Tim Cook says Apple’s customers are not its product, unlike Facebook(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Tim Cook says Apple’s customers are not its product, unlike Facebook
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/tim-cook-says-apples-customers-are-not-its-products-unlike-facebook/
52 comments
Apple needs to vocally lobby for privacy legislation or it'll be way too easy for the internet industry to squash it. Facebook and Google have been using trade groups to fight privacy legislation for years where it can be "out of sight, out of mind" [1][2]. Having the most valuable company in the tech industry go against them in a public way would expose the rest of them in a way they've been able to avoid until now.
[1] https://calmatters.org/articles/facebook-even-as-it-apologiz...
[2] http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/facebook-google-facial-recogni...
[1] https://calmatters.org/articles/facebook-even-as-it-apologiz...
[2] http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/facebook-google-facial-recogni...
Counterpoint: Apple doesn't want to lobby for privacy, because it's one of their selling features.
I would almost guarantee you that the general public (as well as tech people, judging by the comments I've seen here) has no idea how Apple is different from everyone else when it comes to privacy/security, despite their attempts to talk about it wherever possible. It's simply too abstract and only reveals itself in acute ways when these breaches happen.
I disagree and want to note a worrying the - It's only different on HN where Apple seems to get a free pass and its security foibles tend to be forgotten or simply ignored. We may like to present ourselves as impartial but we're an echo chamber like many other online communities.
Eh, the good publicity and the fact that it would fuck with google are probably worth it.
There was some talk way back during the FBI iPhone unlock crisis about Apple positioning itself to be strong on privacy so as to leverage their massive cash reserves to become a bank:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/03/follow-t...
Although this idea has also been shot down:
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/30/11326016/apple-bank
I think its still a good bet that Apple is going to leverage itself as the go to company for privacy. You pay a premium, but you get a curated ecosystem and no data harvesting.
I think they should take this opportunity to launch a privacy-centric social network and attract more people cast adrift to the walled garden.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/03/follow-t...
Although this idea has also been shot down:
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/30/11326016/apple-bank
I think its still a good bet that Apple is going to leverage itself as the go to company for privacy. You pay a premium, but you get a curated ecosystem and no data harvesting.
I think they should take this opportunity to launch a privacy-centric social network and attract more people cast adrift to the walled garden.
I read somewhere that the only way of making truly global software is to sell ads, because it effectively means big companies are subsidizing your distribution. A lot of people in the world don't have money to spend on subscriptions.
Not defending Facebook though. Selling ads shouldn't imply lousy privacy.
Not defending Facebook though. Selling ads shouldn't imply lousy privacy.
I heard an iOS developer make a comment once saying that deciding to develop for iOS means less folks may have access (under the assumption that Android is more common) but you are guaranteeing that those with access to your application have more money to spend because of Apple's price point. If Facebook's targeting and ad exchanges are what productize the company's customers then I would say Apple does the same to a lesser degree by charging a premium for its exclusive ecosystem. I consider Apple many degrees safer because they heavily screen what can be added to the app store and the inherent nature of targeting going on is limited to "paid for an Apple device" instead of the greatly higher dimensional data accessed leveraged by Facebook.
Having bootstrapped multiple apps for both iOS and Android, no matter how much Android users scream for equal access - iOS makes 2-4x the android equivalent. Not sure if it's the users, the app store or the expectations - but we always build for iOS first.
"customer" of Facebook is user of Facebook Business (advertisers) only, not people who use in daily life.
The leeking of Facebook is like just car was stolen at car shop.
Google, Twitter, and HN too, just don't use them.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Yeah, but Apple pushes new phones onto the market every year, leading to unnecessary environmental impact.
Every industry has its vices.
Every industry has its vices.
Pssss. Over here. Down in the reply section. You seem to be under a misapprehension so I'm going to let you into a secret; this is just between you and me. I'm going to write in lower case so nobody else sees this, lean in close and don't go spreading this around...
you don't have to buy a phone every year. apple directly supports its phones for 4 or 5 years and even then they don't self destruct. you can even go out in public with an old phone - it is not illegal.
shhhh, someones coming.
