Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexb_ | Hacker News Reader

The moment that apple announced "privacy" as their focus I knew this was going to happen. They don't actually care about user privacy, but rather want exclusive rights to all of your data so that they can sell it for a markup. If you want to sell targeted ads to anyone using an Apple device, you'll have to let Apple do the targeting (and take their cut). Get customers locked into the apple ecosystem, "protect" them from non-apple marketers, and then sell access to the giant Apple userbase at a big cost.

What's really worrying is that having Apple gatekeep advertisers gives them the power to dictate what platforms can get ads vs what platforms can't. Letting Apple decide what platforms/services get their potential ad revenue cut in half is not a good thing.

View on HN

> They don't actually care about user privacy, but rather want exclusive rights to all of your data so that they can sell it for a markup.

Anyone who seriously thinks Apple are going to turn into another Google or Facebook needs to give their head a wobble.

Look at, for example, their recent pro-privacy improvements to the App Store where developers are now forced to state in black and white what data their Apps collect.

Look at, for example, how pissed off Facebook were with recent privacy improvements in iOS. If Zuck is pissed off about a privacy improvement, then it must be a good thing !

If Apple didn't give a shit about user privacy and wanted to sell all your data, they would have done so a long time ago.

Fact is that Apple has many moats. One of their biggest moats is their stance on the privacy of their user's data. They know that if they backtrack on that, many people (including myself) would vote with their feet.

Where would people move to? I think there's a fair bit of room for Apple to get worse on privacy while still being preferable to Android/Windows. "At least they don't sell my data as much as ____".

I would never have this kind of confidence in a corporation.

> I would never have this kind of confidence in a corporation.

Meanwhile back on Planet Earth .....

Going by your argument you should not own any electronic device.

Because you should not be trusting Intel/AMD to make your CPU because they might have put spyware in it ....

Because you should not trust your keyboard manufacturer because they might have embedded a keylogger in it....

Because you should not trust your choice of OS because you haven't personally reviewed 100% of the source code and all subsequent patches for spyware ...

In the end, its about balancing risk vs reward. And frankly, especially in terms of privacy, Apple are far more trustworthy than the vast majority of other options out there.

I don't think "this is a problem for everyone" really precludes both informing people about the problem and hoping there is a solution to the problem. Just because Apple it "better", doesn't make it "good".

I personally feel some sort of regulatory framework around data collection and sales is not too much to ask.

My question is why is it always in discussions about Apple that people come out of the woodworks "worried about their privacy stance changing" and how we need regulatory stuff in place in the event Apple STARTS to be like Google, but nobody is ever in the Android stuff talking about how absolutely terrible Google is on this front?

Because everyone knows this about Google already. With Apple there seems to be some associated belief that it's better, when there's nothing really special about Apple. It's a publicly traded company and just because no one let the cow out of the barn yet, doesn't mean it couldn't in the future. Props to Apple for not doing a Google yet, but like someone said, I would never trust a corporation to put me above shareholder value.

> I would never trust a corporation to put me above shareholder value.

Normally I'd agree with you, but I think Steve Jobs has a long history of not giving a shit about what shareholders say because he was more concerned with delivering the perfect product to customers, so I'd like to think that Tim Cook has also carried this torch too.

Yes they are a for-profit company, I still get that... But everyone has been shouting "Just wait, Apple will become just like Google once they realize how juicy that data is to their bottom line!!" for literally decades, yet... Nothing.

> so I'd like to think that Tim Cook has also carried this torch too.

You'd like to think that. I would too. But even if it's true, Tim Cook will not be there forever either. Publicly traded companies are owned by shareholders who can and will do what they want. The last half century of business is littered with the corpses of once vaunted corporate bodies stripped by investors.

They are nothing like Google and have proven that over time. But they don't need to be because people trust them.

Many moons ago I worked for a large online gambling provider. They worked tirelessly to make their company trustworthy, make their games entertaining, and build relationships with their high rollers. Internally, they had strategies to squeeze as much money from every user as possible without causing distress. It was quite eye opening and I can't help but draw parallels between them and Apple.

Jobs went over and beyond to dictate to customers what HE thought they needed, not what they truly needed.

All those counterexamples are open platforms which get tinkered with to no end. Meanwhile, it's the apple platforms that get more and more restrictions per year.

The fact that others might misbehave too does not invalidate OP's claim, in that no one should blindly trust a corporation. And let me add, an US corporation even more.

