Apple's moat has increasingly become incentivised of late by being the privacy-conscious option to its competitors - thanks primarily to Google's infringement of the same
The vast majority of the public do not care, at all, about the type of data tracking that gets HNers so up in arms. That may be a bit of hyperbole - they may care a teeny bit, but the second they have to do something that is even the slightest bit inconvenient in order to get more privacy ("Why do I have to log in here again?") they'll bail.
What Apple has done, though, is frame privacy-consciousness in terms of exclusivity and luxury. It's quite similar to how Tesla rebranded electric cars from dorky and stodgy to cool. Most people's experience with Apple's privacy-conscious features are Touch ID and Face ID. These felt really futuristic when they first came out. And the privacy messaging that Apple does is really great IMO: it's more along the lines of "With Google all your data is shared with crappy advertisers along with the rest of the unwashed masses. With Apple everything is safe and secure, and most importantly protected from their grubby little non-Jony Ive-approved hands."
This has real benefits to consumers (because the privacy advancements with Apple are not just marketing, they're real), but people should understand Apple is still based around exclusivity and luxury, and privacy is just a part of that.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-an...
"Some 81% of the public say that the potential risks they face because of data collection by companies outweigh the benefits, and 66% say the same about government data collection."
I only know two persons in real life (other than me) that care about data privacy and act on that. Of course if you ask most people they will say that yeah they care about privacy, but their actions tell a different story.
It can be as simple as showing them to open incognito for specific searches or topics, or to install a trusted tracker blocking extension like ublock origin and set it up for them.
Managing app location privileges is a big one too, iOS is really good about nagging for background location permissions and I appreciate that a lot, but a lot of people don't realize if you give Facebook or another app "while using", you can bet money it will use it whenever you open the app.
https://business.financialpost.com/technology/tim-hortons-ap... The Tim Hortons app logged this guy's location 2,700 times in 5 months. He didn't find out until the iOS 13 background location warning.
https://cdn.iphoneincanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ios...
People care, most of them just aren't as literate as the typical HN user so they either don't have a clue what's really happening, or simply throw their hands up in the air.
Vast majority of people today know Google/Facebook is Big Brother and that knowledge doesn't matter to them nearly as much as some hoped.
There's an entire class of problems you cannot solve through 'hygiene.' Equifax, for example, collected data on you without your consent, and got in trouble for unintentionally giving it away when they're supposed to be getting money in exchange.
This whole pandemic kind of proves that we haven't learned the real-life hygiene, after decades and decades of that being drilled into us, and real-life hygiene having actual life-or-death consequences.
Don't hold your breath about digital hygiene.
That's essentially Apple's marketing pitch on this subject, and this poll shows that there are a lot of people with whom it will resonate.
A billion people might use Facebook, but 1.3 billion use iMessage. I think this is a significant risk for services that don’t respect user privacy.
>19% of the public uses google and/or facebook services.
As an example of misunderstanding: Apple attempts to guess at pairs of phone numbers, email addresses, and names based on the data on the phone using analysis on the phone. So someone emailed a colleague a phone number (From: Bob, Body: "Hey, call me at 555-555-5555"). They get a call from 555-555-5555 and "Bob" comes up in the caller ID. It freaked them out, "I haven't added them to my contacts! Apple is reading my email!". This misunderstanding of what the systems are doing and how they're doing it creates an appearance of something "wrong" happening, even when it's not. The inability to distinguish these things leads to "they're all the same" and other perspectives that cause the non-technical people (especially, but even many technical people) to give up. They care, but they don't know how to overcome it (short of getting a dumb phone or a feature phone and moving off grid).
They likely see both as secure enough.
That's a hell of a claim. What's your source on this?
That's an interesting point. Without delving into the rest of your comment, I'd like to expand on that one bit and add that part and parcel with exclusivity and luxury, part of Apple's brand has been simplicity, quality, and joy (or pleasure in use).
Like many luxury brands ; ). Or high-end brands. It's a mix.
And I think that Apple is using it's privacy features to enhance the "quality" and "simple" part of their brand in addition to the other aspects you mentioned.
That was true maybe five years ago, but the HN meme is no longer true.
I interface with a lot of wetware for my job, and I've seen a shift. People have learned to care about privacy.
