61–70 of 664 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was such a long time ago that the people who made the mistake have already retired, maybe.
U2 stunt was Jobs' idea. He was a life-long fan of them. Edit - it wasn't, my bad, see below.
https://www.rnz.de/cms_media/module_img/176/88193_1_detailxs...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Apple makes its money by selling you hardware and services, not by selling advertising. Companies ultimately serve whoever they make their money from; and none of the other big tech players have a comprehensive business model where the end user is the customer instead of the product. And because it has positioned itself as the single most prominent privacy-conscious champion in big tech through repeated actio…
> And because it has positioned itself as the single most prominent privacy-conscious champion in big tech through repeated actions over the course of many years. I just want to highlight this because Hacker News can be incredibly dismissive about this. Apple’s focus on privacy is a competitive advantage. Consumers value it, and Apple’s competitors have business models that undermine it. Even if you think Tim Cook is…
But the truth is, nobody really cares about privacy, least of all, users. Nobody ever bought an iPhone because of "privacy"; people buy iPhones because they work, and because they seem cool. Everyone's happy to hand over data to any service.
Facebook has three billion users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jobs has been gone for almost 15 years. From what I know Ive had nothing to do with anything but design aesthetic. I am not sure either of these people have anything to do with ads on Apple Wallet. Or even Apple Wallet…
The point is, when Jobs was around, there was an overarching (unstated?) policy at Apple of “nobody do anything to make us look like cheap tasteless shits”. Whereas now, Tim Cook is very happy to sell out for a quick buck. He's a logistics guy, not a product guy, and at his core is a bean counter; he neither has taste nor appreciates that it has value unto itself.
> That Apple can be trusted in ways that other “big tech” companies cannot. That's funny. Why would Apple be "different"?
Because Apple makes its money by selling you hardware and services, not by selling advertising. Companies ultimately serve whoever they make their money from; and none of the other big tech players have a comprehensive business model where the end user is the customer instead of the product. And because it has positioned itself as the single most prominent privacy-conscious champion in big tech through repeated actio…
Apple without Ive and Jobs increasingly has a taste problem. Everything from their ads to things like this are just in really poor taste, and aren’t something that they would have done 15 years ago because they would have thought it was beneath their brand. I like Apple, so I’m really hoping they bring on someone to solve this. Otherwise they’re on track to be the same as every other tasteless tech company. More on t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jobs hated ads. You're right that he never wouldve done what Apple is doing now. Cook needs to stop listening to investors, like Warren Buffett, because he's letting them wreck Apple's integrity for the sake of making a buck. Apple just isnt user focused like they used to be and it's crappy.
Cook is an operations person. He makes the logistics work. He's no visionary. Jobs is a visionary, but is not a logistics person. Apple struck lightning when both existed, to provide complimentary ideas and counterbalances. Lighting doesnt strike twice imho.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Privacy and advertising are not mutually exclusive.
Advertising on old style TV, newspapers, billboards did not impact on privacy. Even non targeted advertising on the web can impact privacy because our browsers send requests to the ad servers and that's the beginning of fingerprinting, even with Javascript disabled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jobs hated ads. You're right that he never wouldve done what Apple is doing now. Cook needs to stop listening to investors, like Warren Buffett, because he's letting them wreck Apple's integrity for the sake of making a buck. Apple just isnt user focused like they used to be and it's crappy.
Cook is an operations person. He makes the logistics work. He's no visionary. Jobs is a visionary, but is not a logistics person. Apple struck lightning when both existed, to provide complimentary ideas and counterbalances. Lighting doesnt strike twice imho.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And because it has positioned itself as the single most prominent privacy-conscious champion in big tech through repeated actions over the course of many years. I just want to highlight this because Hacker News can be incredibly dismissive about this. Apple’s focus on privacy is a competitive advantage. Consumers value it, and Apple’s competitors have business models that undermine it. Even if you think Tim Cook is…
The incident we are discussing absolutely disproves this! Apple is happy to jeopardize privacy and the very idea of it, for a quick buck blasting an ad to all its users. They don't care one way or the other. But the truth is, nobody really cares about privacy, least of all, users. Nobody ever bought an iPhone because of "privacy"; people buy iPhones because they work, and because they seem cool. Everyone's happy to h…
I'm glad that people are mad about this. I got the ad, went on here to see if 1000 people were complaining, and nobody was. I was kind of surprised. For me it's like "oh, I didn't know Wallet was an advertising app", I thought it was something I paid for with the purchase of my phone. But I was wrong. It's just adware. "We'll store your boarding pass if you'll let us spam you about movie tickets." Do not want. I disa…
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44368854
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44371872
> Now a year from now (…) people are buying a Garmin watch for Garmin Pay instead of an Apple Watch for Apple Pay.
Talk about a slippery slope fallacy. No, that will not happen. At all. There’s a better chance that this year will be the year of Linux on the Desktop.
