAC address tracking happens without the user giving consent.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    Is it not possible to track devices based on their Bluetooth MAC?
    - jmgrosen 12y ago
      If you have discoverable mode on, sure. But typically that's specifically user-activated and only lasts for a couple of minutes.
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        I'm working at a place that uses a simple app running on a Raspberry Pi to update a dashboard whenever a known Bluetooth MAC comes into the building, with no need to turn on discoverability or pair with the Pi.
        12y ago
awhitty 12y ago
Maybe I'm a little high on design rhetoric right now, but I see this less in terms of Apple being a privacy/security company and more along the lines of Apple being a user-centered design company. No user wants their data shuffled around and sold, so any company that relies on the commodification of its users' data is inherently at odds with its users' needs.
- wmf 12y ago
  Google probably also sees themselves as user-centered by providing advanced services for free.
  - awhitty 12y ago
    I think that's the "easy way out," in a way. Sure, it's not easy to provide the services for free, but it also doesn't particularly excuse them. Like Netflix vs. YouTube. Netflix fights for your ability to stream HD videos comfortably because you pay for the service. YouTube crams a perfectly-buffered, crisp HD ad down your throat before leaving you with a video that might stutter or fail to load even at 480p. Sure, people can't complain when it's free (though they do), but I think it really limits what an experience can be, and I don't consider that particularly user-centered. Anyway, just my thoughts. Edit: Fixed some parallel structure
    - mcintyre1994 12y ago
      I've noticed on Youtube they seem to buffer really popular videos really well, things like Gangnam Style when it was being played probably to tens of thousands of simultaneous users were surprisingly good - I think they have some sort of really good buffered caching or something. I suspect they might do the same with adverts that they know will stay the same and know they will serve to many users. The disconnect is there for many videos where a perfectly buffered ad precedes a slow buffering video or something, but they seem to use that technology on some user videos too I think - or something similar.
      - moe 12y ago
JumpCrisscross 12y ago
The FT brought up a similar contrast two weeks ago when discussing Apple and Google's smart home strategies. They speculated that Apple is likely "to emphasise the privacy protections built into its smart home system... Apple considers privacy a key advantage over Google...since Google relies on targeted advertising as its main source of income" [1]. This will be an interesting competition. Google, for openness and transparency; Apple, for control and privacy. [1] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1bef71b8-e433-11e3-a73a-00144feabdc0.html http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1bef71b8-e433-11e3-a73a-00144...
- goldfeld 12y ago
  It's not really transparency when what they have on you is far more extensive than what they show you. I'd say Google is for control as much as Apple, I'll concede openness vs. privacy which both sound like something spouted out by a suit.
  - JumpCrisscross 12y ago
    > I'd say Google is for control as much as Apple, I'll concede openness vs. privacy which both sound like something spouted out by a suit. Naturally they are both vying for leverage. To borrow a line from The Lords of Strategy, "the key way to think about competitive advantage is to think about how to design ecology in such a way to achieve goals you’re trying to pursue" [1]. Apple monetises device sales. It fiercely protects those sales by ensuring everything one does in its ecosystem is done through its devices. That fortification gives it more freedom with user data, which it can play against Google by encrypting and anonymizing its users' activity. Google, on the other hand, monetises its access to user data. It fiercely protects that access by ensuring everything one does in its ecosystem runs through its servers. That fortification gives it more freedom with devices and standards, which it can play against Apple by encouraging modularity, adaptability, and customisation. [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Lords-Strategy-Intellectual-Corporate/dp/1591397820 http://www.amazon.com/The-Lords-Strategy-Intellectual-Corpor...
    - anko 12y ago
c1sc0 12y ago
This. If you have access to the developer sessions from WWDC14 I urge you to look at the HealthKit, CloudKit & TouchID stuff. "We take privacy very seriously" was a recurring theme and seeing it baked into the new APIs made me smile. Very cool & reassuring move.
- catfoods 12y ago
  I noticed this as well after watching several sessions. Definitely a good direction.
- josso 12y ago
  For anyone interested: The videos are open to the public at https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2014/ https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2014/.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> It's pretty clear that Apple is positioning themselves in stark contrast to Google, they want to be the privacy/security company. I don't see how this move is anything out of line with something Google might do. Google can track you because you're using their services on their OS. They don't need a network of WiFi access points to triangulate your location, they can just read it out of your phone's GPS receiver. Randomizing your MAC when scanning for networks is in the same nature as enabling SSL by default for Google services -- it doesn't hide anything from Google (or, as the case may be, from Apple) but it hides things from other people you don't want observing you.
zmmmmm 12y ago
On the other hand, they are also actively developing the ominously named 'iBeacon' functionality. A more cynical viewpoint would be that they are trying to sabotage any possible systems that would compete with their own proximity based marketing solution.

