11 ms·

But it's still mostly bullshit, though, especially coming from a company using closed source software for most of its products. Nobody can really tell what they

But it's still mostly bullshit, though, especially coming from a company using closed source software for most of its products. Nobody can really tell what they are collecting, what they do with it and how much of it they share with third parties (including governments). If you google a bit, I bet you will find similar speeches from every single big company CEO these past years: "Privacy is our number one priority, blah blah blah". If you think Apple is different just because Tim Cook has great speech writers, you're being naive. All these companies are in it to win your private information, and we are all prepared to give them some of our private information if what we get in return is worth it. That's the game, simple.

MCRed 11y ago
It's funny how Google advocates always "bash" apple for being "closed source" when this company ships the most popular Unix in the world... and all of their products, even the watch, are based on it. Yes, they do keep the Application/UI layer closed source, but so does google ("Google Apps"). Yet google has spend years propagandizing that they are "open" while Apple is "closed" and that plays right into the latent desire to hate Apple from those who got a PC instead of a Mac when they were a kid. Apple is different because for nearly 40 years they have been honest and forthright and treating people different. Google says "don't be evil" and then goes out and does evil. Apple doesn't say it, they just don't do it. The idea that all these companies want private info and thus are all going to be evil is cynical. And it ignores the fundamental truth: Apple's product is really nice software sold in a hardware box. Google's product is your private info. The business models couldn't be more different.
- zak_mc_kracken 11y ago
  > The idea that all these companies want private info and thus are all going to be evil is cynical. "cynical: believing that people are motivated by self-interest" In a free trade, capitalistic society, companies are by definition cynical, because the ones that are not go bankrupt. > Apple is different because for nearly 40 years they have been honest and forthright and treating people different. Google says "don't be evil" and then goes out and does evil. Apple doesn't say it, they just don't do it. I was with you until that last part. I would totally be on board with you if you say Google and Apple are both equally evil because they are looking after their own interest. The fact you think that google is doing evil and Apple is not makes me think you're a bit too far gone on the fanboy side.
- jlarocco 11y ago
  > Apple is different because for nearly 40 years they have been honest and forthright and treating people different. Google says "don't be evil" and then goes out and does evil. Apple doesn't say it, they just don't do it. Google and Apple behave similarly, as far as I can tell. TBH, I wouldn't call either company "evil," but they're both equally unfriendly to users, IMO. I'm curious why you think Apple is less "evil"? > And it ignores the fundamental truth: Apple's product is really nice software sold in a hardware box. Google's product is your private info. That's not a fundamental truth, and it's a false dichotomy. Apple's products are both software/hardware AND private info.
- ac29 11y ago
  >It's funny how Google advocates always "bash" apple for being "closed source" when this company ships the most popular Unix in the world... and all of their products, even the watch, are based on it. Android ships far more units than OS X/iOS and their derivatives do.
  - sbuk 11y ago
    Android is not UNIX - it's GNU[0]/Linux-based, which is UNIX-like. iOS is also not UNIX, which is based on OS X but not UNIX Certified. OS X is UNIX. [0] GNU's Not Unix
    - ac29 11y ago
      I stand corrected. You appear to be technically correct that OS X is "Unix" [0] not Unix-like or a Unix clone like Linux-based operating systems. Legal precedent established in the SCO-linux cases [1] seems to confirm this technicality. I think the distinction is pedantic, but I think we can agree that Android is the most widely shipped OS based on a Unix-like kernel. [0] http://www.opengroup.org/csq/search/t=XY1.html http://www.opengroup.org/csq/search/t=XY1.html [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_controversie...
      - sbuk 11y ago
        >"I think the distinction is pedantic" It is, but no more than that of the OP and you. It's ultimately irrelevant to this discussion.
    - sdenton4 11y ago
      And while technically unix, the command line tools which ship are so horribly out of date as to be almost unusable.... Try using sftp on a mac sometime, if you enjoy the sensation of bleeding from your eyes.
      - sbuk 11y ago
        Works just fine for me. Sorry...
- davidcgl 11y ago
  > Google says "don't be evil" and then goes out and does evil. "Evil" such as serving you ads? > Google's product is your private info. Better ads targeting using your private info - not selling your private info to advertisers/governments. It's evident how much you distrust Google, but don't spread and allude to FUD.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- magicalist 11y ago
  As I never tire of pointing out, he was actually pointing out how to protect your privacy from the federal government before many cared at all: > "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?" > "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that information could be made available to the authorities." But that never got play back then, so we get the incomplete quote everywhere. It took Edward Snowden to make the tech blogs finally change narrative.
  - stephenr 11y ago
