IBM

>The rent seeking point from Stratechery is taken directly from Apple's own earnings calls where they are now measuring their success based on revenue from this rent-seeking instead of on devices sold.

I don't follow how talking about it on earnings calls makes it "rent seeking". The App Store cut has only gone down since it was launched (for subscriptions after a year).

Someone on Something Awful made one too but this one looks a lot better (and is up-to-date).

https://didgoogleshutdown.com/

I actually sent them 3 over the past two weeks but never got a reply. I'm guessing no one stays on top of the inbox.

A few months ago Bloomberg published a story which I'm 99% sure was directed by Facebook PR, in-line with their strategy being reported on in this story [1][2].

Also can any mods tell me why all my comments are dead?

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/is-apple-...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17719607

>“We’re not going to traffic in your personal life,” Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, said in an MSNBC interview. “Privacy to us is a human right. It’s a civil liberty.” (Mr. Cook’s criticisms infuriated Mr. Zuckerberg, who later ordered his management team to use only Android phones, since the operating system has far more users than Apple’s.)

I can't get enough of the Apple-Facebook beef. Also kind of a "cut off your nose to spite your face" kind of move from a security perspective.

Bloomberg had a report earlier this year saying they'd have ARM Macs in 2020, which makes sense given that lines up with the work they're doing in Marzipan now [1]. They're also making gains in the legal fight to crack the Qualcomm business model, so that means ARM Macs could have cellular at the same time [2][3].

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-02/apple-is-...

[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/qualcomm-suffers-setback-in-ant...

[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-qualcomm/apple-not-...

Almost all of Apple's security features are invisible and by default and don't get in the way. They're striking the balance between user experience and security.

It will force the market to stop viewing them as a hardware company like Dell or HP and instead view them as the ecosystem company they are. That's why they're doing it.

Intel's gross margins are high enough (especially on the higher end chips) that it makes sense for Apple to design their own chips for Macs. Rumors are pointing to 2020 for when it will first happen.

Macs could then be cheaper and better than the competition (or significantly more profitable).

>The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email Mr. Rubin sent to one woman. “You will be happy being taken care of,” he wrote. “Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people.”

Uhhh

>Only in some cases where it benefits them. In other cases, they absolutely stand up. It is blatantly obvious that their principles are based on borders and are inconsistent here.

It's your prerogative if you want to continue to insist they're being hypocrites. I don't need Tim Cook to be a saint, I'm happy with the practical wins they've managed to maintain.

Here's the exact time stamp so you can hear his answer yourself: https://youtu.be/VD1cP8SK3Q0?t=244

>Why are public statements about privacy always about the US or EU but never China?

As much as Apple/Cook may believe privacy is a human right, and have seemingly extracted some important concessions regarding their products, they aren't going to shoot themselves in the head so everyone can feel good about Apple publicly standing up to the CPC. That's a job for governments (the recent efforts by the Trump administration to reset the relationship with China is a good example).

I've posted this a number of times before but it's apparently not common knowledge (and for good reason Apple doesn't seem to talk about their situation in China often). Apple's position in China is completely consistent with the rest of the world.

In filings to a court during the FBI legal fight, Apple addressed this topic head on. The reason it was brought up in the first place was because national security establishment water holders were putting out the idea that Apple makes exceptions for China, and the Department of Justice parroted it [1].

From Apple's filing [2]:

>Finally, the government attempts to disclaim the obvious international implications of its demand, asserting that any pressure to hand over the same software to foreign agents “flows from [Apple’s] decision to do business in foreign countries . . . .” Opp. 26. Contrary to the government’s misleading statistics (Opp. 26), which had to do with lawful process and did not compel the creation of software that undermines the security of its users, Apple has never built a back door of any kind into iOS, or otherwise made data stored on the iPhone or in iCloud more technically accessible to any country’s government. See Dkt. 16-28 [Apple Inc., Privacy, Gov’t Info. Requests]; Federighi Decl. ¶¶ 6–7. The government is wrong in asserting that Apple made “special accommodations” for China (Opp. 26), as Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world and follows the same standards for responding to law enforcement requests. See Federighi Decl. ¶ 5.

and a declaration from Craig Federighi personally [3]:

>Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world.

>Apple has never made user data, whether stored on the iPhone or in iCloud, more technologically accessible to any country's government. We believe any such access is too dangerous to allow. Apple has also not provided any government with its proprietary iOS source code. While governmental agencies in various countries, including the United States, perform regulatory reviews of new iPhone releases, all that Apple provides in those circumstances is an unmodified iPhone device.

>It is my understanding that Apple has never worked with any government agency from any country to create a "backdoor" in any of our products and services.

>I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

That was a few years ago, but Tim Cook basically reaffirmed that a few weeks ago in this interview with Vice [4]. The new law means Apple's Chinese iCloud data needs to be stored in local data centers, but Apple continues to maintain sole control of the keys. Whether you believe them or not, or whether you think that's a meaningful distinction is up to you. But end-to-end encrypted services like iMessage or iPhones itself, remain so and are still unblocked in China.

You might be wondering why Apple seemingly gets an exception when services like WhatsApp are blocked. The answer should be obvious: Apple being an old-world company that still makes products in meat space, (indirectly) employs a lot of people in China. That gives them leverage that other companies don't have.

So they have to comply with certain Chinese laws such as taking down the NYT app, VPN apps, being unable to operate iTunes Books or Movies in China, etc. But that's a small price if it means their core products remain uncompromised.