Some of the education has come from the mass media. Some of it from the creepiness of seeing a product you viewed on one web site follow you around to all the other web sites you visit. Some of it has come from the privacy alert boxes on Apple devices. Some of it from the thousands of TV commercials for privacy services.
The notion that "nobody cares" is simply not true anymore. If it was, then there wouldn't be a demonstrated market for all of the privacy tools out there.
> Notably, Facebook has declined to even show app install advertisements to the 30% of U.S. iPhone users that turned off their IDFA of their own accord — and now it is opt-in, instead of opt-out.
That is a massive proportion. Especially when you consider that the IFDA setting is buried three or four screens app in the settings app. 30 percent of users went way out of their way to turn tracking off. That tells me that a lot more users care about their privacy than we might assume
Unfortunately, as you touch on, privacy is yet another thing that only people with money get to have.
However, my foray into Android was not so rosy. Android felt like playing with Fire. It was scary not knowing what all was taking your data and then finding like half the apps I had downloaded had been stealing data in some form or another.
Moving back to ios was certainly a huge relief. The privacy aspects are just so much better.
Are you saying you saw a notable difference in the ads you were shown after switching back to iOS?
Also, people tend to get downvoted for starting or ending comments with "lol," as it shows a basic lack of respect for other people on HN.
I'm doing that now because I've been downvoted. I didn't do that with my initial question which was the one that was downvoted.
It has become crystal clear that Google's interests lie in selling advertising beneath the surface vs Apple's interests selling hardware.
My problems with Android are largely around all the things you can't do without turning on web and location tracking. The most egregious of these is probably the aparant inability to set your home address in the google map app. There is no reason it can't store this as some kind of favourite. It is ridiculous, and indicative of an approach designed to maximise the amount of information you give up to them.
I was in the same boat. I was paying Google over $30/month just for e-mail. I didn't move for years because I feared it would be a hassle.
In the end, I was able to move everything over to Fastmail in half an afternoon. It really was worth it.
Thanks so much for this, I'm looking into it now!
I'd recommend setting up your own domain for email with Fastmail too since it makes it easy to move later. Fastmail also lets you create aliases for individual accounts, I've used that to group together less trustworthy services.
The biggest time sync was moving all existing accounts from Gmail over to Fastmail. Luckily I use a password manager so they were at least all in one place, but it still took about a day of tedious effort.
What's worse is a lot of sites are just broken. They don't let you change your email or account name, they make you contact support to do it, etc. If you're in California you can at least file a CCPA request to force them to delete your account.
Safari on iOS is inferior to Firefox with uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger.
Also Safari might have content blockers (inferior, but better than nothing), however iOS apps don't open links in Safari but in their own web view. This is mostly a cultural thing, but due to Android's tighter integration (eg back button) Android apps at least admit opening in the external browser as an option.
Example of apps that can open links on the external default browser on Android, but not on iOS: Facebook, Twitter, Gmail.
Android also supports web push notifications, making it possible to use some services from the browser, which is a far better sandbox. Firefox supports creating web app shortcuts, running full screen and with notifications, but with uBlock Origin powered content blocking in the background.
Why is this important? Have you seen the apps that share data with Facebook about you via their SDK? Go ahead, you might have a revelation about how privacy friendly your iOS device actually is:
https://www.facebook.com/off_facebook_activity
I could avoid this crap on Android, but I can't on iOS unless I block the Facebook.com domain entirely at the DNS level, which I did, but it's not very practical if I'd need Facebook too.
iOS has some pretty cool privacy features, but it is also defective by design and this keeps it from being a good option for protecting the privacy of power users.
There are two types of web views in IOS. One is an out of process web view where the app has very little visibility in what you do while you are using it. This view does support installed content blockers. Feedly for instance supports this web view. The other is an in process web view where the app has far more control and visibility. But doesn’t support content blockers. I use the Facebook website for just that reason instead of the app.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/apple-china-censorship-apps-flag...
- In China Apple allows iCloud infrastructure to be managed by Chinese companies (presumably so they can do bulk collection on user data/message backups).
- Apple removes the Taiwanese flag emoji from devices
- Apple removes the apps the CCP asks them to from the app store in China (notably this includes podcast apps with access to unapproved speech).
I wouldn't be surprised if there were more concessions.
