It is a really interesting marketing move (and don't delude yourself, this is a marketing move). To market a feature that Google can't possibly compete with.
The best business strategies are ones that benefit users AND makes the business money. That's what Apple's done here.
For example, how is Apple's emphasis on privacy, with the additional features they have added to push for it, different from their emphasis on backing up when they introduced Time Machine? I think that the Time Machine introduction was as much of a marketing move, at which point you've broadened the definition of the phrase where it doesn't really mean anything.
That being said, there's nothing wrong with privacy being both a marketing move and aligned with our interests as users. In fact, I'm more comforted by the idea that morals and profits are aligned here, because no company is above choosing the latter when push comes to shove.
Though it does not say that they guarantee the apps available on the platform are also as secure.
Sure they have. Every instance where they stonewalled an investigation was undoubtedly seen at least in part as a way to differentiate themselves from their main competition, which is an run by what is essentially an advertising company that functions by gathering user information.
If you can do something that differentiates you from your competition and they can't feasibly replicate it without changing a large part of how they function at a base level, you do so, even if it might take a while to (or never) pay off. The return on that gamble far outweighs the cost.
I am just arguing against GP's dismissal of Apple's stance on privacy as a marketing move. I believe it's truly close to their heart, and it's a happy coincidence that it's also increasingly a marketable asset (given the despicable data collection practices of the big tech/advertisement firms).
But neither me nor, presumably, GP has privileged inside information on Apple's true motives (and surely they're multifaceted and complex and not monolithic anyway). So, just asserting that it's purely a marketing move and then furthermore implying that a deviating assessment is delusional strikes me as unjustified.
I think it's both, and impossible to separate. It's a public company, it doesn't have stuff close to it's heart, but it does have ideals it strives for that it presents to the board as the path forward. Part of that explanation is explaining how it helps the company.
> So, just asserting that it's purely a marketing move and then furthermore implying that a deviating assessment is delusional strikes me as unjustified.
But, if you read carefully, it wasn't asserted that it was purely a marketing move. Just that it was one (which we've sort of covered tangentially), and it was delusional to think that it wasn't (which we've also covered). There wasn't any statement that it also wasn't something they've incorporated into their company ideology.
That's one of the shortcomings of delayed text communication. What could have simply been a quick reply of "sure, it may not be the only reason, but it can't be discounted" from the original author gets blown out into a larger discussion where people are arguing slightly differently things based on their contextual interpretation of the statement.
iAd stood out because it didn't share customer data with advertisers as was the standard in the industry.
>Apple has a lot of knowledge regarding its users,but what it doesn’t do with that data is share it with advertisers very freely. That makes Madison Avenue very mad.
>rather than offering a cookie-based ad-tracking and targeting mechanism, it essentially requires partners to tell it what kind of audience it needs to reach, and then trust that Apple will handle the rest, AdAge says. And it’s well worth noting that Apple prioritizes customer privacy here over a big potential upside in ad revenue.
>what it doesn’t do is hand over the keys to all that data and let advertisers plug into it directly with their own data-mining and targeting software. That’s not standard for the ad industry and that’s likely the reason a few Madison Avenue feathers are ruffled over their approach.
https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/18/advertisers-not-thrilled-w....
I don't think it's just a marketing move necessarily. While power and idealistic managers can have a significant short term impact in direction and culture, in the long term of course financial incentives are generally the single greatest determinator of company behavior. However short term isn't meaningless particularly wrt company cultural values that last longer, and in turn leadership can still matter a lot. I think that may multiply when leadership isn't fighting a company's incentives, but rather there is a chance to bring both together in some ways. All that is leading up to sometimes forgotten (and how great that is!) fact that Apple's current CEO Tim Cook is a gay man who grew up in a time when that was flat out illegal and could be heavily persecuted even in the US, and now lives in a world where it's still something subject to death in many parts of the world. That's not determinative by any means, but I can't imagine it hasn't influenced him at all. One of the core business values of having a more diverse workforce and management team is precisely that they bring a wider set of experiences and viewpoints which can profitably inform the company.
I've seen a number of comparisons vs Steve Jobs that have called Tim Cook more "visionless" and "mundane" and so on and so forth, a "competent manager" but without the same animation. I honestly wonder though whether privacy and personal information security is in fact a real animating motivation Tim Cook's. It's inherently a much quieter, subtler one that doesn't on the face of it have the same end user feature impact (by definition). And it is something that can work well with where Apple gets their money and even their own corporate culture of secrecy. But that doesn't mean he can't drive them even farther and harder in that direction in turn then they might have gone otherwise right?
Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but when I see "this is a marketing move" it tends to feel dismissive and negative, like it's all just fake and manipulative. But something can be "good PR" while also being a genuine value people hold, in fact if anything I think the most sustainable and best win/wins are when it all comes together, when something someone is doing genuinely for real is good and is worth serious value and in turn is totally reasonable to be proud of and "market". That's the ultimate ideal of the market right, that someone is making something good and gets rewarded in turn?