[1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/deposing-tim-cook

[2] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-1...

[3] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2762118-Federighi-De...

[4] https://youtu.be/VD1cP8SK3Q0?t=244

Fun fact: I emailed Tim Cook in August after reading this story in the NYT, asking him to publicly oppose a weak federal privacy bill in the US [1].

I thought they might do it when Bud Tribble, Apple's privacy czar, testified in Congress at the hearing about privacy [2]. He was mostly non-committal until about the time when someone asked if California's law should be preempted, and he answered 'yes' but only if the law is strong enough, so I kind of had a feeling that Apple would at least advocate for it in a minor way. Now it makes sense why he was so non-committal, they were saving it for Tim Cook.

This is a full-on endorsement of GDPR in the best possible forum for this, a keynote speech at a conference for data privacy regulators. This is more than I could have hoped for. Crucially, this removes any possibility of a united front as the ad-tech lobbying machine kicks into gear.

I don't know if this was already planned or if it was my email, but I'm ecstatic either way.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/technology/tech-industry-...

[2] https://www.c-span.org/video/?451963-1/google-apple-amazon-t...

Alex Stamos doesn't realize that the political tides have shifted. The technolibertarianism that has been prevalent in Silicon Valley since at least the 1990s is on its way out. Governments around the world are increasingly asserting their sovereignty, and that's not going to change. The internet is not a wild west where a bunch of tech people are free to do whatever they want, ignoring all the consequences and negative externalities they create.

It's a coincidence that John Perry Barlow died at the height of all this, but I think it's extremely symbolic that governments are asserting their power just as technolibertarianism's radical cleric passed away.

>“This legislation poses a threat to both your livelihood and your ability to share your voice with the world,” Wojcicki wrote. “And, if implemented as proposed, Article 13 threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs, European Creators, businesses, artists, and everyone they employ. The proposal will force platforms, like YouTube, to prioritize content from a small number of large companies.

I find it extremely hard to believe that an ad business that depends on scale and a long tail of videos, would ever just limit it to videos produced by big companies.

I'm sure they'll make do even if it passes, because they literally have no choice.

Except in Apple's case, Apple's products last longer and have higher resale value. Apple tightly controlling the supply chain and who repairs their products directly influences the secondary market value for their products.

When you go on eBay to buy a used Macbook, you can be reasonably sure that what you're buying has had "complete repairs" with original parts (if it was repaired at all). Buyers can be sure that the computer they bought didn't just have a pin bent back, but has some other unresolved problem that will lead to a failure later on. That increases demand in the used market and gets better prices for sellers.

This lets Apple nuke a compromised version of an app without doing it to all versions or apps by that developer. Which would have been useful in the case of Transmission [1][2].

[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/first...

[2] https://blog.malwarebytes.com/threat-analysis/2016/09/transm...

What they denied was that the servers were used in production. They also said they didn't find the firmware on the server as shipped from Supermicro, it was downloaded from their website [1].

>Update: A source familiar with the case at Apple told Ars that the compromised firmware affected servers in Apple's design lab, and not active Siri servers. The firmware, according to the source, was downloaded directly from Supermicro's support site—and that firmware is still hosted there.

Apple issued the following official comment:

Apple is deeply committed to protecting the privacy and security of our customers and the data we store. We are constantly monitoring for any attacks on our systems, working closely with vendors and regularly checking equipment for malware. We’re not aware of any data being transmitted to an unauthorized party nor was any infected firmware found on the servers purchased from this vendor.

>I also find it very interesting that the FBI, the one organization at the center of this saga who is allegedly investigating the spy chip, has remained completely silent, neither confirming nor denying the story.

That's not true. Christopher Wray, in a congressional hearing, said "be careful what you read" in a response to a question about the story [2].

[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/apple...

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/10/fbi-director-wray-on-super-m...

It's not immoral if what's being reported is in the public interest. It's questionable when it's something like "Brad and Angelina are breaking up", but obviously not illegal.

It's not irresponsible at all if the story is true. Bloomberg has no responsibility to Supermicro's stock (or anyone else's). They also aren't responsible for protecting classified information.

But the story probably isn't true.

I think that's already happened.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-amazon-same-day/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automatio...

I mean it's obviously bad for the LPs if it all goes to zero. But there's no systemic risk to the financial system that taxpayers will have to shoulder if that happens, which is what the government or regulators should care about.

I'm aware.

Making sensationalist Apple videos on YouTube might just be the best racket.

The US should also freeze MBS' personal assets. No doubt it's in banks all over the world.

The US can sanction anyone that buys Russian weapons, as they've done with China and threatened to do with India [1][2].

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions/u-s-...

[2] https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/asia/india-s400-deal-intl/ind...

I didn't say GDPR would apply in this situation, and the WSJ story suggests it wouldn't because of when it was discovered. All I said was that GDPR was great (obviously we'd only see the benefits from it after it had gone into effect), and this latest scoop bodes well for the political movement to enact equivalent legislation in the US.

I don't know, but Google doesn't either:

>Because the company kept a limited set of activity logs, it was unable to determine which users were affected and what types of data may potentially have been improperly collected, the two people briefed on the matter said. The bug existed since 2015, and it is unclear whether a larger number of users may have been affected over that time.

GDPR proving to be great once again. The case for a US equivalent gets stronger. And more importantly, all these fuck ups will ensure that whatever bill gets drafted isn't just what the Facebook/Google lobbyists find acceptable.