I've written more generally about this here: https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html
Apple is still the best when it comes to protecting their users in the west, but few western companies stand by their principles in the Chinese market. It's disappointing.
On the plus side, at least the Chinese consumer knows what the CCP values are, so it's not like it comes as a surprise.
I agree. This absolutely fits the bill. For Apple, it’s either accept this arrangement or don’t do business in China, but it doesn’t change that it has a hollow ring, when Apple talks about privacy as a human right elsewhere.
Apple removes the Taiwanese flag emoji from devices
That’s a bad look, but it has nothing to do with privacy, and ultimately has no practical consequences for anybody.
Apple removes the apps the CCP asks them to from the app store in China (notably this includes podcast apps with access to unapproved speech).
Again, that has nothing to do with privacy. I don’t even see how it reflects poorly on Apple. What would you like Apple to do differently here? Should they martyr themselves in protest Chinese laws? What would that accomplish?
I wouldn't be surprised if there were more concessions.
Undoubtedly, if by concessions you mean complying with local laws in the countries where the do business.
Apple is still the best when it comes to protecting their users in the west
I’m sure Apple is also among the best when it comes to protecting their users in China. The problem is that Chinese laws don’t allow for the same level of protection as US laws.
I agree that it's not narrowly related to privacy, but it demonstrates that Apple is willing to comply with censorship demands from authoritarian governments. When/if China tries to take Taiwan the systemic suppression of Taiwan's existence and independence to the Chinese people may have played a part in what the public is willing to support. These kinds of things add up and have real effects.
> "What would you like Apple to do differently here? Should they martyr themselves in protest Chinese laws? What would that accomplish?"
I don't want to rehash my blog post linked above, but I'd argue Apple is responsible for the actions they take. They position themselves in the west as protectors of user privacy (refusing to decrypt iPhones, setting up systems where they can't be compelled to), yet in countries with real authoritarian governments where the people are at serious risk, where Uigers are put in camps and sterilized (https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c) Apple just 'follows local laws'. This is not a principled position.
What can they do? I'm not sure, but they can start with not being complicit in the oppressive laws of authoritarian countries. Maybe China has too much leverage with their manufacturing, but Apple has a strong brand and people want their devices. Maybe if they held up their principles then people in China would still try to smuggle the phones in?
Maybe it's too much to ask for western companies to support human rights everywhere even when there aren't government sanctions to force them, but I wish they did.
It's often in these countries that the people need protection the most.
If or when China tries to take Taiwan, it will solely be because the US (implicitly or explicitly) withdraws its guarantee that it will use the power of its military to keep Taiwan independent. How the public in the US or anywhere else feels about it, will have no bearing on it whatsoever.
yet in countries with real authoritarian governments where the people are at serious risk, where Uigers are put in camps and sterilized (https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c) Apple just 'follows local laws'. This is not a principled position.
This would be a good argument, if any action of Apple's directly facilitated the oppression of the Uiger or anybody else in China. Selling e.g. surveillance technology is not equivalent to banning apps or removing an Emoji flag.
What can they do? I'm not sure, but they can start with not being complicit in the oppressive laws of authoritarian countries.
But no matter what Apple decides to do, the outcome will be the same: People living in China will not have access to apps which are illegal in China.
Maybe it's too much to ask for western companies to support human rights everywhere even when there aren't government sanctions to force them, but I wish they did.
I think it's crucial to distinguish between those companies who are actively aiding authoritarian regimes by selling them instruments of oppression, and those who are simply not doing anything to thwart those regimes.
Public opinion is what translates into political support (or lack of support) for military action. I don't agree that these things are as independent as you suggest. In fact, the reason the CCP cares so much about suppressing speech and censoring their citizens is because they deeply understand this power.
> "This would be a good argument, if any action of Apple's directly facilitated the oppression of the Uiger or anybody else in China."
Isn't giving them iCloud access to messages effectively enabling the surveillance? This and the other smaller things suggest a precedent that Apple will do whatever is asked of them and figure out some way to rationalize it.
> "But no matter what Apple decides to do, the outcome will be the same: People living in China will not have access to apps which are illegal in China."
This flavor of argument leads to good people doing bad things and telling themselves it's okay. I think it's just a way to rationalize bad behavior (https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html).
