Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 546 posts

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#201

Post by robocat »

sbuk wrote: post #175
huffmsa wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having to go to an Apple certified retailer prevents one from privately modifying or repairing ones device. Apple gets to know about every repair / modification done to your device.

So long as there is no PII, what is the problem with that? If you mod something that's in warranty and you knowingly void it, that is your problem; same is true for every single manufacturer out there.

> If you mod something that's in warranty and you knowingly void it, that is your problem

The ability to fix your own phone isn't just your problem. It is also a problem for the person who you sell your "fixed" phone to. It is a problem for the second hand phone market (edit: the market clearing price for lemons). Allowing parts interchange is a problem for theft (if expensive parts from parted out stolen iPhones can be used to fix other iPhones then stolen phones have high value.)

Edit: that said, I do want to be able to fix my own phone. I just don't agree that I am the only person affected by that ability.

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#202

Post by carlmr »

Ensorceled wrote: post #194

The only problem is that Apple is the Mercedes of mobile devices. We really need a Honda and Kia version, a more affordable device that doesn’t track you. Apple is never going to give up their premium position.

>Apple is never going to give up their premium position.

It would be stupid of them.

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#203

Post by pbhjpbhj »

saagarjha wrote: post #57
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought they were a design/branding company -- what proportion of hardware do they make themselves. Again I thought they outsourced [most of] that?

This is really a pedantic point. By your metric, most companies we know today as making “hardware” are not hardware companies because they don’t make every component that goes into their products themselves.

Not every component, I did put in specifiers to emphasise that.

If I design a chip and you fab it then I'm a designer and you're a manufacturer.

I'm not accusing them of white-labelling or anything.

So, perhaps someone can say how much they manufacture in their own fabs/factories as I asked?

Meta HN can be very anti-truth, just post "Apple actually own 95% of all their manufacturing", or whatever with a source -- surely the question is valid??

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#204

Post by inetknght »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #167
stult wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would kill for a Linux phone, but until that happens I would settle for a phone that comes with root access (or at least allows technically capable users to get it) and let's me control my own data and device from the bare metal up. Because even if Apple has less incentive to exfiltrate data, I don't want to have to trust any company to do the right thing or to keep doing it.

It's easy to get root on some Android devices. I think all Google phones purchased directly from Google make it a standard option; some others do as well, and still others have easy exploits.

You still void your warranty though

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#205

Post by IBM »

Fun fact: I emailed Tim Cook in August after reading this story in the NYT, asking him to publicly oppose a weak federal privacy bill in the US [1].

I thought they might do it when Bud Tribble, Apple's privacy czar, testified in Congress at the hearing about privacy [2]. He was mostly non-committal until about the time when someone asked if California's law should be preempted, and he answered 'yes' but only if the law is strong enough, so I kind of had a feeling that Apple would at least advocate for it in a minor way. Now it makes sense why he was so non-committal, they were saving it for Tim Cook.

This is a full-on endorsement of GDPR in the best possible forum for this, a keynote speech at a conference for data privacy regulators. This is more than I could have hoped for. Crucially, this removes any possibility of a united front as the ad-tech lobbying machine kicks into gear.

I don't know if this was already planned or if it was my email, but I'm ecstatic either way.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/technology/tech-industry-...

[2] https://www.c-span.org/video/?451963-1/google-apple-amazon-t...

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#206

Post by andy_ppp »

denzil_correa wrote: post #121
andy_ppp wrote: post #42

Seeing as Google pays Apple $12bn to be the default search engine on iOS devices I’m tempted to call hypocrisy here... http://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-eng...

> I’m tempted to call hypocrisy here.. You can call it hypocrisy but it doesn't affect the validity of Tim Cook's argument [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

I think you are right but then I was never saying anything about the points, I was saying personally I’d find it difficult to make statements in direct contradiction to my actions. Which wasn’t clear and logical fallacies are definitely worth consideration! Maybe you have show a little bit of cognitive bias assuming I was trying to undermine the points he makes.

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#207

Post by Waterluvian »

Ensorceled wrote: post #194

The only problem is that Apple is the Mercedes of mobile devices. We really need a Honda and Kia version, a more affordable device that doesn’t track you. Apple is never going to give up their premium position.

That's exactly the problem I have. I don't want the unblockable ads and spying but I need my phone to be some cheap thing I don't have to respect or worry about. Once I started buying $150 phones every 2-3 years, I realised how much I need a device that I don't lose any sleep over it getting beaten to death and possibly replaced prematurely.

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#208

Post by EastSmith »

robocat wrote: post #195
EastSmith wrote: post #78

I have owned couple of google phones (Nexus and Pixel). Today for the first time ever I am considering buying an iPhone. I would pay premium for privacy on Google devices if they make it available. And we now know what the price is - $40 in EU. Just sell it like this Google.

Another price point: "Seeing as Google pays Apple $12bn to be the default search engine on iOS devices" divided by number of devices Google paid for. The $40 should just be a number that would pass the lowest threshold the antitrust regulators will accept. My guess is that $40 doesn't have much to do with lost advertising revenue.

12bn divided by 1,3bn devices sold according to this [1], 2018 not included, gives roughly $10. So now we have another data point. Not sure about the contract length though.

[1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/276306/global-apple-ipho...

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#209

Post by jp555 »

Ensorceled wrote: post #194

The only problem is that Apple is the Mercedes of mobile devices. We really need a Honda and Kia version, a more affordable device that doesn’t track you. Apple is never going to give up their premium position.

Apple devices last a long time. My mother still loves using my old 2012 iPhone 5.

Used iOS devices are the Kia version.

Re: Tim Cook makes blistering attack on the “data industrial complex”

#210

Post by Matt3o12_ »

zaidf wrote: post #170
orbifold wrote: post #23

It's sad how the introduction of a new class of devices "smartphones" brought along with it a surveillance software platform in the form of Android. Where it is clear that the only incentive for google to develop it is exfiltration of as much personal data as they can. In contrast in the case of Apple you have a customer relationship with the company that sold you the device and they have an incentive to keep you as…

In contrast in the case of Apple you have a customer relationship with the company that sold you the device and they have an incentive to keep you as a customer without having a need to extract as much advertisement revenue as they can. Do you acknowledge this comes at a huge cost? Apple has a fraction of the marketshare as Android in countries like India. Apple's iPhone prices out billions of people. Android-based p…

But I can’t help but wonder why there isn’t an alternative. Maybe a phone that is a bit more expensive then an equivalent android. It doesn’t need to have the hardware quality of iPhones or high end android phones but also has good, secure and privacy focused software developed by some company that doesn’t make most of their revenue from advertising.

But I suppose there isn’t a market for that. A majority of users would pick the phone that is only 289 instead of 319 Even if that means selling their data. And the few users that do care are willing to pay the premium for an iPhone. Considering that manufacturing a phone is expensive unless they can mass produce it in quantities such as Samsung and apple, there won’t be a company to make such a phone soon because it would be just as expensive as an iPhone with a lot less features.

And of course the Most important feature of any smartphone are apps and any new platform wouldn’t have any apps. Developer won’t develop for them unless there are enough users and there won’t be enough users unless there are apps. You could probably use googles play services and emulate android but as far as I know there isn’t a way to get around google’s push notifications without compromising the users privacy (which would defeat the purpose). Besides that would be expensive to make and gooogle might not license it at all because there is little in it for them.

Post reply on HN