111–120 of 267 posts
I always get downvoted when making this comment, I just hope that the "blind believers" of today will remember their mistake a few years down the line when the "privacy" house of cards comes tumbling down.
Am I a realist on Apple Apologist? My primary credit card is an apple card, primary dev machine is a mbp, primary work machine iPad, phone iPhone, watch Apple, and I have air tags attached to my dogs and wallet. In this ecosystem, I can reference _ANY_ of my screens for necessary and current relevant information whether it be curated or automated without breaking a glance to whatever primary device the content came f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would never have this kind of confidence in a corporation. Meanwhile back on Planet Earth ..... Going by your argument you should not own any electronic device. Because you should not be trusting Intel/AMD to make your CPU because they might have put spyware in it .... Because you should not trust your keyboard manufacturer because they might have embedded a keylogger in it.... Because you should not trust your c…
I don't think "this is a problem for everyone" really precludes both informing people about the problem and hoping there is a solution to the problem. Just because Apple it "better", doesn't make it "good". I personally feel some sort of regulatory framework around data collection and sales is not too much to ask.
The moment that apple announced "privacy" as their focus I knew this was going to happen. They don't actually care about user privacy, but rather want exclusive rights to all of your data so that they can sell it for a markup. If you want to sell targeted ads to anyone using an Apple device, you'll have to let Apple do the targeting (and take their cut). Get customers locked into the apple ecosystem, "protect" them f…
This flies in the face of everything Apple has ever done.
I'm more cynical than most, but I also pay attention, and I find it more plausible that a company run by a very private gay man actually holds privacy as a company principle. That fits the facts much better than the conspiracy view.
Apple has already struck out once in the ad industry because they refused to violate user privacy to compete with Google and Facebook. This time around they've acted to bring Google and Facebook down onto a level playing field.
Since Google acquired DoubleClick, it's like we've forgotten that it's possible to sell targeted ads based on target locations, rather than based on personalized demographic profiles of target users. Being able to target locations impersonally is what initially drew ad dollars to the internet, as the targeting could be more specific than general TV spots or roadside billboards.
There's no evidence that Apple intends to use any personal information at all in their ad targeting, and plenty of evidence that they don't. If it is "gatekeeping," it's a gate that they seem unwilling to cross themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> one of the worst businesses in the world But is mobile telecoms really one of the worst businesses in the world ? I would argue that its one of the worst executed businesses in the world, but not the worst business. Travel and hospitality would likely be fairer examples of "worst businesses", perhaps especially the airline business.
People say this because accountants don’t like capital spending. Carriers have 50-60% gross margins. They are critical enough to get special tax treatments to deal with the capital expenses. If the goal is to make money, what would be the “best” business? Drug cartel?
What are good businesses?
Apple... Saudi Aramco... Google... AWS...
> Nonetheless, I still want to see an Apple Car and see the company’s still working on that bet as a potential head against incrementalism. Perhaps me meant a "hedge" against incrementalism. Am I the only one that does not want to see an Apple car? We already have Tesla, I would rather see more inexpensive (electric, I assume) cars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is really uniquely positions to just decide to make a (crypto)currency. Push the app to every iPhone, give everyone with an Apple device X amount, and strong support for business + peer-to-peer transactions and you have the best easiest path to mass adoption possible.
You're falling for the standard crypto trap of being a solution in search of a problem. The user experience you're describing is Venmo. Making it use CookCoin instead of USD doesn't make it easier to build, and it isn't really a selling point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think "this is a problem for everyone" really precludes both informing people about the problem and hoping there is a solution to the problem. Just because Apple it "better", doesn't make it "good". I personally feel some sort of regulatory framework around data collection and sales is not too much to ask.
My question is why is it always in discussions about Apple that people come out of the woodworks "worried about their privacy stance changing" and how we need regulatory stuff in place in the event Apple STARTS to be like Google, but nobody is ever in the Android stuff talking about how absolutely terrible Google is on this front?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it the business model of Google that you are describing in some way instead ? "We don't sell or share your data so we can be the only ones who have access to it for advertising purposes"
Correct, and Google makes gigantic fuckloads of money doing that. It's no wonder Apple wants to do it as well. Apple having direct hardware access and aggressively locking in their customers makes this an extra degree worse for the consumer/better for Apple. At least with Google, it's easier to stop using it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is absolute nonsense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPogdNafgic Apple has the led the conversation on privacy far before anyone else was. I remember them get vilified from sharing their stance 10 years ago.
>Apple has the led the conversation on privacy far before anyone else was. So they can make more money by selling access to a userbase they withhold from all other advertisers. The notion that Apple cares about anything other than the money-printing ability of their phone users is clearly and obviously wrong.
They should probably have more such values, but they definitely "care" about some things other than printing money.
I'm all on board the Cynicism Express, but you've gotten on the wrong track here. Apple can be a monster for many, many reasons while still operating based on principles of user privacy.