Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChuckMcM | Hacker News Reader

I'm wondering now if Apple tracks this sort of stuff in their released machines. I know my iPad always asks me if I want to send stats to Apple (and I always say no). So let's say that enough people do, then do they have a good idea of how often all the performance cores are used? Max memory B/W consumed? Stuff like that. Back when I was at Intel there were always interesting tradeoffs between available silicon/thermal/margin resource and what made it into the chip. Of course Intel didn't have any way (at that time) to collect statistics so it was always "... but I think we should ..." not a lot of data.

View on HN

Apple shares anonymous usage data by default on all their operating systems and users are asked again on every major update.

Given that there has never been any public incidents about it and what we know about similar defaults I would be surprised if Apple is getting less than 95% opt-in rate.

But I suspect at high-end they only really care about the performance of a few dozen professional apps e.g. Logic or Final Cut. And at the low-end it's likely just efficiency.

> Given that there has never been any public incidents about it and what we know about similar defaults I would be surprised if Apple is getting less than 95% opt-in rate.

A 95% opt-in rate is INSANELY high for any type of usage-stat opt-in, everything above 50% is usually outstanding.

What is known about "similar defaults"?

Apple enjoys a level of consumer trust that essentially no other technology business, and almost no other business at all. Whether that's justified or not is a matter of opinion.

It seems like the comment above is describing out-out and the it pesters you to opt-back in if you opt-out.

That's not how it works. You get asked the question again on every update, regardless of what you chose the last time.

So there are people who were opted-in that change their minds. My friends and family opt-in rate is <50%. And most of them are non-technical.

It honestly doesn’t matter. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of devices sending data in either case. A hundred million more provides no additional value.

...unless there's a correlation between opt-in choice and usage patterns.

That’s the trade off. You don’t opt-in, then you don’t get customized stuff. Shouldn’t be surprised if Apple doesn’t optimize for your usage.

Major updates are infrequent maybe once a year if you always update, it’s not pestering you. And the UI makes it very easy to skip unlike some designs.

Unless there is a flurry of network vulnerability updates, then a bespoke fork is set in the road for them.

Security/minor updates don't prompt for this AFAIK

It’s a step in a setup wizard. Whilst it’s explicitly asked, and far from dark pattern territory, it’s designed in such a way that I wouldn’t be surprised by a 95% opt-in rate.

I would be VERY surprised.

To someone with experience in that area of UX, a 95% opt-IN rate is ridiculously high.

A 95% consent-rate would already be hard to achieve as opt-OUT.

For opt-in a 95% rate would require both attention AND consent from 95% of the audience at this stage in the setup wizard.

I highly doubt that it can achieve 95% attention, let alone 95% consent.

But it's not quite opt in our opt out in this case. The user is required to opt for something. Apple literally has 100% attention, because otherwise the user can't move past the screen.

I was actually more genuinely interested to learn about the "similar defaults" mentioned in the OP, the 95% comment was just a side-note to a huge overestimation on how easy consent is achieved.

> But it's not quite opt in our opt out in this case. The user is required to opt for something. Apple literally has 100% attention, because otherwise the user can't move past the screen.

Thing is, you don't even have 100% of the users' attention in this case. The user wants to use the device, you're just standing in the way.

The scenario is this: You force the user to take a decision between option A and B. Regardless of his decision he will achieve his immediately desired outcome (move to the next screen / use the device).

Getting 95% to vote for 'A' would require some quite aggressive dark pattern, to the point that option 'B' would need to be almost invisible and actively discouraged.

Even if the UI would be a pre-checked check-box and the user would just have to select "Next" to Continue (=opt-out), your rate of consent would not be 95%. As mentioned, everything beyond 50% is already outstanding

Or, let's rephrase: If Apple would have 95% opt-in rate, they wouldn't bother chasing for consent again on every SW-update

Another way of putting it: an option for a 100$ itunes gift card no strings attached, probably wouldn't hit 95%

I do agree it's probably not 95%. But 60% wouldn't surprise me.