HOW ABOUT THAT LOCAL SPORTS TEAM, HUH? <whistle>
you don't have to buy a phone every year. apple directly supports its phones for 4 or 5 years and even then they don't self destruct. you can even go out in public with an old phone - it is not illegal.
shhhh, someones coming.
HOW ABOUT THAT LOCAL SPORTS TEAM, HUH? <whistle>
This is the quality content I come to HN for hahah.
Psss. keeping it on the down low, I do think apple should've been louder and more clear about the whole battery thing. Cynics could interpret that as forcing upgrades by making people's phones slow. The repairability and upgradability has also been not great lately, but anyway, my Apple products have still lasted me a solid 3-5 years (:
Psss. keeping it on the down low, I do think apple should've been louder and more clear about the whole battery thing. Cynics could interpret that as forcing upgrades by making people's phones slow. The repairability and upgradability has also been not great lately, but anyway, my Apple products have still lasted me a solid 3-5 years (:
> apple directly supports its phones for 4 or 5 years
And it keeps getting better.
http://iossupportmatrix.com/
And it keeps getting better.
http://iossupportmatrix.com/
I own iPhone 5S since November, 2013. I still get iOS updates. I don't feel Apple forcing me to update or anything like that.
Everything in excess is bad.
EDIT: Downvote? Care to elaborate how this is false?
EDIT: Downvote? Care to elaborate how this is false?
I'm sure it is a moderate downvote?
Oh, what's a moderate downvote (or what do you mean)?
I was just being an idiot on purpose.
"everything in excess is bad" - which you were being downvoted for some reason.
Downvoting a reasonable statement like that seemed stupid to me, so i said a "moderate downvote", what i consider to be a contradiction in terms to illustrate how silly i felt that situation was.
"everything in excess is bad" - which you were being downvoted for some reason.
Downvoting a reasonable statement like that seemed stupid to me, so i said a "moderate downvote", what i consider to be a contradiction in terms to illustrate how silly i felt that situation was.
Oh hahah gotcha
I'm sure this has been repeated ad nauseam here, but a good rule of thumb:
Did you pay for the product?
No: You are probably the product.
Yes: You might not also be the product.It bears repeating.
The same could be said of arstechnica, HN, news and most of media. They are selling "customers" to their advertisers. Also, not sure where Tim Cook has any room to talk. By most measures, Apple is just as bad or worse than facebook. They are in bed with china exploiting slave labor, using advertisement to peddle overpriced junk to the uneducated masses and of course using tax loopholes to avoid paying taxing.
Microsoft used to say something similar as well. But when they realized that they could make much more money off customer data, they went converted to an ad-centered model with their OS.
The only reason Apple is acting high and mighty is because they are able to rob their customers by charging ridiculously high priced products.
Microsoft used to say something similar as well. But when they realized that they could make much more money off customer data, they went converted to an ad-centered model with their OS.
The only reason Apple is acting high and mighty is because they are able to rob their customers by charging ridiculously high priced products.
For some reason I'd not considered HN compromised, but considering the nature of Ycombinator and their investments, it's probably safe to assume that all my activity here is 'out in the open'.
All my comments and writing style, all my alts, and all my opinions are compromised, and it's more a matter of 'when' than 'if' as to the leaking of this data to entities that I emphatically do not want to know all this information.
And linking this information to my person is probably easier than it already seems in my occasional thought experiments.
All my comments and writing style, all my alts, and all my opinions are compromised, and it's more a matter of 'when' than 'if' as to the leaking of this data to entities that I emphatically do not want to know all this information.
And linking this information to my person is probably easier than it already seems in my occasional thought experiments.
> For some reason I'd not considered HN compromised, but considering the nature of Ycombinator and their investments, it's probably safe to assume that all my activity here is 'out in the open'.
If you aren't paying for it, you are the product. It's the model that google popularized in the early 2000s. I'm really puzzled ( though I have my theories ) on why FB is being targeted for something everyone does.
> And linking this information to my person is probably easier than it already seems in my occasional thought experiments.
Given enough data points it shouldn't be that hard. Browser fingerprinting, IP address ( even if you have dynamic IP ) and enough raw data, it should be a cakewalk. Throw in browsing pattern analysis, writing analysis, click analysis, etc and they could tie much of everything together.
