121–130 of 359 posts
I think it's unfair to compare Facebook actively screwing us to Apple not adopting your proposed metric on their product and passively allowing a very popular app in their app store. Not a huge fan of Apple, but they aren't Facebook.
I think it's unfair to compare Facebook actively screwing us to Apple not adopting your proposed metric on their product and passively allowing a very popular app in their app store. Not a huge fan of Apple, but they aren't Facebook.
Incorrect. Apple actively screws us. Just a couple of years ago, launching apps became incredibly slow for some time. Diagnosis: Apple's telemetry web service was having hiccups: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-apps-not-opening-or...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meta wants to know everything it can about you because other people will pay them for the information. Apple doesn’t. It’s really that simple.
To my knowledge, Apple has not invented a new form of advertising that works without tracking users.
Displaying an ad next to search results based on the search query for example is similarly benign.
This article seems to conflate Apple for Meta's privacy violations. Yes, the OS can always make it more difficult to do fingerprinting and the app store could add even more "privacy warnings", but in the end if you use a privacy violating third party app they will always find ways to slurp up all your data. Using this as some kind of argument that Apple doesn't care about privacy is dishonest.
The OS is the layer below applications. They obviously can control what data is being sent. Now perhaps that our software model doesn't make it very convenient, but blaming Apple is completely honest and understandable. We should stop seeing our computers as uncontrollable machines that must leak data, they are human made
I think it's unfair to compare Facebook actively screwing us to Apple not adopting your proposed metric on their product and passively allowing a very popular app in their app store. Not a huge fan of Apple, but they aren't Facebook.
Apple does not have a tracking pixel on half the popular web. Apple's main source of income is through luxury hardware and subscription services. Facebook sells your information and attention to willing buyers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incorrect. Apple actively screws us. Just a couple of years ago, launching apps became incredibly slow for some time. Diagnosis: Apple's telemetry web service was having hiccups: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-apps-not-opening-or...
I would be hard pressed to call a transient operational issue of their service "actively screwing" you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple does not have a tracking pixel on half the popular web. Apple's main source of income is through luxury hardware and subscription services. Facebook sells your information and attention to willing buyers.
What the difference between Meta's tracking pixel and Apple's IDFA?
> Starting in iOS 14.5, iPadOS 14.5, and tvOS 14.5, users are prompted to decide whether to opt-in or out of IDFA sharing before apps can query it. This choice can be altered in Settings.[2][3] In May, 2021, Verizon-owned advertisement analytics company Flurry Analytics reported that 96% of US users opted out of IDFA sharing.[4]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To my knowledge, Apple has not invented a new form of advertising that works without tracking users.
I’m fairly sure there are many forms of advertisement that works without tracking.. like a billboard. Displaying an ad next to search results based on the search query for example is similarly benign.
Enough with carrying water for a megacorp that makes money from selling advertising services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was going to say, nobody believes in any privacy Meta alleges. Even when they do E2EE they still collect anything else about you that they can.
I also don’t believe any privacy that Apple alleges, given their actions in China, attempts at iCloud scanning, etc. Post-Snowden, it would seem naive to believe in any such assertions, beyond the level of “this might protect me okay against average criminals, assuming I install all the latest updates and use features like lockdown mode.”
Also, CP scanning was deliberately proposed as a way to actually enable e2e icloud - but they just didn’t want to be liable, as storing CP encrypted on their servers may also be problematic. So, I don’t see them malicious against privacy at all, in fact that is a core selling point of theirs, it would hurt them greatly to cheapen it out.