Expect something in the ballpark of 20-25%, and that already assumes that Apple's above-average brand-reputation translates into above-average consent on data sharing with them.

To add to this, it's not like a mailing list, either. Marketing opt-in is lower because it's annoying. A lot of people don't want emails.

Anonymized stats from your machine? Most normal people (who don't use computers like we do) do not care and just click the most affirmative option so that they can move forward.

This is deeply misguided opinion aboit 'nornal' people. To nornal people 'Anonymous' is a lie.

My dad can't tell apart Windows and Linux, but he makes sure to uncheck any kind of data collection, tracking, and clicks 'reject all' on every cookie warning

Yeah, I don't think allowing telemetry etc is really a matter of technical literacy, and is more a matter of social trust. High-trusting people will see no problem, low-trusting people will say "no way!". I'd imagine this varies widely but with definite trends based on social/economic class.

> To nornal people 'Anonymous' is a lie.

Normal people don't even give a second of thought to this. My partner knows the difference between windows and Mac, and is perfectly content to browse the internet without an ad blocker and to read in between all the cookie dialogs. The only time she clicks on one is when it's required to proceed, and she'll click whichever one is the most obvious button.

I think that was kind of the OP point. "Pro" users are significantly more likely to be opt-out in this scenario, unless they are not Pro users but just want the Pro machine for conspicuous consumption, making a much more dramatic swing in the usage data that is collected.

The word Pro in the product name really doesn't separate consumers as well as you might think.

Every college kid has a Mac Book Pro, yet they are by definition not Pros

It’s more like 15% opt in. I know because it controls dev access to analytics on their apps.

Wait telemetry is opt-out?

And I've never heard people complain?

Genuinely surprised as it seems to be quite a commonly controversial thing amongst devs.

It's not exactly 'opt-out', they ask you on first boot or after major upgrades, and you either select "Share with Apple" or "Don't Share with Apple". It's just that the "Share" button is coloured blue so looks more default since it's more prominent (at least on iOS, I think it's basically the same on macOS).

It's not like it's enabled by default and you have to know to go and find the setting to turn it off or anything..

It’s opt-out, but it’s not enabled silently. It’s a pre-ticked checkbox on a screen you have to review when you first setup the machine (and when you do a major version OS upgrade).

IMO that’s quite different to something that’s just silently on by default, and requires you to set an environment variable or run a command to opt out.

On a phone there is no box at all. It's two options to select. The opt-in is highlighted, but there is no "next" button -- you have to select an option.

I don't think it's pre-checked, is it? I thought it was Yes/No buttons

No the default action is to do nothing (ie do not install the OS). You have to actively consent or reject.

Yeah, that's kind of surprising, given that Apple is often hailed as a privacy champion.

It’s not really opt-out or opt-in: it’s an explicit, informed choice you have to make when you start up your Mac after first purchase or major upgrade.

Well, Apple generally has so much info about your every step people stopped caring a long time ago.

I think you are talking about Google, not Apple.

No, both of them actually. Don't trust them too much.

This calls out some soft spots that were exposed during the Hong Kong riots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ9LR8homt4

Not the OP, but I am not watching a random YouTube video from a random guy to help you prove your point. I can confidently link you some of these that “prove” that the Earth is flat.

It's not a default because users must choose yes or no. So there basically is no default.

> asks me if I want to send stats to Apple (and I always say no)

so you like them enough to pay them thousands for the premium product, but not enough to tell them how much CPU you use?

I have no idea what information they’re collecting on me, and it seems very few people do (given that nobody was able to answer the above question).

Could be “how much CPU does this user use?” but could also be “when prompted with a notification that a user’s iCloud backup storage is low, how long did they hesitate on the prompt before dismissing? How can we increase their odds of upgrading?”

Also, my willingness to provide information does not correlate to how much I “like” a company’s products. If I buy a sandwich from a deli, and they ask for my email for their newsletter or something, I won’t give it. That doesn’t mean I don’t like their company or their sandwich. Could be the best sandwich in the world, they don’t need my email.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com