The outcome doesn't have to be the same, just because you refuse to enable authoritarian governments doesn't mean you have to do nothing. Even if you do do nothing, at least you're not directly enabling the bad behavior.
> "I think it's crucial to distinguish between those companies who are actively aiding authoritarian regimes by selling them instruments of oppression, and those who are simply not doing anything to thwart those regimes."
I think this is a fair distinction and there is definitely a spectrum of wrongness, but I think companies often use this to rationalize bad behavior. Usually with similar "operating within the legal framework of the country" type of arguments. I don't find it very compelling. I'd also argue Apple specifically is enabling oppression of citizens by suppressing speech, and by handing over iCloud access to the CCP.
Sure, but let's not lose sight of the specifics of what we're discussing. Magnitude matters. The impact of removing the Taiwanese flag from the emoji keyboard is comparable to trying to the impact of using a paddle to change the course of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.
Isn't giving them iCloud access to messages effectively enabling the surveillance? This and the other smaller things suggest a precedent that Apple will do whatever is asked of them and figure out some way to rationalize it.
No, I don't think it's the same. Not taking measures to prevent authorities from surveilling iPhone users is not the same as assisting with said surveillance. There would be no moral panic if say a US company started selling regular dumb phones in China, even though dumb phones are much easier to snoop on. It would be quite a different story though, if a US company started selling equipment that was specifically designed for large scale surveillance of phone traffic.
This flavor of argument leads to good people doing bad things and telling themselves it's okay. I think it's just a way to rationalize bad behavior (https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html). The outcome doesn't have to be the same, just because you refuse to enable authoritarian governments doesn't mean you have to do nothing. Even if you do do nothing, at least you're not directly enabling the bad behavior.
The inevitable conclusion of this line of reasoning is that no western company should do business in China.
I think this is a fair distinction and there is definitely a spectrum of wrongness, but I think companies often use this to rationalize bad behavior.
I don't think it's fair to label as bad behavior anything you are forced to do, and especially not anything you are forced to not do. Rationalizing bad behavior to me is about making excuses for things that in reality have entirely different motivations. Apple doesn't gain anything from doing any of the things they get criticized for in China.
I think participating in iCloud access is worse than just providing dumb phones and closer to assisting with surveillance. A similar example would be enabling encryption in the west, but breaking it to comply with local law in authoritarian countries where people need it most. The distinction that they're not the ones specifically doing the surveillance seems less important, they're complicit in it.
I agree the flag itself, specifically, is a small thing - but it still bothers me because of the precedent it sets.
> "The inevitable conclusion of this line of reasoning is that no western company should do business in China."
I struggle with this, maybe that's not so bad? I'd be happy if western companies didn't help to enable authoritarian countries whether in China, the Middle East, or elsewhere. Rule of law should be an important consideration when what you're doing can enable the oppression of a country's citizens.
> "Apple doesn't gain anything from doing any of the things they get criticized for in China. "
I think they do gain access to the Chinese market which is a lot - this is why I see them as making excuses for everything else they do that's required for this access.
It's the same reason I don't want to switch from Windows to MacOS, I refuse to support a platform where one company is "the Judge, Jury and Executioner".
As a mobile dev, it is also quite irritating that if you wish to develop for iOS, you must use an Mac, but if you wish to develop for Android, you can use any device you want. Oh how I would love for Apple to feel caged by their own walls, e.g. make Android Studios not available for MacOs until XCode is available for Windows and Linux.
Apple regards their platform as an advantage for developers. You are free to disagree and choose another platform if you like.
But the idea that you would expect Apple not to use it’s own platform to develop its tools makes no sense.
You would be expecting them to give up their primary advantage.
And for what? To satisfy people who don’t want to buy their products?
As long as you're not in China that is:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy...
But after Apple declined to implement 16 Web APIs in Safari due to privacy concerns, she bough an iPhone.
She's 8.
Remember that anti-competitive agreement between the the big tech companies to not compete with each other for employees aka fucking illegal? Remember how many people went to prison for that? Right, 0. These companies are all fine dining together and high fiving each other for their agreement to not compete with one another all the way to the bank.
When a small competitor arises, they just throw a few billion to squash them aka acquire and laugh all the way to the bank some more.
I wouldn't be surprised if this blog is going to get a corporate sponsor sometime soon - it's been such a good boy, making pretend these companies are actually competing.