21–30 of 186 posts
Apple's comments on privacy over the past year have seemed very opportunistic. >But what they don't want to do, they don't want your email to be read, and then to pick up on keywords in your email and then to use that information to then market you things on a different application that you're using. ... They don't have the technology/infrastructure to perform machine learning techniques that google employs. So they…
That's what we're calling online profiling now?
> If you buy something from the App Store, we do know what you bought from the App Store, obviously. We think customers are fine with that. Users should also be able to install apps on their iPhones without Apple knowing what they're doing. Personal computing devices shouldn't have artificial walled gardens. But I agree with him on everything else and think he's a hero for what he's doing.
>Personal computing devices shouldn't have artificial walled gardens. I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. Requiring that all software on your device be signed by a single entity (i.e. apple) is horrifying when you think about where that might lead to in the future.
Like he said, any back door for the good guys is a back door for the bad guys as well.
> If you buy something from the App Store, we do know what you bought from the App Store, obviously. We think customers are fine with that. Users should also be able to install apps on their iPhones without Apple knowing what they're doing. Personal computing devices shouldn't have artificial walled gardens. But I agree with him on everything else and think he's a hero for what he's doing.
"Apple has changed its policy regarding permissions required to build and run apps on devices. Until now, Apple required users to pay $99/year to become a member of Apple’s Developer Program in order to run code on physical iPhone and iPads. As part of the new Developer Program, this is no longer required. Apps can be tested on devices, no purchase necessary."
What's with apple and their super-privacy stance lately? First his letter, and now his interview. Not that I mind it, but I feel like they're expecting something bad to come out soon.
Apple's comments on privacy over the past year have seemed very opportunistic. >But what they don't want to do, they don't want your email to be read, and then to pick up on keywords in your email and then to use that information to then market you things on a different application that you're using. ... They don't have the technology/infrastructure to perform machine learning techniques that google employs. So they…
What's with apple and their super-privacy stance lately? First his letter, and now his interview. Not that I mind it, but I feel like they're expecting something bad to come out soon.
Apple is essentially the only major US tech company that doesn't rely heavily on advertising income (and thus on online profiling to target ads effectively), and they've realized that this gives them a moral high horse from which to attack their competitors without actually having to change any of their own habits.
> If you buy something from the App Store, we do know what you bought from the App Store, obviously. We think customers are fine with that. Users should also be able to install apps on their iPhones without Apple knowing what they're doing. Personal computing devices shouldn't have artificial walled gardens. But I agree with him on everything else and think he's a hero for what he's doing.
I think that what Apple has done here is an acceptable tradeoff. The app store trades a small amount of privacy for a lot more security. Looking at Android's perpetual issues with this makes me think that Apple made the right choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is essentially the only major US tech company that doesn't rely heavily on advertising income (and thus on online profiling to target ads effectively), and they've realized that this gives them a moral high horse from which to attack their competitors without actually having to change any of their own habits.
Neither Amazon nor Microsoft rely heavily on advertising income. Neither does IBM, HP, Oracle, Cisco, Salesforce, etc. In fact when it comes to "major US tech companies", either by revenue or by market cap, I can only think of Facebook and Google that make money mainly from advertising income.
Amazon, the consumer-focused exception, makes their money on physical products not produced by them, and on cloud services—both of which are mostly privacy-neutral as far as third parties go. Amazon knows what you tell Amazon (your shopping history; your AWS API calls) but their business model doesn't involve giving that information to anybody else. They could theoretically take a stance on privacy, but they aren't doing much to enable privacy; just coincidentally avoiding doing anything that negates it.
Apple's comments on privacy over the past year have seemed very opportunistic. >But what they don't want to do, they don't want your email to be read, and then to pick up on keywords in your email and then to use that information to then market you things on a different application that you're using. ... They don't have the technology/infrastructure to perform machine learning techniques that google employs. So they…
> interoperate That's what we're calling online profiling now?
>That's what we're calling online profiling now?
My Google Now cards on Android say "yes it is". They are driven by email, calendar entries and phone sensors all tied to my profile and it's bloody magical. YMMV.