What good is privacy if a single corporation has your health data, finance information, contact lists, shopping habits, address, friends and family, movies, music etc etc etc and then want so sell ad space targeted at you?

It's hardly any different than what Google or Facebook do except it's even more encompassing.

> If Apple didn't give a shit about user privacy and wanted to sell all your data, they would have done so a long time ago.

They already do "sell", in a very similar way as Google and Facebook does - look at their app store ads for example. Only real difference between Google/FB and Apple is that they process data on device, not on their servers. Sure, it's a huge technical difference, but not that much in terms of business and end users.

Google and Facebook don't sell your data directly, as it's bad business - you want to sell access to customers as a subscription to get big bucks. They have all the initiative to protect data they gather on their servers. Same as Apple has to do that on devices.

There're details to it, but just moving where you process user data isn't that much of a difference to end users - you're still a corporation selling other people ability to show me ads for cribs, when you discover that I'm expecting a baby.

To be clear, it's totally possible for Apple's closed ecosystem to be objectively better for consumer privacy and also a kind of "ad reach" silo for which access is sold at a premium.

And honestly, I'll take it. I have always been OK looking at ads if it funds the tools I use and the media I consume. I have always been OK with some amount of demographic and history-based ad targeting. I have no moral objection to some company gatekeeping advertiser access to my eyeballs and selling that access at a premium, especially if I'm already going to see ads everywhere anyway unless I go off-grid. I have no moral objection to using my demographics and general interests to show me ads for hiking boots instead of kung fu lessons.

I am not OK with companies storing, collecting, selling, etc. my data without my knowledge, consent, or legitimate ability to opt out. If the data doesn't leave my phone and all of the "targeting" happens on my own device, I can think of much worse compromise outcomes.

> Google and Facebook don't sell your data directly, as it's bad business

You may want to check on this belief more thoroughly, at least with Meta/Facebook as a start.

Can you point me to their checkout page?

Look at how they constantly go out of their way to engineer a solution that results in better privacy. Like analyzing your photo library using AI for object and face recognition. Any normal company (read: Google) would just run all that AI in their datacenter. Apple goes the extra mile, to actually run all that analysis on-device, while it's charging. I assure you there's no other reason to go through that effort other than privacy.

> Anyone who seriously thinks Apple are going to turn into another Google or Facebook needs to give their head a wobble.

To me, anyone stretching over to apologize for Apple needs to give their head a wobble. They are just going for the profit, selling you the lie of privacy. They want to scan your photos, remember. They already gave the FBI the tools they need to unlock phones, and they are of course part of PRISM.

> so that they can sell it for a markup

If they start selling your data, they'll quickly eliminate the very market share that gives them such power. And why would they want to give up that data anyway? Better to use it themselves. A lot of people will accept the data collection as long as it doesn't go to third-party companies, we have ample evidence for that already.

>If they start selling your data, they'll quickly eliminate the very market share that gives them such power.

No they absolutely will not. 99% of Apple users do not care about privacy. And when Apple does this, those users will find excuses to why it's okay.

I share your cynicism in general but not your degree of cynicism. Apparently, when prompted by the new iOS, 96% have opted out of tracking, not 1% as your comment would suggest.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-o...

Of course! They do opt out of tracking by other companies. Doing so is free, easy, and Apple encourages you to do it. That does not mean it will translate to opting out of Apple tracking you via the hardware. When it comes to hardware, privacy is far down the list of most people's priorities.

Interesting. From your link 4% opted out of tracking in iOS 14.5 in the US, while globally that number is higher at 12%.

Having a prompt that says "Do you want X to do this scary sounding thing? Or not, and have 0 impact on you?" is worst possible way to do any kind of informed choice.

Not giving the user a choice is of course the worst possible way. If Apple makes it sound scary, maybe because it is? Certainly, the opposite is no better: "Hey, we just want to tailor ads to your lifestyle, mmm, good?"

Absolutely false. Some may not care, but some care immensely - far more than 1%.

If iPhone started reneging on privacy guarantees, I for one would switch to a dumb feature phone the same day.

The fact that Facebook got decimated by the controls added indicate the level of concern people have when offered a choice.

>I for one would switch to a dumb feature phone

The fact that you would even consider this means you are a part of that 1%.

