Hacker News Reader

Comment by tinco | Hacker News Reader

Perhaps it is cynicism, but I'm pretty sure this is just Apple exploiting a competitive edge, and does not necessarily reflect his own opinion, he is speaking to benefit the company.

Of course, it's very nice that Apple made the decision to pick this edge, but they did it because they could not compete with Google on web services. So now they're publicly speaking to try and take the sting out of Google's edge. And that's healthy competition, the direct result will be that the consumer benefits, and I can agree we can be grateful to have these powerhouses fighting for our satisfaction.

View on HN

> Perhaps it is cynicism, but I'm pretty sure this is just Apple exploiting a competitive edge, and does not necessarily reflect his own opinion, he is speaking to benefit the company.

That's my favorite thing about it: I trust their motives. If Cook were saying this but we knew that the board was getting pissed off about it, I would worry that it was just a matter of time. But Apple is making billions by protecting its users' privacy, investors are raking in cash, and I'd bet the board is thrilled with this. That makes it much, much less likely that they're going to announce one morning that they're abandoning privacy and going all Facebook.

That makes it much, much less likely that they're going to announce one morning that they're abandoning privacy and going all Facebook.

One other thing that I'm trusting to keep them from "going all Facebook" is that privacy is the only thing making them something other than "me, too". The day they jump in with the rest is the day I clean out a house full of Apple gear, and I'm pretty sure they know that (or likely more accurate, the day I quit buying more Apple gear).

Apple's virtual assistants, mapping, and other services are arguably inferior to other offerings. I trust they won't bail on their one distinguishing feature.

> Perhaps it is cynicism, but I'm pretty sure this is just Apple exploiting a competitive edge, and does not necessarily reflect his own opinion, he is speaking to benefit the company.

Of course. This is how all companies work. I just really like that this competitive edge exists in the first place. If this competitive edge exists and works, it might actually be stronger as Apple can continue maintaining this stance in the future.

Although I'm not a big Apple user myself (I think/hope I can defend myself enough on other platforms that have a lower cost of entry), it's nice that you can point to iPhones if people are asking for on which they can take reasonable ownership of their privacy without needing to be very tech savvy.

I'm always baffled how even the tech-literate crowd here continues to give Apple a pass. This is the same Apple that gave up its encryptions keys to Chinese government for the servers located in China. If it actually had user's privacy in mind, it wouldn't give those up.

I think that’s an over-simplistic view. Failing to adhere to Chinese law would mean exiting the Chinese market. If the US passed a similar law, Apple would be forced to comply with it (although they would at least have recourse through the courts to eventually show that such a law was, perhaps, unconstitutional).

Sure, but when you make blistering attack on "data industrial complex" and advocate privacy, you are held to the golden standard in the entire world.

I personally believe that Apple complied to Chinese government's demands is because their bread and butter is in that country (the entire manufacturing of hardware devices).

Sounds like you are suggesting Apple should have simply stopped doing any business in China. Simple, right?

As simple as asking a company built on data collection to stop collecting it. Maybe simpler.

No, just observing the hypocrisy in their pro-privacy statements. Or is it that privacy of Chinese users is not worth the same as that of wester users?

i.e. they don't have a choice?

So, maybe don't say hypocritical statements like this? Google's and Fb's core business is ad-tech. Do they have a choice when it comes to data-collection? (I say this as someone who has uninstalled both Messenger and Fb app)

Okay, Apple caved to save their bread and butter; I'm not nominating Apple for corporate sainthood. However, they are not building a business model based on exploiting our data. They should get credit for that and be allowed to point out the problem with that kind of business.

Do you follow the laws of foreign countries when you travel, even though you live somewhere else?

Not if they are immoral.

If they are that immoral to you, you can just choose not to visit that country.

Edit: Would you go and visit North Korea on a vacation with your family?

> Failing to adhere to Chinese law would mean exiting the Chinese market

So? Failing to adhere to ad-tech needs would mean exiting the ad-tech market. Did I miss the other company CEOs' blistering attacks on the "Chinese anti-privacy cooperation complex"? Can we at least admit, since violation of privacy by chosen market is a choice, that Tim Cook is a hypocrite?

Why is that hypocritical? Apple does not require that you upload personal data to their cloud, and Apple has no say in Chinese law.

Additionally, Apple's participation in the market (or lack thereof) would have no impact on Chinese data privacy laws, but participation has positive global effects through economies of scale and R&D revenue.

A real hypocrite would actually have to enable oppressive behavior... selling data mining technology, surveillance cameras, etc.

> Why is that hypocritical? Apple does not require that you upload personal data to their cloud, and Apple has no say in Chinese law.

They have a say in whether they are complicit. That they choose to operate in that anti-privacy market while demeaning others choosing to operate in their anti-privacy market is hypocritical. Could be considered worse if you factor in the consequences of that data.