by IBM 12y ago

nitrogen 12y ago

It's pretty clear that Apple is positioning themselves in stark contrast to Google, they want to be the privacy/security company. Internet companies with advertising business models are a dime a dozen so that is a real advantage that differentiates Apple. It's difficult to reconcile this claim with their participation in PRISM et. al., previous long-term storage of cell tower locations, ownership of a mobile ad network, and wanton abuse of the patent system to stifle competition.

viscanti 12y ago
> and wanton abuse of the patent system to stifle competition. Use (or abuse) of the patent system seems entirely orthogonal to privacy/security.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  But definitely contradicts a "good citizen/respects you" persona.
  - goldfeld 12y ago
    Big corps would be hard pressed to be "good citizens" or bear anything resembling respectfulness. They're a multitude of individuals with often conflicting interests who are all given the general direction of going for profit. Maybe an exception could be a big company where a founder who really puts his grand vision/values above anything else is still in control, which is not the case (or has ever been for Apple.)
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      User IBM's original comment was that Apple is going for the "privacy/security" persona, which is kind of impossible if they're not also acting as a "good citizen" worthy of trust with one's privacy and security.
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        Thanks, everyone, for reminding me why I stopped reading and commenting on Apple-related threads on HN. 27+ downvotes later, I still haven't changed my mind, but if you wish to try, logic works better than weak justifications for exploitative, sociopathic corporate behavior and targeted downvoting.
        josai 12y ago
        I don't think your downvotes relate to criticising Apple per se; they're due to a poor argument style. I am no great fan of Apple, but hurling vague accusations and FUD, then shifting the goalposts when anyone tries to refute you, adds little to the conversation besides noise. > I still haven't changed my mind Well you should have. You've been thoroughly shot down. The fact you don't accept that says more about you than anyone else.
        nitrogen 12y ago
        Thanks for your comment. Consider my response below to apply to the thread, not just to your comment specifically. ------ I don't think your downvotes relate to criticising Apple per se; they're due to a poor argument style. I'll admit I haven't invested my best efforts into my comments on this thread, but where other than an Apple thread would every single comment by one person be downvoted beyond -4? It's not worth the effort if one knows one's comments will be grayed out anyway. Even mpyne's much more thorough comment was downvoted, so it's clear that the downvotes aren't strictly targeting poor argumentation. Furthermore, if that were the case, there's no reason to target every single comment by a person equally, as inevitably some of them must be better argued than others. ------ then shifting the goalposts when anyone tries to refute you I never shifted any goalposts. All I said was that it's difficult to reconcile user IBM's claim that Apple wants to be the "privacy" company with their actual behavior, then provided clarifications when prompted. ------ You've been thoroughly shot down. Where? I see lots of disagreement, but no disproof. Show me the counterargument of the form, "Apple can be trusted despite these events because...". It's easy to shoot somebody down. Just yell louder. What I've yet to see is a solid refutation to any of the things I said. A downvote is argumentatively equivalent to yelling, "Shut up!" So let's see how many "Shut ups" there are, and how many refutations. It takes 5 counted downvotes to bring a comment from +1 to -4, where all of my other comments currently lie (I don't know how the HN anti-voting-ring algo turns clicks into actual downvotes, so there may be even more). However, beyond -4 points the comments can still get lighter. I'll assume that #aeaeae is the original -4 comment, since it's the darkest of my comments on this thread. I also have comments at #bebebe, #cecece and #dddddd. So I'll count #ae as 5, #be as 6, #ce as 7, and #dd as 8 or more. Original comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865747 - #dddddd - 8+ Location history - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865843 - #bebebe - 6 [Tracking] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866011 - #dddddd - 8+ [Logging] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866147 - #dddddd - 8+ Physical access - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866013 - #dddddd - 8+ Cloud sync - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866132 - #cecece - 7 Good citizen - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865835 - #dddddd - 8+ Worthy of trust - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865835 - #cecece - 7 Thanks, everyone - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866375 - #aeaeae - 5 ------ Total: 65+ downvotes That's 65 or more counts of "Shut up," not including mpyne's comment. How many actual comments? Still don't know - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865810 This again? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865877 Tracking semantics - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866094 User's devices - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865867 Do you have proof - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866098 Orthogonal - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865778 Big corps not good - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865871 ------ Total: 7 comments (4 one-liners) Only seven comments, four of which were one-liners with less content than most of my own comments. The remaining comments are mostly distractions from the actual claim, that Apple's past behavior doesn't lend itself to trust with one's privacy. So again, where's the refutation? MAC address randomization is awesome, but why can I trust Apple to take the position of the "privacy" company?
kevinchen 12y ago
- We still don't know whether or not the companies on the PRISM slides were participating voluntarily or even knowingly. - I don't see how constructing a database of cell tower locations violates privacy. They are beacons used for finding the user's location when they have location services turned on. - iAd is a joke of an ad network, and stores a negligible amount of user data compared to Google's. It's also relatively easy to reset tracking on iAd, for the few apps that do use it.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  - I don't see how constructing a database of cell tower locations violates privacy. They are beacons used for finding the user's location when they have location services turned on. They were storing location history: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/04/20/iphone.tracking/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/04/20/iphone.tracking/in...
  - glhaynes 12y ago
    On the user's devices.
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      Where anybody with physical access to their phone or their computer, or access to their cloud sync data, could get at it.
      - feld 12y ago
        Do you have proof that it was synced to iCloud? I don't believe it ever was.
        nitrogen 12y ago
        It was definitely in computer sync data. I don't use iTunes, so couldn't say whether it went into the cloud from there. Edit: there are more ways for data to get into the "cloud" than "iCloud".