If you aren't paying for it, you are the product. It's the model that google popularized in the early 2000s. I'm really puzzled ( though I have my theories ) on why FB is being targeted for something everyone does.
> And linking this information to my person is probably easier than it already seems in my occasional thought experiments.
Given enough data points it shouldn't be that hard. Browser fingerprinting, IP address ( even if you have dynamic IP ) and enough raw data, it should be a cakewalk. Throw in browsing pattern analysis, writing analysis, click analysis, etc and they could tie much of everything together.
“using advertisement to peddle overpriced junk to the uneducated masses” using advertising to sell products? like every single company ever? also that is their point, they sell a physical product (what you bitterly call junk) that’s it, unlike Facebook that deliverily hides or obfuscates the fact that its customers are really the product, and before you start saying that they never lied because it is in their T&C, tell that to eldery people who simply join to see the photos of their grandchildren, they can easily simply chose not to buy an Apple product because of the price tag is visible at plain sight, but the price for Facebook use is not so easy visible.
> like every single company ever?
That was my point.
> Unlike Facebook that deliverily hides or obfuscates the fact that its customers are really the product
How did they hide it? It was their business model. The one they copied from google.
> but the price for Facebook use is not so easy visible.
Are you saying that facebook forced the grandparents to use facebook?
I'm not a fan of either facebook or Apple. My dislike of apple goes back. But I taken aback by the anti-fb posturing justaposed by the pro-google and pro-apple lobby here.
I'm not saying that facebook is good. I'm saying apple isn't good either.
It's so striking how an innocuous comment in every anti-fb thread is met with downvotes and attacks.
I agree with you. Facebook is terrible. That's why I don't use it and never have. But I also don't use apple products because apple is terrible. Is that okay?
That was my point.
> Unlike Facebook that deliverily hides or obfuscates the fact that its customers are really the product
How did they hide it? It was their business model. The one they copied from google.
> but the price for Facebook use is not so easy visible.
Are you saying that facebook forced the grandparents to use facebook?
I'm not a fan of either facebook or Apple. My dislike of apple goes back. But I taken aback by the anti-fb posturing justaposed by the pro-google and pro-apple lobby here.
I'm not saying that facebook is good. I'm saying apple isn't good either.
It's so striking how an innocuous comment in every anti-fb thread is met with downvotes and attacks.
I agree with you. Facebook is terrible. That's why I don't use it and never have. But I also don't use apple products because apple is terrible. Is that okay?
> The same could be said of arstechnica
Well, it's your choice, they offer "Ars Pro", a subscription which is, they say, not only free of ads, but also free of tracking: https://arstechnica.com/staff/2018/03/ars-pro-now-free-of-tr...
Well, it's your choice, they offer "Ars Pro", a subscription which is, they say, not only free of ads, but also free of tracking: https://arstechnica.com/staff/2018/03/ars-pro-now-free-of-tr...
> "I think the best regulation is no regulation, is self-regulation," he said, according to Recode. "However, I think we’re beyond that here."
What does this mean? This is completely self-contradictory. Clearly Facebook has demonstrated that regulation is required. How could Tim Cook possibly still say that the best regulation is no regulation? Clearly Tim should want a healthier tech ecosystem than what we have now and clearly be agrees regulation is needed. Very confusing quote.
What does this mean? This is completely self-contradictory. Clearly Facebook has demonstrated that regulation is required. How could Tim Cook possibly still say that the best regulation is no regulation? Clearly Tim should want a healthier tech ecosystem than what we have now and clearly be agrees regulation is needed. Very confusing quote.
"However, I think we’re beyond [self-regulation] here."
- Tim Cook
You are arguing with half of the quotation, and ignoring this other half. He doesn't seem to be advocating self-regulation as a practical policy.
- Tim Cook
You are arguing with half of the quotation, and ignoring this other half. He doesn't seem to be advocating self-regulation as a practical policy.
I am not arguing or ignoring anything. I'm expressing confusion by the lack of continuity in the full quote.
Edit: I am now banned from replying to comments on HN again. Probably because of the enormous wave of downvotes that follows me everywhere. I don't understand why HN thinks it is better for me to reply like this than in the now-banned reply box below. Oh well, here is my response to the comment below.
