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

Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 488 posts

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#61

Post by ignoramous »

propertymagnate wrote: post #37
rapsey wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to sell something to privacy obsessed tech segment is a futile effort. They are never happy and don’t want to pay for anything anyway. But that is not their target market anyway. It is the general public and these comments are just noise.

I don't think that's true, there's quite a thriving privacy based market for the tech obsessed. take librem one and purism's products, the VPN market, the pinephone, proton mail, or lavabit as examples. https://puri.sm/ https://lavabit.com/ https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ https://protonmail.com/ But yes, these comments are likely just noise.

For every puri.sm I'd wager there is a SilentCircle. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12047219

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#62

Post by rahoulb »

ubersync wrote: post #42
threeseed wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can release a free app and sell subscriptions through real world means e.g. advertising, PR. You control the customers and you pay Apple nothing. So this idea that Apple is forcing developers to do anything is nonsense.

This is totally incorrect. If you have an app on Apple store and sell subscripttions through your website, or other means, Apple forces you to sell the same subscriptions through their store.

I use Spotify, FreeAgent, Toggl, Zoom, Pipedrive, Asana and Trello (plus Basecamp previously) on my iOS devices - and pay for all of those through the respective websites without any option to pay in the App Store.

(Edit: I know Spotify used to have an option for it but they dropped that and I never used it anyway)

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#63

Post by dmitriid »

ubersync wrote: post #42
threeseed wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can release a free app and sell subscriptions through real world means e.g. advertising, PR. You control the customers and you pay Apple nothing. So this idea that Apple is forcing developers to do anything is nonsense.

This is totally incorrect. If you have an app on Apple store and sell subscripttions through your website, or other means, Apple forces you to sell the same subscriptions through their store.

It doesn’t force you, but if you don’t, you can’t even tell people how to subscribe. See Spotify, Kindle.

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#64

Post by dijit »

izacus wrote: post #56
threeseed wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Drive increases the data you have with Google and encourages you to use other services like Gmail or GSuite. This increases the time you spend with their apps which increases the chances of clicking an in-app advertisement. Apple doesn't sell ads so there isn't a financial benefit to them releasing iCloud Drive on Android.

Apple sells iCloud subscriptions though. And yet you're not worthy of their privacy if you didn't buy their completely DRM locked devices where they control even the content you're allowed to see.

You can access https://www.icloud.com/#iclouddrive from any device.

Are you complaining that there is no app?

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#65

Post by rapsey »

fwn wrote: post #60
rapsey wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thriving as in their own miniscule segment destined to remain marginal. Definitely not apple target market.

This sounds to me like moving the goalpost. First it was both: > Trying to sell something to privacy obsessed tech segment is a futile effort. They are never happy and don’t want to pay for anything anyway. But that is not their target market anyway. Now just > But that is not their target market anyway.

I was replying to a comment about negative comments here and that they are not who apple is targeting so the negativity here is just noise.

Those listed companies exist in an entirely different universe to apple and talking about them is entirely irrelevant here. Their existence proves nothing.

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#66

Post by paulcarroty »

Apple makes good products, but they build closed ecosystem for premium price.

So, I not use they products, maximum run macOS in VM sometimes.

And if will be forced to use a smartphone (maps in new city for example), it will be iPhone, 'cause I prefer privacy vs "open source with spy" by Google.

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#67

Post by paulcarroty »

propertymagnate wrote: post #37
rapsey wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to sell something to privacy obsessed tech segment is a futile effort. They are never happy and don’t want to pay for anything anyway. But that is not their target market anyway. It is the general public and these comments are just noise.

I don't think that's true, there's quite a thriving privacy based market for the tech obsessed. take librem one and purism's products, the VPN market, the pinephone, proton mail, or lavabit as examples. https://puri.sm/ https://lavabit.com/ https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ https://protonmail.com/ But yes, these comments are likely just noise.

lavabit.com returns? Good news for me.

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#68

Post by kmlx »

ngcc_hk wrote: post #31

It is good to have alternative. Except in china I guess. That place seems somehow everyone is making exception like people are different kind of human. They are the same human. Should have the same human rights.

from wikipedia on human rights:

> The onset of the Cold War soon after the UDHR was conceived brought to the fore divisions over the inclusion of both economic and social rights and civil and political rights in the declaration. Capitalist states tended to place strong emphasis on civil and political rights (such as freedom of association and expression), and were reluctant to include economic and social rights (such as the right to work and the right to join a union). Socialist states placed much greater importance on economic and social rights and argued strongly for their inclusion.

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#69

Post by cromwellian »

zimpenfish wrote: post #32
yholio wrote: post #25

It's a devil's bargain: now we have to choose between walled gardens that offer some privacy and extract their revenue from lock-in, and more open systems that live off spying our data. Truth be told, the software development cost of these systems (Android and iOS) is not that huge, a reasonably good open source alternative could probably be created for less than a billion dollars, knowing how financially efficient a…

> the software development cost of these systems [...] is not that huge > probably be created for less than a billion dollars I don't think I've worked anywhere that's put more than $500M into a single software project. That is "huge" cost. (Except maybe Yahoo! but even then I'm not sure.)

They're sunk costs now though. How much more needs to be added to Mobile OSes? Can't they just innovate functionality though installed apps?

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#70

Post by johncolanduoni »

IMTDb wrote: post #53
threeseed wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can release a free app and sell subscriptions through real world means e.g. advertising, PR. You control the customers and you pay Apple nothing. So this idea that Apple is forcing developers to do anything is nonsense.

We are a B2B SAAS company offering analytics and marketing data. We wanted to offer our customer the ability to have a free app to interact with our service on their phone. We wanted our customers to subscribe on the web but not using in-app subscriptions. We are unable to release this app on the AppStore until we change our whole payment/subscription/billing stack to support Apple subscription system and agree to gi…

Are you sure that you’re interpreting the guidelines correctly? Lots of apps serve content related to subscriptions/digital purchases that are signed up for on the web (Netflix, Prime Video, etc.). Or are you trying to use the app as an acquisition channel?
Post reply on HN