hatsix 12y ago

> It's pretty clear that Apple is positioning themselves in stark contrast to Google, they want to be the privacy/security company. Internet companies with advertising business models are a dime a dozen so that is a real advantage that differentiates Apple. Yes, Apple certainly wouldn't develop/release a product whose sole purpose is to track user's physical presence, with the primary use point being able to sell the ability to push 'app usage': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBeacon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBeacon http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/06/03/apples-ios-8-uses-ibeacon-tech-brings-location-aware-app-access-to-lock-screen http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/06/03/apples-ios-8-uses-... This is about the ability to track handsets, and how Apple wants to corner the market on tracking their own handsets.

wikyd 12y ago
The difference is that for iBeacon to track devices the user has to download an app related to the beacons and give permission. MAC address tracking happens without the user giving consent.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Is it not possible to track devices based on their Bluetooth MAC?
  - jmgrosen 12y ago
    If you have discoverable mode on, sure. But typically that's specifically user-activated and only lasts for a couple of minutes.
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      I'm working at a place that uses a simple app running on a Raspberry Pi to update a dashboard whenever a known Bluetooth MAC comes into the building, with no need to turn on discoverability or pair with the Pi.
      - 12y ago

awhitty 12y ago

Maybe I'm a little high on design rhetoric right now, but I see this less in terms of Apple being a privacy/security company and more along the lines of Apple being a user-centered design company. No user wants their data shuffled around and sold, so any company that relies on the commodification of its users' data is inherently at odds with its users' needs.