Au contraire, see 96% of apple users who decided they do not want to be tracked if given the choice. You still may be right about apples behaviour later on, who knows, but your 99% feels somewhat, lets say, unsubstantiated

I truly believe the privacy mission is personal to Tim Cook: it was a much smaller deal under Jobs, and Tim Cook was bullied for being gay in Mobile. It makes sense as a lens to view some of their other choices, too.

I think that's absolutely beautiful and very human.

Isn't it the business model of Google that you are describing in some way instead ?

"We don't sell or share your data so we can be the only ones who have access to it for advertising purposes"

Correct, and Google makes gigantic fuckloads of money doing that. It's no wonder Apple wants to do it as well. Apple having direct hardware access and aggressively locking in their customers makes this an extra degree worse for the consumer/better for Apple. At least with Google, it's easier to stop using it.

Why would Apple see what Google is doing in ads and want to do that too... Google's marketcap is half of what Apple's is... If anything Apple should keep what they're doing up, because they're clearly doing better than Google.

> They don't actually care about user privacy, but rather want exclusive rights to all of your data so that they can sell it for a markup.

I don’t believe this is what’s happening now. Do you have any evidence that it will happen in the future, or is this just anticipatory anxiety?

> They don't actually care about user privacy, but rather want exclusive rights to all of your data so that they can sell it for a markup.

This flies in the face of everything Apple has ever done.

I'm more cynical than most, but I also pay attention, and I find it more plausible that a company run by a very private gay man actually holds privacy as a company principle. That fits the facts much better than the conspiracy view.

Apple has already struck out once in the ad industry because they refused to violate user privacy to compete with Google and Facebook. This time around they've acted to bring Google and Facebook down onto a level playing field.

Since Google acquired DoubleClick, it's like we've forgotten that it's possible to sell targeted ads based on target locations, rather than based on personalized demographic profiles of target users. Being able to target locations impersonally is what initially drew ad dollars to the internet, as the targeting could be more specific than general TV spots or roadside billboards.

There's no evidence that Apple intends to use any personal information at all in their ad targeting, and plenty of evidence that they don't. If it is "gatekeeping," it's a gate that they seem unwilling to cross themselves.

> Letting Apple decide what platforms/services get their potential ad revenue cut in half is not a good thing.

Shouldn't you really say "letting Apple users decide..."?

>They don't actually care about user privacy, but rather want exclusive rights to all of your data so that they can sell it for a markup.

Of course not, in the same way that a Bently manufacture doesn't care that I own the car everybody envy, but that doesn't mean he won't make a car the everybody envies, because he does care about selling me an expensive car.

> They don't actually care about user privacy, but rather want exclusive rights to all of your data so that they can sell it for a markup

So Google was evil from the start, back when they were just selling ads based on your search terms and not yet spying on your entire life online and offline?

This is absolute nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPogdNafgic

Apple has the led the conversation on privacy far before anyone else was. I remember them get vilified from sharing their stance 10 years ago.

>Apple has the led the conversation on privacy far before anyone else was.

So they can make more money by selling access to a userbase they withhold from all other advertisers. The notion that Apple cares about anything other than the money-printing ability of their phone users is clearly and obviously wrong.

They've faced down several angry groups of shareholders that demonstrate you are incorrect. Apple as a company has a few values that reduce potential profits, and refuse to violate them.

They should probably have more such values, but they definitely "care" about some things other than printing money.

I'm all on board the Cynicism Express, but you've gotten on the wrong track here. Apple can be a monster for many, many reasons while still operating based on principles of user privacy.

This would disagree with you: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/06/technology/apple-ads.html

Why does Apple want to sell more ads?

Because money.

It’s incredibly profitable for Apple to sell ads when people search the iPhone App Store for fitness apps or read articles in the Apple News app.

I am not seeing where I suggested that Apple doesn't want to sell more ads, or that they don't care about money.

Yes, it's profitable for Apple to sell ads. They tried once before and failed because they refused to violate personal privacy for ad targeting. It is possible to sell fitness ads when people search for fitness apps, or health ads on articles about health subjects, without violating personal privacy. People are concerned about whether Apple will compromise long-held values because Facebook and Google have worked to pretend there's no difference between selling context-aware ads and selling privacy-invading user-tracking ads. There is a difference, though.

Yes, but they care about the long-term money-printing ability of the whole ecosystem, and reputation can very clearly hurt that e.g. Facebook

> Apple spies on its users, and helps others spy on them.

https://stallman.org/apple.html#spying

Assertions without evidence can be rejected out of hand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com