    The government doesn't force Google to run their business the way they do, dependent as it is on such huge amounts of personal information, to provide "better" (for some peoples value for better) targeted ads. If Google don't track/store what I search for, what results I click through to, etc, it doesn't matter what the US government asks them for - they are technically unable to hand over data they don't have.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      I think, sadly, that's not true. The government can force them to change their business, and begin recording personal information that passes through their hands. Its very strange.
      - anon1385 11y ago
        There is a lot of tracking Google does that couldn't just be instantly turned on at the request of a government if Google wasn't already doing it. For example Google Analytics: if that product didn't exist the government couldn't just ask Google to install tracking scripts on half the websites in the world without anybody noticing. You could argue that the government could force Google to create and market Google Analytics. But that just re-enforces the idea that we shouldn't be using Google Analytics - we don't even know if it isn't entirely a program created at the request of the US government (I don't actually believe this, but it's where you end up if you start worrying about the government forcing Google to change their business).
stephenr 11y ago
> All these companies are in it to win your private information, The companies he Tim Cook described, that offer "free" services and data-mine/aggregate/sell your personal information to fund the business? Yes. Apple has a vested interest in not collecting, analysing, aggregating and using the vast amounts of private information other companies do: they're seen by many as a premium brand, where you pay a bit more and get a better product/experience. Part of that is not getting "maybe you'd like X" emails from the App Store, or "Hey do you need a new printer for that Mac you just bought on Apple.com" type shit. > and we are all prepared to give them some of our private information if what we get in return is worth it. You might be. "We" are not all prepared to hand over private information.
- vacri 11y ago
  Part of that is not getting "maybe you'd like X" emails from the App Store I use a fair variety of google products on a couple of different platforms and have for years. Google has never sent me a suggest-sell email. They don't hide the fact that they're in the advertising and marketing business, but they're not that unsubtle. Perhaps other people get suggest-sell emails from Google, but it's not something I've seen (or heard people complain about).
  - stephenr 11y ago
    > Google has never sent me a suggest-sell email. Did I say it was Google doing this?
    - vacri 11y ago
      Yes, you did. You referenced the companies Cook was talking about, and he was primarily talking about Google. Google also operates the only software market that's close to the App Store in size, apart from the niche-market case of Steam. One of my pet hates is people who imply something, then use "but I didn't LITERALLY write the exact words that say that". You can play that game forever - for instance, where in my first reply to you did I explicitly mention that you did say it? I never said you did. Isn't implication a wonderfully deniable building-block of human communication?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
endgame 11y ago
I was shocked at the amount of registration info a new mac asks for. Haven't bought one since.
- corv 11y ago
  You can skip it
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Can one buy Apple products for cash, without supplying any personal information or identication? Edit: This is a prerequisite for meaningful privacy. Plus having a pseudonymous account, funded by Bitcoins, for buying apps and stuff. Otherwise it's all based on trusting Apple, and so there's a single point of failure.
    - peteretep 11y ago
      Yes; even if that's not true for Apple stores, plenty of resellers.
      - mirimir 11y ago
        Can one setup a pseudonymous Apple account, funded via Bitcoins?
        2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
        That's just moving goal posts. Not sure why you even want an Apple account if you want to maximize privacy.
        mirimir 11y ago
        I'd want an Apple account so that I can buy stuff. Maybe I could get by with open-source apps, but that would be a pain. Even if I take Tim Cook's speech at face value, there's the catch that Apple knows who I am. If Apple really wanted to make a point about being privacy-friendly, they would allow account creation via Tor, and accept Bitcoins.
gambiter 11y ago
Everyone was happy to believe Google when they used to say their motto was, "Don't be evil," but not willing to believe the CEO of Apple, even though they've done a LOT to show they are working inline with his speech. I'm not saying Apple is a saintly corporation, but just assuming they are bad because they they COULD be bad comes off as paranoid more than insightful. >Nobody can really tell what they are collecting, what they do with it and how much of it they share with third parties (including governments). http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/ http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/ Yes, this could all be lies, but so could literally anything anyone says. Either you choose to live as a recluse in the woods with no technology, or you choose to trust at least some corporations. That might mean trusting your search engine, your cell phone company, your car manufacturer. Heck, you're trusting your ISP right now not to do a MITM attack on you. The natural conclusion is that you should use strong encryption in everything you do. At this point, there is one company spearheading this to get it into the hands of consumers who don't know any better. Again, I realize Apple isn't blameless, but there's an awful lot about their recent actions to show they are making decisions based on what is best for the consumer. I think that's a good thing, and it's hard to imagine why someone would argue against it.

