241–250 of 488 posts
That's all fine and very good for the consumer. Now they just have to get the fuck out of PRISM and I'll start taking them seriously in the privacy realm.
Do they have an option? It was my understanding that national security letters are involved.
Facebook on the other hand, has announced they are now a Privacy focused company (whilst appealing the Cambridge Analytica fine of £500k) and gearing up with legal teams. Not walking the walk.
I wouldn’t say they are a privacy-as-a-service company, I’d suggest they are a company that are future proofing their revenue streams by enforcing privacy rules on their development / APP environment.
Remember Apple control their environment. It’s a closed shop. So perhaps these changes are really protectionism against Regulation.
Give me an example of Apple not bowing down to chinese censors and i just may believe you. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18020508/how-china-compl...
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…
I'm in the market for a new phone, my current one being the iPhone 6s. And lots of android phones are appealing at the mid-range price bracket with features I want (headphone jack, no notch, etc). But at this price point I essentially have very little choice with Apple and it will be a compromise on features just to stay in the Apple ecosystem. I wish Apple would release a new version of the 5c but updated. They've shown some promise with the new Mac Pro, in that they have actually listened to what people wanted instead of telling them what they should want. Would be good to see them do that at the lower end of the scale with the phones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you get on the wrong side of Apple's algorithms, there is zero recourse. I don't follow what you're implying.
I think I understand the GP. Let's say I sign up for an online game using Apple's secure sign in because I don't want to share my information. Some time passes, and I've invested 250 hours into the game, when Apple decides to ban my account for whatever reason (perhaps I've refunded too many apps, maybe the credit card that pays my Apple Music expires, my country gets sanctioned by the US gov. etc.) Apple would, pres…
Is the idea here that there’s a higher chance of this account type being banned without recourse because of the number and type of ecosystem interaction points (App Store, subscription services, etc.)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just anecdotal data but I for one am very happy to be switching to apple this year after almost a decade of android. I'm only too happy to pay a premium if that gives me some control over my own privacy.
Except now you don't have control over your own device. I don't think they are orthogonal goals. Give me root on my iPhone and I'll switch for the privacy. Leaving gapps off an Android install is becoming crippling.
Honest question, because I have absolutely no idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just anecdotal data but I for one am very happy to be switching to apple this year after almost a decade of android. I'm only too happy to pay a premium if that gives me some control over my own privacy.
Except now you don't have control over your own device. I don't think they are orthogonal goals. Give me root on my iPhone and I'll switch for the privacy. Leaving gapps off an Android install is becoming crippling.
They aren't quite orthogonal because if you have root on your device, then you limit the security guarantees Apple can make about their privacy measures.
This is a fairly deep problem in the sense that there is a tradeoff between having a secure enclave to support interesting security protocols on the one hand, and the fact that a secure enclave almost by definition means you don't fully own the machine on the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t force you, but if you don’t, you can’t even tell people how to subscribe. See Spotify, Kindle.
You can tell people how to subscribe outside the app. But you just can't use Apple's own platform against them.
My cynical side read this as cheap/free = google/android who own your data in return for their services vs expensive = Apple who are selling you some degree of perceived privacy baked into the operating systems of their primarily hardware offerings, which you pay more for.
Sure, but that's the always-acknowledged reality. Either you're paying for the product, or you are the product.
Where would you place an app like Signal?
Lots of negativity/skepticism here which is reasonable I would say given tech companies' abuse of our trust. I for one, am happy that Apple can afford to offer privacy as one of its strong suites. Whether they can do it because of their business model or not is moot IMO. Everyone is here to make money, I would rather have someone who doesn't have to sell every aspect of my life to do it.