Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company • Hacker News Board

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

#311

Post by thanatos_dem » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:48 PM UTC

galangalalgol wrote: post #302

fastball wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that the ability to easily root your own phone is going to make you more secure is laughable.

Agreed, which is why I shouldn't have to. Give me root of of the box. Print the root password on a card in the packaging. Yes I can undo all the privacy measures if I make mistakes but that is on me.

> Print the root password on a card in the packaging.

So security isn’t a concern to you at all, huh? Or are you just really bad at understanding security?

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

#312

Post by neilalexander » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:50 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #287

digianarchist wrote: post #184

If Apple really wants to help me then they need to create a product to wean me off Gmail.

iCloud has a mail service.

It's feature-lite though, by comparison.

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

#313

Post by throwayEngineer » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:51 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #130

thefounder wrote: post #34

Still they were/are part of PRISM so keep in mind that the privacy offered depends by various U.S agencies.

Privacy is not all or nothing issue. If you have privacy against commercial use but not against various U.S. agencies that's better than nothing. Any service where you can reset your password/token that is known only to you after you lose it is not safe from government warrant. It can still be safe from mass collection like PRISM.

I imagine in 5 years it will have moved to- Apple only uses your data with companies you enjoy.

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

#314

Post by tfha » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:52 PM UTC

nafizh wrote: post #22

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.

The biggest problem that I have is that it's privacy built on a closed source platform that works extremely hard to wall users in and create substantial vendor lock-in.

As someone who has tried multiple times to dip their toes into the Apple world, I can tell you that it's highly hostile to users who try to pick and choose how much they want to be an Apple citizen. If you don't agree to sign up for Apple cloud on the latest iOS, it feels like 80% of the basic functions for a smartphone get locked away from you.

And they have viral aspects to their lock-in as well. Have a single family member who isn't on iMessage? Looks like they don't get to participate in your family discussions anymore.

Their privacy features are a selling point today, but your privacy is 100% in their control. If the executive team made the decision tomorrow to switch Apple into a fully panopticon ecosystem, they'd be able to switch over in a year with little visibility for their users that this transition was happening.

If you are in the Apple ecosystem, you under heavy lock-in pressure and you are fully putting your faith in Apple that the directions they go in the future will be directions that you are happy with.

That doesn't feel secure to me.

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

#315

Post by throwayEngineer » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:52 PM UTC

jasonsync wrote: post #213

I for one, am happy that Apple can afford to offer privacy as one of its strong suites. But can you afford to buy it?

Spend 2x on a lower quality product, and Apple won't share my obsession with Microcontrollers and tall girls?

Oh I'm so torn

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

#316

Post by smt88 » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:53 PM UTC

yalogin wrote: post #309

adarsh_thampy wrote: post #20

Apple's strategy is simple. They want to retain control over their customers; at the same time, force the developers into relying entirely on Apple as a middle man so that they can't cut Apple out of any transactions. This way, Apple gets their cut and user's get some level of privacy. That they can get away with this arm-twisting as "privacy" is to give credit to their brand positioning.

Arm-twisting? You are conflating two issues here. Every company wants to retain users and their business. That is how every company operates. You should judge a company on what they offer as an incentive to keep them. Privacy as a service on their platform is a great thing. Compare that to what other companies offer as incentives.

> Every company wants to retain users and their business.

I think GP's point is that Apple is doing this using lock-in, rather than having the best possible products.

If there were multiple app stores for iOS users, you could argue that Apple is behaving just like every other business. But they're not. They're stifling competition to lock their customers in.

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

#317

Post by bravoetch » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:53 PM UTC

RandallBrown wrote: post #283

godzillabrennus wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are enough sponsored videos on YouTube tech channels by vpn providers that I think it’s safe to concede individuals are paying for those services. The other products and services mentioned don’t seem to be prospering the same way.

Are most people using VPNs for privacy? Every individual I know that pays for one does it so they can watch TV in a different country or something similar. There's also lots of businesses that use them for accessing internal networks externally. I've never met anyone in real life that is using one for privacy reasons.

Using a VPN to watch TV in another country is a privacy reason.

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

#318

Post by sneak » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:56 PM UTC

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.

The total number of users of those systems, for all time, combined, is smaller than the average new iPhone users per day.

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

#319

Post by asark » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

bwbw223 wrote: post #256

omnifischer wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try to use it as daily driver. Very difficult.

An iPhone 7 is still perfectly usable, in my experience. They also should still be supported for a while. Used, they can easily be found around the $200 price point.

Can confirm, on a 7 Plus, phone's entirely fine, no problems at all. I don't expect to replace it for another two years or so, unless it breaks. Probably by the end of that it'll be feeling a little slow and the battery'll be down to 36hrs rather than lasting all weekend.

Also on a used first-gen iPad Pro 12.9". It's great. I may sell it and pick up a used 3rd-gen when the 4th gen comes out. Or may wait one past that, pick up a used 4th, and just give the 1st-gen to my kids rather than selling. Apple devices are worth the money in part because they don't go way downhill after 12-18mo, so 1) they actually hold some value, and 2) you can skip a couple upgrades and not feel like you're missing out on much.

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

#320

Post by paxys » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:58 PM UTC

alextheparrot wrote: post #245

CamelCaseName wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Isn’t this just a general SSO problem - I assume the same would happen if someone signs on with Google/Facebook/Twitter and is banned from one of those services? 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.)?

In all those cases you are barred from logging in, sure, but the service still has your email address so the account is still "yours".