> He is saying that ideally self-regulation is best, but here and now we need regulation because we messed up self regulation.
Ookay, but to me, that says that self-regulation was never going to work, and we should just admit it and move on. We should have had regulation on social media from the beginning. We didn't "mess up" self-regulation. Self-regulation in a hyper-capitalist environment is obviously going to fail. It has been shown time and time again, every day, that corporations will be selfish and do everything they can, legally or not, especially exploiting new dubious legal territory, to extract cash in the short term using dubiously moral and legal methods no matter what.
Corporations should be regulation and it's insane that Tim Cook is just saying "ahhh ooops they messed up, guess it wouldn't work out that way, too bad" but it has always been that way. There was never a world in which Facebook was going to "self-regulate".
Edit: I am now banned from replying to comments on HN again. Probably because of the enormous wave of downvotes that follows me everywhere. I don't understand why HN thinks it is better for me to reply like this than in the now-banned reply box below. Oh well, here is my response to the comment below.
> He is saying that ideally self-regulation is best, but here and now we need regulation because we messed up self regulation.
Ookay, but to me, that says that self-regulation was never going to work, and we should just admit it and move on. We should have had regulation on social media from the beginning. We didn't "mess up" self-regulation. Self-regulation in a hyper-capitalist environment is obviously going to fail. It has been shown time and time again, every day, that corporations will be selfish and do everything they can, legally or not, especially exploiting new dubious legal territory, to extract cash in the short term using dubiously moral and legal methods no matter what.
Corporations should be regulation and it's insane that Tim Cook is just saying "ahhh ooops they messed up, guess it wouldn't work out that way, too bad" but it has always been that way. There was never a world in which Facebook was going to "self-regulate".
Chill out there - you’re not banned from replying, but the HN site imposes a steady increasing delay on comment replies as the thread gets deeper, primarily to avoid rapid back-and-forth flamewars.
To your specific point: I don’t think it’s contradictory, and I tend to agree with Tim Cook. We should assume that markets are unregulated by default; the job of government is to step in when there is a problem or imbalance and use regulation to correct it.
I would argue that this is almost bound to happen by definition, purely because the emergence of any new market is into a society that doesn’t regulate it. You say that we “should have had regulation on social media from the beginning” - but what was the beginning? What is it that defines social media versus “traditional” media? Was Isenet social media? Web forums? MySpace?
It’s difficult, in most cases, to preemptively regulate a market. We’ve moved quite quickly with self-driving cars, but there the dangers are much more obvious and easily understood. The implications and danger of social media are harder to understand. What would regulation look like? Is the concern the treatment of personal data? The tracking of behaviour itself? The manipulation of users?
The point is, I think it’s more complex than “obviously it should have always been regulated”.
To your specific point: I don’t think it’s contradictory, and I tend to agree with Tim Cook. We should assume that markets are unregulated by default; the job of government is to step in when there is a problem or imbalance and use regulation to correct it.
I would argue that this is almost bound to happen by definition, purely because the emergence of any new market is into a society that doesn’t regulate it. You say that we “should have had regulation on social media from the beginning” - but what was the beginning? What is it that defines social media versus “traditional” media? Was Isenet social media? Web forums? MySpace?
It’s difficult, in most cases, to preemptively regulate a market. We’ve moved quite quickly with self-driving cars, but there the dangers are much more obvious and easily understood. The implications and danger of social media are harder to understand. What would regulation look like? Is the concern the treatment of personal data? The tracking of behaviour itself? The manipulation of users?
The point is, I think it’s more complex than “obviously it should have always been regulated”.
> Chill out there - you’re not banned from replying, but the HN site imposes a steady increasing delay on comment replies as the thread gets deeper, primarily to avoid rapid back-and-forth flamewars.
No, you are incorrect. I am/was banned from top-level comments too. This comment turns out to have gone through. I think it is time-based. I don't know how it works. But daily I get banned from making submissions and comments across the site.
> We should assume that markets are unregulated by default; the job of government is to step in when there is a problem or imbalance and use regulation to correct it.
