Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

461–470 of 488 posts

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

#461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

> I don't think I've worked anywhere that's put more than $500M into a single software project. That is "huge" cost. It's not what they put on the project in one go. It is the accumulated cost of developers, infrastructure and most importantly -- the experience and expertise that has been cultivated over decades. Do you really believe you can get a bunch of developers with limited experience to build something that i…

> Do you really believe you can get a bunch of developers with limited experience to build something that is comparable to iOS/Android in a couple of years?

I don't, no, but then I wasn't claiming it was possible, especially not for "under a billion dollars".

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

#462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition, please note that Apple's motto is 'Privacy for the rich'. Please do a Privacy for all - iPhone. Sorry HN-users, there are another 5 billion people that cant afford your > $ 200 products. Mind you even in ebay/second hand in the poor markets iPhones are expensive. Edit: Why down votes? Please remember there are other too in the world that deserve technology + privacy.

You can get a decent used iPhone for under $200. I don’t fault Apple for not making an iPhone cheaper than that.

You can get a used thing for cheap - that's universally true. Can't give credit to Apple for that! They are not making it cheap by themselves.

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

#463
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try to use it as daily driver. Very difficult.

My daughter is on a £150 6s, the same model I’m using right now, just fine for the last 9 months.

I’m using a 6s too for my personal phone. Work phone is an 8 and I honestly can’t tell the difference

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

#464
post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is some lock-in, but that's because the system integration works so well (Mac, iPhone, iPad, Watch, etc.) that one is loath to switch, not because they actively lock up your data. Contacts, Calendar, Photos, documents all allow exports to commonly understood formats (and iTunes with some caveats). I would not currently consider alternative OSes because they'd not work as seamlessly for me, but if Apple became a…

It's not that the system integration is so wonderful, it's that they make it extremely difficult to work outside of it for no reason. A few years ago I had a friend who wanted a song put on her iphone. I've never used one but I assumed I could do exactly what I've done with every other phone/MP3 player in the universe and just connect it to my laptop via USB and move the file over to some folder called "music" or som…

When was this? Because almost exactly the same story is what stopped me from moving into the Apple ecosystem, around 2010.

The only difference was that the second, wiped phone was an empty "dev" phone, thankfully. It then caused Apple to ask for a series of upgrades to develop for, starting with XCode and ending with my MacBook Pro.

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

#465
post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds speculative. Why will they lose revenue eventually? Do you think 40 years from now they will be in a worse position than today? After all, they are today in a better position than 40 years ago. Perhaps a privacy-focused company will actually perform better in a society obsessed with privacy, and eventually, their competitors who don't share these perspectives will be the ones that lose revenue. All we can…

It’s not speculation, just logic. Shareholders seek as much profit as possible. The moment that being PrivAAS is worth less than not being one, they’ll switch strateg

It seems logical to me that a company that is privacy-focused in an era of a privacy-obsessed customer base will actually make more profit.

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

#466
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're constantly pushing you to upload your data to ICloud as well -- I apparently must have consented to upload an entire backup of my phone there recently, because I can't remember saying yes to this, but there it is. So even if my data was private while it was on my phone, it's not any more.

There is nothing forcing you to back up to iCloud and yes it does ask you. You can still as of now back up using iTunes.

[deleted]

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

#467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just ask Siri to play that song? Or search for it in the music app? Or was it from some Indy Band which only publishes on its own website? Then yeah, best bet to get it into a iPhone would be a browser with a download manager and Files App support. (iOS 13 will add a download manager to Safari)

The MP3 was a cool solo I recorded that my friend wanted to bring to her singing coach, but it could have been anything. An MP3 from some random CD that's never been available on the itunes, or maybe just one she wasn't interested in buying even if it were available. What you choose to listen to on your devices isn't any of Apple's business. Streaming isn't a solution for getting media on a device either. It's a nice…

It's trivial to add an .mp3 (or, as I prefer, .m4a) to iTunes and have it sync to your phone. And that's really the model: files of certain types are handled by certain apps (on the mobile device and the computer, respectively), and sync is handled by those, as well. It makes things very simple, convenient, and consistent, and allows for rich metadata, without having to deal with the filesystem (which is really not good enough for that).

> I'm sure if she only ever used an apple computer with apple's itunes software always running on it,

That's not required. Macs come with iTunes, and on a PC you can install it. An iPhone is not a hard disk, but a computer with its own operating system, and you need dedicated software to communicate with it, imagine that.