wmf 12y ago
Google probably also sees themselves as user-centered by providing advanced services for free.
- awhitty 12y ago
  I think that's the "easy way out," in a way. Sure, it's not easy to provide the services for free, but it also doesn't particularly excuse them. Like Netflix vs. YouTube. Netflix fights for your ability to stream HD videos comfortably because you pay for the service. YouTube crams a perfectly-buffered, crisp HD ad down your throat before leaving you with a video that might stutter or fail to load even at 480p. Sure, people can't complain when it's free (though they do), but I think it really limits what an experience can be, and I don't consider that particularly user-centered. Anyway, just my thoughts. Edit: Fixed some parallel structure
  - mcintyre1994 12y ago
    I've noticed on Youtube they seem to buffer really popular videos really well, things like Gangnam Style when it was being played probably to tens of thousands of simultaneous users were surprisingly good - I think they have some sort of really good buffered caching or something. I suspect they might do the same with adverts that they know will stay the same and know they will serve to many users. The disconnect is there for many videos where a perfectly buffered ad precedes a slow buffering video or something, but they seem to use that technology on some user videos too I think - or something similar.
    - moe 12y ago

JumpCrisscross 12y ago

The FT brought up a similar contrast two weeks ago when discussing Apple and Google's smart home strategies. They speculated that Apple is likely "to emphasise the privacy protections built into its smart home system... Apple considers privacy a key advantage over Google...since Google relies on targeted advertising as its main source of income" [1]. This will be an interesting competition. Google, for openness and transparency; Apple, for control and privacy. [1] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1bef71b8-e433-11e3-a73a-00144feabdc0.html http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1bef71b8-e433-11e3-a73a-00144...

goldfeld 12y ago
It's not really transparency when what they have on you is far more extensive than what they show you. I'd say Google is for control as much as Apple, I'll concede openness vs. privacy which both sound like something spouted out by a suit.
- JumpCrisscross 12y ago
  > I'd say Google is for control as much as Apple, I'll concede openness vs. privacy which both sound like something spouted out by a suit. Naturally they are both vying for leverage. To borrow a line from The Lords of Strategy, "the key way to think about competitive advantage is to think about how to design ecology in such a way to achieve goals you’re trying to pursue" [1]. Apple monetises device sales. It fiercely protects those sales by ensuring everything one does in its ecosystem is done through its devices. That fortification gives it more freedom with user data, which it can play against Google by encrypting and anonymizing its users' activity. Google, on the other hand, monetises its access to user data. It fiercely protects that access by ensuring everything one does in its ecosystem runs through its servers. That fortification gives it more freedom with devices and standards, which it can play against Apple by encouraging modularity, adaptability, and customisation. [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Lords-Strategy-Intellectual-Corporate/dp/1591397820 http://www.amazon.com/The-Lords-Strategy-Intellectual-Corpor...
  - anko 12y ago

c1sc0 12y ago

This. If you have access to the developer sessions from WWDC14 I urge you to look at the HealthKit, CloudKit & TouchID stuff. "We take privacy very seriously" was a recurring theme and seeing it baked into the new APIs made me smile. Very cool & reassuring move.

catfoods 12y ago
I noticed this as well after watching several sessions. Definitely a good direction.
josso 12y ago
For anyone interested: The videos are open to the public at https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2014/ https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2014/.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> It's pretty clear that Apple is positioning themselves in stark contrast to Google, they want to be the privacy/security company. I don't see how this move is anything out of line with something Google might do. Google can track you because you're using their services on their OS. They don't need a network of WiFi access points to triangulate your location, they can just read it out of your phone's GPS receiver. Randomizing your MAC when scanning for networks is in the same nature as enabling SSL by default for Google services -- it doesn't hide anything from Google (or, as the case may be, from Apple) but it hides things from other people you don't want observing you.

zmmmmm 12y ago

On the other hand, they are also actively developing the ominously named 'iBeacon' functionality. A more cynical viewpoint would be that they are trying to sabotage any possible systems that would compete with their own proximity based marketing solution.