MCRed 11y ago

It's funny how Google advocates always "bash" apple for being "closed source" when this company ships the most popular Unix in the world... and all of their products, even the watch, are based on it. Yes, they do keep the Application/UI layer closed source, but so does google ("Google Apps"). Yet google has spend years propagandizing that they are "open" while Apple is "closed" and that plays right into the latent desire to hate Apple from those who got a PC instead of a Mac when they were a kid. Apple is different because for nearly 40 years they have been honest and forthright and treating people different. Google says "don't be evil" and then goes out and does evil. Apple doesn't say it, they just don't do it. The idea that all these companies want private info and thus are all going to be evil is cynical. And it ignores the fundamental truth: Apple's product is really nice software sold in a hardware box. Google's product is your private info. The business models couldn't be more different.

zak_mc_kracken 11y ago
> The idea that all these companies want private info and thus are all going to be evil is cynical. "cynical: believing that people are motivated by self-interest" In a free trade, capitalistic society, companies are by definition cynical, because the ones that are not go bankrupt. > Apple is different because for nearly 40 years they have been honest and forthright and treating people different. Google says "don't be evil" and then goes out and does evil. Apple doesn't say it, they just don't do it. I was with you until that last part. I would totally be on board with you if you say Google and Apple are both equally evil because they are looking after their own interest. The fact you think that google is doing evil and Apple is not makes me think you're a bit too far gone on the fanboy side.
jlarocco 11y ago
> Apple is different because for nearly 40 years they have been honest and forthright and treating people different. Google says "don't be evil" and then goes out and does evil. Apple doesn't say it, they just don't do it. Google and Apple behave similarly, as far as I can tell. TBH, I wouldn't call either company "evil," but they're both equally unfriendly to users, IMO. I'm curious why you think Apple is less "evil"? > And it ignores the fundamental truth: Apple's product is really nice software sold in a hardware box. Google's product is your private info. That's not a fundamental truth, and it's a false dichotomy. Apple's products are both software/hardware AND private info.
ac29 11y ago
>It's funny how Google advocates always "bash" apple for being "closed source" when this company ships the most popular Unix in the world... and all of their products, even the watch, are based on it. Android ships far more units than OS X/iOS and their derivatives do.
- sbuk 11y ago
  Android is not UNIX - it's GNU[0]/Linux-based, which is UNIX-like. iOS is also not UNIX, which is based on OS X but not UNIX Certified. OS X is UNIX. [0] GNU's Not Unix
  - ac29 11y ago
    I stand corrected. You appear to be technically correct that OS X is "Unix" [0] not Unix-like or a Unix clone like Linux-based operating systems. Legal precedent established in the SCO-linux cases [1] seems to confirm this technicality. I think the distinction is pedantic, but I think we can agree that Android is the most widely shipped OS based on a Unix-like kernel. [0] http://www.opengroup.org/csq/search/t=XY1.html http://www.opengroup.org/csq/search/t=XY1.html [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_controversie...
    - sbuk 11y ago
      >"I think the distinction is pedantic" It is, but no more than that of the OP and you. It's ultimately irrelevant to this discussion.
  - sdenton4 11y ago
    And while technically unix, the command line tools which ship are so horribly out of date as to be almost unusable.... Try using sftp on a mac sometime, if you enjoy the sensation of bleeding from your eyes.
    - sbuk 11y ago
      Works just fine for me. Sorry...
davidcgl 11y ago
> Google says "don't be evil" and then goes out and does evil. "Evil" such as serving you ads? > Google's product is your private info. Better ads targeting using your private info - not selling your private info to advertisers/governments. It's evident how much you distrust Google, but don't spread and allude to FUD.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