This sounds extremely dangerous, and always allows for large-scale actors to break society's expectations of their good behavior every single day. Society can't function by just trusting huge megacorps to play nice every day. They need to be regulated from the day they start work, not a decade and a half later after so much damage is already caused.
> We’ve moved quite quickly with self-driving cars, but there the dangers are much more obvious and easily understood.
I don't agree with this. In the 90's all the adults in the world were telling kids about the dangers of being online with your real name and all the scary abuse that could come with that. What happened is that the adults forgot this advice. It was already known and it was not a surprise when it happened.
> The point is, I think it’s more complex than “obviously it should have always been regulated”.
No, I don't think it is. Regulation is simple and useful.
No, you are incorrect. I am/was banned from top-level comments too. This comment turns out to have gone through. I think it is time-based. I don't know how it works. But daily I get banned from making submissions and comments across the site.
> We should assume that markets are unregulated by default; the job of government is to step in when there is a problem or imbalance and use regulation to correct it.
This sounds extremely dangerous, and always allows for large-scale actors to break society's expectations of their good behavior every single day. Society can't function by just trusting huge megacorps to play nice every day. They need to be regulated from the day they start work, not a decade and a half later after so much damage is already caused.
> We’ve moved quite quickly with self-driving cars, but there the dangers are much more obvious and easily understood.
I don't agree with this. In the 90's all the adults in the world were telling kids about the dangers of being online with your real name and all the scary abuse that could come with that. What happened is that the adults forgot this advice. It was already known and it was not a surprise when it happened.
> The point is, I think it’s more complex than “obviously it should have always been regulated”.
No, I don't think it is. Regulation is simple and useful.
You seem to have hand-waved away the main point I made - I don’t think that regulation is simple at all. “They need to be regulated from the day they start work” - what does that even mean? Even if we accept that strong regulation is required - what are you actually proposing we regulate? You say it’s simple - so what is it?
He is saying that ideally self-regulation is best, but here and now we need regulation because we messed up self regulation.
> Probably because of the enormous wave of downvotes that follows me everywhere.
But look on the bright side: you have way more karma than me, and only one of my comments has been in the grey, ever.
But look on the bright side: you have way more karma than me, and only one of my comments has been in the grey, ever.
> Clearly Facebook has demonstrated that regulation is required.
it's not so clear to me that it's "required". and in fact, I think that detail will be an enormous part of the discussion we get to listen to now.
what's certainly apparent though, is that these systems aren't helping us in the way they are currently structured. it may wind up being the case that our governments use regulation to address the issue, but I am not sure it will solve the larger problem of individuals not having the education (& willpower?) to protect themselves from the sorts of disadvantageous relationships that FANG is willing to engage in with them.
it's not so clear to me that it's "required". and in fact, I think that detail will be an enormous part of the discussion we get to listen to now.
what's certainly apparent though, is that these systems aren't helping us in the way they are currently structured. it may wind up being the case that our governments use regulation to address the issue, but I am not sure it will solve the larger problem of individuals not having the education (& willpower?) to protect themselves from the sorts of disadvantageous relationships that FANG is willing to engage in with them.
I believe what he is saying that government should stay out of company's day to day activities unless there is a clear an present danger. In this case its the data that Facebook recklessly sold does endanger it's consumers.
But isn't it now very very clear that it is way too late to begin regulation, after the fact of all of this happening? Democracy is threatened. Isn't Tim implying that stronger regulation should be required from the very beginning in tech corporations? But also saying that regulation is stupid and should never exist? I just don't understand what he's trying to say.
Clearly better regulation has always been required. Otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.
Clearly better regulation has always been required. Otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.
If you're a drug addict, the ideal way to kick the habit is self-control, but after a certain time, rehab might be needed. There are downsides to rehab (cost, isolation etc.), just as there are downsides to regulation (compliance costs, unnecessary burden on small and otherwise well-acting companies because of the abuses of others).
There's also the fact that "regulation" is a nebulous term that says nothing of what the actual laws are that manage to get passed/implemented. If history is a lesson, we should all be weary of rules written up by people who do not fully understand the domain they are trying to regulate, and who are often lobbied by the very firms that would be most subject to said regulation.