> A real hypocrite would actually have to enable oppressive behavior

We disagree on whether providing technology for oppressive behavior is "enabling" it.

You are right that Apple is complicit in Chinese domestic surveillance. I am not claiming otherwise.

However, a hypocrite's stated beliefs directly contradicts their autonomous actions, often with intent to deceive. China's state coercion voids any claims of hypocrisy.

Furthermore, from a privacy perspective I'd argue it is more ethical for Apple to participate than withdraw. Apple does try to provide as much privacy as possible within Chinese law, following the letter of the law and no more. Withdrawing forces people to use their competitors, which happily go beyond the law to appease state authorities.

Apple best supports privacy of all the large technology players.

Apple didn't hand over any encryption keys. They are stored on Chinese servers, per Chinese law.

Apple can't legally protect Chinese users from their government the way it can in this country--for now at, least. But Apple can protect Chinese users from other malicious actors.

From Apple's point of view, it was either refuse to follow the law and leave all Chinese users to the general security and privacy shitshow that is what every other phonemaker has to offer, or, play by the rules and give them something that's better in every use case except for the one where their government wants to hurt them.

Your argument is that locking your door can't stop a SWAT team from breaking into your house, therefore people selling locks don't care about keeping your house locked. It's a weirdly simplistic and uninformed argument coming from someone who claims to be tech-literate.

Apple is also the only major computing player that doesn't make its revenue primarily off of mining and exploiting user data. Maybe Microsoft, too? Certainly the rest of FAANG have huge financial temptations to misuse their data.

So Apple is the one big technology player whose interests are most closely aligned with the consumer in terms of supporting data privacy.

Amazon, fwiw, has giant revenue streams (AWS, retail) that they can pile on the privacy bandwagon and attack Google / Facebook / rest of the shitty adtech. In fact, it would be great if Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Mozilla et al all combine their forces and propose strong privacy friendly regulations.

Amazon has gotten into the advertising business [1] and I believe are growing quickly. I find it a disturbing move on their part; I have to trust that they're not mining my purchase history for ad targeting. If they do do so, it may be susceptible to targeted discovery. (Run ads with unique URLs for each selection keyword; everyone who sees the ad is apparently someone who bought that kind of product.) I hope Amazon is smart about the risks they take.

[1] https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/09/23/amazon-is-now-the-...

Microsoft "lets you choose" between seeing ads and seeing targeted ads during setup. They're a joke.

> So Apple is the one big technology player whose interests are most closely aligned with the consumer in terms of supporting data privacy.

That's assuming that "the user" (whatever that means) is valuing their privacy more than the free services they receive. I don't think such a statement can generally be applied to the public at large. It's great to have options (ways to pay for services/phones/etc) that don't mean you have to give up your privacy and then let users decide what's best for them, but I wouldn't make generalizations that most users would definitely prefer one other over the other.

> Certainly the rest of FAANG have huge financial temptations to misuse their data.

I don't get this. FAANG have every interest in protecting user data as their moat is products users want to keep using, which would not be the case if they started sharing user data widely.

Except that they have already shared their data widely.

Cambridge Analytica didn't steal all of their data. It was obtained legally and with consent from Facebook.

The ability of Facebook as an engineering organization to align with their business incentives has increased over time. The Cambridge Analytica data hoovering happened in 2014-2015.

No, actually trying to "compete" by PR and stifle competitors through public pressure and new laws doesn't seem like "healthy" competition to me, you are essentially attempting to change the rules of the game because you don't think you'd win if you play the game. I mean sure, it's your right to do whatever you legally can, but it's not "healthy" competition at all IMO.

EDIT: To see the equivalent from the "other side", timagine adtech companies starting a PR war against Apple's closed garden system, arbitrary app store decisions, labor conditions (I'm sure we can find some dirt somewhere in their vast business) to get laws enacted to regulate them on what they can do and not do.

> timagine adtech companies starting a PR war against Apple's closed garden system, arbitrary app store decisions, labor conditions (I'm sure we can find some dirt somewhere in their vast business) to get laws enacted to regulate them on what they can do and not do.

That sounds nice though.

Gay people are killed in many parts of the world for just being gay.

Don't believe for a second that privacy isn't personal to him.

This is true but Apple is also vulnerable to the same type of "political" attack. I can imagine Google railing against the evils of employing a workforce of indentured servants to assemble high profit electronic devices. Facebook could begin publicly questioning the wisdom of supporting a technocratic dictator who may be the world's worst offender of oppression through the use of data. Hopefully, Tim is going down this road with his eyes wide open - glass houses and all.

Indentured servants? What are you talking about?

You do understand that Google’s Pixel 3 was built by the same Foxconn that built Apple devices right?

That is correct but it doesn't negate the statement about Apple just because others are also doing it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com