magicalist 11y ago
As I never tire of pointing out, he was actually pointing out how to protect your privacy from the federal government before many cared at all: > "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?" > "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that information could be made available to the authorities." But that never got play back then, so we get the incomplete quote everywhere. It took Edward Snowden to make the tech blogs finally change narrative.
- stephenr 11y ago
  The government doesn't force Google to run their business the way they do, dependent as it is on such huge amounts of personal information, to provide "better" (for some peoples value for better) targeted ads. If Google don't track/store what I search for, what results I click through to, etc, it doesn't matter what the US government asks them for - they are technically unable to hand over data they don't have.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    I think, sadly, that's not true. The government can force them to change their business, and begin recording personal information that passes through their hands. Its very strange.
    - anon1385 11y ago
      There is a lot of tracking Google does that couldn't just be instantly turned on at the request of a government if Google wasn't already doing it. For example Google Analytics: if that product didn't exist the government couldn't just ask Google to install tracking scripts on half the websites in the world without anybody noticing. You could argue that the government could force Google to create and market Google Analytics. But that just re-enforces the idea that we shouldn't be using Google Analytics - we don't even know if it isn't entirely a program created at the request of the US government (I don't actually believe this, but it's where you end up if you start worrying about the government forcing Google to change their business).

stephenr 11y ago

> All these companies are in it to win your private information, The companies he Tim Cook described, that offer "free" services and data-mine/aggregate/sell your personal information to fund the business? Yes. Apple has a vested interest in not collecting, analysing, aggregating and using the vast amounts of private information other companies do: they're seen by many as a premium brand, where you pay a bit more and get a better product/experience. Part of that is not getting "maybe you'd like X" emails from the App Store, or "Hey do you need a new printer for that Mac you just bought on Apple.com" type shit. > and we are all prepared to give them some of our private information if what we get in return is worth it. You might be. "We" are not all prepared to hand over private information.

vacri 11y ago
Part of that is not getting "maybe you'd like X" emails from the App Store I use a fair variety of google products on a couple of different platforms and have for years. Google has never sent me a suggest-sell email. They don't hide the fact that they're in the advertising and marketing business, but they're not that unsubtle. Perhaps other people get suggest-sell emails from Google, but it's not something I've seen (or heard people complain about).
- stephenr 11y ago
  > Google has never sent me a suggest-sell email. Did I say it was Google doing this?
  - vacri 11y ago
    Yes, you did. You referenced the companies Cook was talking about, and he was primarily talking about Google. Google also operates the only software market that's close to the App Store in size, apart from the niche-market case of Steam. One of my pet hates is people who imply something, then use "but I didn't LITERALLY write the exact words that say that". You can play that game forever - for instance, where in my first reply to you did I explicitly mention that you did say it? I never said you did. Isn't implication a wonderfully deniable building-block of human communication?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

endgame 11y ago

I was shocked at the amount of registration info a new mac asks for. Haven't bought one since.

corv 11y ago
You can skip it
- mirimir 11y ago
  Can one buy Apple products for cash, without supplying any personal information or identication? Edit: This is a prerequisite for meaningful privacy. Plus having a pseudonymous account, funded by Bitcoins, for buying apps and stuff. Otherwise it's all based on trusting Apple, and so there's a single point of failure.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    Yes; even if that's not true for Apple stores, plenty of resellers.
    - mirimir 11y ago
      Can one setup a pseudonymous Apple account, funded via Bitcoins?
      - 2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
        That's just moving goal posts. Not sure why you even want an Apple account if you want to maximize privacy.
        mirimir 11y ago
        I'd want an Apple account so that I can buy stuff. Maybe I could get by with open-source apps, but that would be a pain. Even if I take Tim Cook's speech at face value, there's the catch that Apple knows who I am. If Apple really wanted to make a point about being privacy-friendly, they would allow account creation via Tor, and accept Bitcoins.

gambiter 11y ago

Everyone was happy to believe Google when they used to say their motto was, "Don't be evil," but not willing to believe the CEO of Apple, even though they've done a LOT to show they are working inline with his speech. I'm not saying Apple is a saintly corporation, but just assuming they are bad because they they COULD be bad comes off as paranoid more than insightful. >Nobody can really tell what they are collecting, what they do with it and how much of it they share with third parties (including governments). http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/ http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/ Yes, this could all be lies, but so could literally anything anyone says. Either you choose to live as a recluse in the woods with no technology, or you choose to trust at least some corporations. That might mean trusting your search engine, your cell phone company, your car manufacturer. Heck, you're trusting your ISP right now not to do a MITM attack on you. The natural conclusion is that you should use strong encryption in everything you do. At this point, there is one company spearheading this to get it into the hands of consumers who don't know any better. Again, I realize Apple isn't blameless, but there's an awful lot about their recent actions to show they are making decisions based on what is best for the consumer. I think that's a good thing, and it's hard to imagine why someone would argue against it.