So, no guarantees in the slightest that regulations will bring about a healthier tech ecosystem.
There's also the fact that "regulation" is a nebulous term that says nothing of what the actual laws are that manage to get passed/implemented. If history is a lesson, we should all be weary of rules written up by people who do not fully understand the domain they are trying to regulate, and who are often lobbied by the very firms that would be most subject to said regulation.
So, no guarantees in the slightest that regulations will bring about a healthier tech ecosystem.
I would disagree because of how closely Apple tracks it's users. Yes, they don't sell the data but they use it for internal marketing.
EDIT: From Apple's own website:
The personal information we collect allows us to keep you posted on Apple’s latest product announcements, software updates, and upcoming events. If you don’t want to be on our mailing list, you can opt out anytime by updating your preferences.
https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/
EDIT: From Apple's own website:
The personal information we collect allows us to keep you posted on Apple’s latest product announcements, software updates, and upcoming events. If you don’t want to be on our mailing list, you can opt out anytime by updating your preferences.
https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/
What exactly do you disagree with? It's pretty clear that Apple's customers are not its product. They make most of their profit by selling phones.
Apple does not closely track its users.
Have read the ULA?
The Apple Privacy Policy was updated on January 19, 2018.
https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/
What personal information we collect
* When you create an Apple ID, apply for commercial credit, purchase a product, download a software update, register for a class at an Apple Retail Store, contact us or participate in an online survey, we may collect a variety of information, including your name, mailing address, phone number, email address, contact preferences, and credit card information.
* When you share your content with family and friends using Apple products, send gift certificates and products, or invite others to participate in Apple services or forums, Apple may collect the information you provide about those people such as name, mailing address, email address, and phone number. Apple will use such information to fulfill your requests, provide the relevant product or service, or for anti-fraud purposes.
* In certain jurisdictions, we may ask for a government issued ID in limited circumstances including when setting up a wireless account and activating your device, for the purpose of extending commercial credit, managing reservations, or as required by law.
BTW: How your iPhone is tracking your every move
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/advice/11056373/How-y...
The Apple Privacy Policy was updated on January 19, 2018.
https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/
What personal information we collect
* When you create an Apple ID, apply for commercial credit, purchase a product, download a software update, register for a class at an Apple Retail Store, contact us or participate in an online survey, we may collect a variety of information, including your name, mailing address, phone number, email address, contact preferences, and credit card information.
* When you share your content with family and friends using Apple products, send gift certificates and products, or invite others to participate in Apple services or forums, Apple may collect the information you provide about those people such as name, mailing address, email address, and phone number. Apple will use such information to fulfill your requests, provide the relevant product or service, or for anti-fraud purposes.
* In certain jurisdictions, we may ask for a government issued ID in limited circumstances including when setting up a wireless account and activating your device, for the purpose of extending commercial credit, managing reservations, or as required by law.
BTW: How your iPhone is tracking your every move
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/advice/11056373/How-y...
But that is not "closely tracking its users", that's capturing the necessary information for those transactions.
It's certainly not Apple making its customers into products. Both Google and Facebook are classed as advertising companies, for a reason.
Have you read Google's Privacy Policy?
https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
Wow. All the same stuff as Apple plus Device IDs, actual physical location, WiFi identifiers, pixel tags, and more — All because: tailored advertising. That's what a company-whose-users-are-its-product looks like, by comparison.
BTW: I looked at your scare link: my iPhone had no data there, because it has never had Frequent Locations enabled. Nor has it had Location-Based iAds enabled. YMMV of course.
It's certainly not Apple making its customers into products. Both Google and Facebook are classed as advertising companies, for a reason.
Have you read Google's Privacy Policy?
https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
Wow. All the same stuff as Apple plus Device IDs, actual physical location, WiFi identifiers, pixel tags, and more — All because: tailored advertising. That's what a company-whose-users-are-its-product looks like, by comparison.
BTW: I looked at your scare link: my iPhone had no data there, because it has never had Frequent Locations enabled. Nor has it had Location-Based iAds enabled. YMMV of course.
I wrote a snarky post first suggesting they do that, but then discovered they already have. I just didn’t notice because I weaned myself off social cancer years ago.