> and no one else but her ever used it,

That's not required. You can have multiple accounts on your Mac easily, and you can also share music by putting it into a shared folder and creating respective libraries, which manage the metadata (rating, last heard, etc.) for each user independently.

> and she paid for every piece of media she ever put on her device by using the itunes store

That's not required. Most of my iTunes library is ripped from my old CDs (when iTunes came out, the motto was "Rip. Mix. Burn."). You can trivially add audio in a variety of formats (and if a format is not accepted, transcode it using eg ffmpeg).

> any deviation from that very narrow 100% apple-everything set up

Well, as outlined, it is rather special circumstances that make it cumbersome. The fundamental assumption, though, is that you get media from your computer to your mobile device using dedicated software, and I agree that that's problematic: not so much the "dedicated software" part, I have no beef with that, but you should be able to add an .mp3 or .epub to the respective library on the mobile device directly. I hope Apple addresses that without destroying the ease of use and powerful metadata we have now.

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

#468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These apps are in their store. That implies that they have approved them.

What does it mean (officially) for an app to be approved? You seem to have your own interpretation.

You can read their policies as well as I can. Or better, perhaps.

But my point is that Apple does have lots of rules about what apps can do, and can't do. And that it's been rather aggressive in applying those rules. If you search HN re some mix of ["Apple", "iOS", "app", "store", etc] you'll find complaints from developers about Apple removing their apps from its store.

So, in that context, why were they silent for years about privacy risks of third-party apps? That wouldn't be a remarkable omission by Google, given that its business model is largely about monetizing users' information. But for Apple, which has been promoting itself as privacy-friendly, it strikes me as a glaring omission.

I'm getting criticism for not acknowledging Apple for its stance on privacy, and for how much better it is than Google. And for blaming it for not being perfect. And yes, it is privacy-friendly, and does a far better job at privacy than Google does.

What I'm criticizing is the failure to clearly acknowledge limitations. And I'm coming at this from the perspective of users who are concerned about threats to their privacy. Users who aren't very technical, and who may misunderstand just what Apple protects them from.

Also, this isn't just me hating on Apple. I've said pretty much the same things about the Tor Project. Back in the day, when many users actually saw Tor start at the command line, they saw "[notice] Tor v0...(...). This is experimental software. Do not rely on it for strong anonymity." But the new https://www.torproject.org/ starts with "Browse Privately. Explore Freely. Defend yourself against tracking and surveillance. Circumvent censorship." Finding anything at all about limitations is not so easy. About risks from global adversaries. About Tor-bypass risks in Tor browser. About risks from malware that phones home through clearnet, bypassing Tor. Conversely, when you start Tor browser in Whonix, you see "Whonix is experimental software. Do not rely on it for strong anonymity."

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

#469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But would they have done this without the recent publicity about third-party app tracking? I suppose that they must have been working on this for some time. And maybe they deserve some slack. But there should at least be an apology for not acknowledging tracking by third-party apps. For years. While they were touting their privacy stance. And it's not just about behavioral ads. Some repressive governments have…

I assume you're enough of an engineer to know that building an SSO service like this takes a lot of time and energy. Third party apps are exploiting loopholes in the system and Apple is closing those loopholes one-by-one. I don't think this is unnatural. No one has foresight.

So are you arguing that Apple hasn't known about privacy violations by third-party apps in their store?

Given that Apple is announcing patches for these loopholes, it must have been working on them for at least months, if not years. But searching "apple privacy third party app" shows nothing before late May, 2019. Maybe I missed something, and if I did, please share.

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

#470
post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is quite at odds with my experience with my iPhone, so I'm confused. I don't have an iCloud account. I'm not sure what "basic functions for a smartphone" I'm unable to use, but, I don't want my photos backed up to iCloud - I'll handle that on my own, for the photos I actually want somewhere other than on my local device. Everything otherwise seems to work. I don't use iMessage. I've ticked the little box that sa…

Lock-in is more than just "not giving you the chance to opt out ahead of time" It's also "give you the chance to opt out LATER after you've invested some time into it." Most people don't change defaults. So if they buy an iPhone, they are going to go all in on iMessage, whether they've heard of those horror stories of people losing messages or not. Then, if they ever think they could switch to another OS, they experi…

You can disable iMessage at any point and it works. New texts from iMessage users get sent over SMS instead. You don't have to do it in advance—I just did so out of paranoia, and I don't think other people need to do the same.

(Of course, one side effect is that you can't use iMessage any more and iMessage-specific features are unavailable to you, e.g., group texts might get weird. I don't know of any platform that has the property that you can quit it and still use its features.)

Post reply on HN