This article is both simplistic and disingenuous for two primary reasons: 1. Equates all advertising with invasive data collection. 2. Suggests that improvi

This article is both simplistic and disingenuous for two primary reasons: 1. Equates all advertising with invasive data collection. 2. Suggests that improving individual's control over their data is worse than not improving it, or worse, is hypocritical. For point one Mr. Cook did not vilify ads nor ad supported services. He spoke against invasive data collection. Now what qualifies as invasive is certainly open for reasonable people to debate but his point is that he feels the industry has gone way too far. I read a physical newspaper this mornin with ads in it. A good portion of that paper's income is from ads and the rest through subscription. They did zero data collection on me. I say this only to demonstrate that you can have ad supported business without bein evil. The nytimes author seems to ignore this. For point two isn't it better that Apple is improving privacy protections rather than just throwing up its hands and instead joining google in attempting to learn everything about us and the sell access to put data to advertisers who have their own best interests in mind rather than ours? Why is building a more private maps application but still enabling google searches better than not providing a map application? In short I think it is very possible to run an ethical ad based business. Unfortunately in Silicon Valley we've adopted a default business model of grabbing as much personal information and selling it to the highest bidder rather than offering a great service with non-invasive ads or subscriptions. If Slack can do it why can't others?