[anshukla]

How do you explain their insistence, then, on doing object recognition in photos on-device? Is it possible that they have understood the affordances of various data collection and obfuscation techniques and will apply the appropriate ones after taking into account their desire to protect privacy?

Google indeed has RAPPOR (and other projects, I'm sure), but the cultural difference Apple claims is "we consider privacy in everything we do" instead of "we add privacy where we can."

[kbenson]

> the cultural difference Apple claims is "we consider privacy in everything we do"

I'm pretty sure that should be interpreted as "we've determined privacy is a differentiator in the market, so as of some indeterminate time in the past, ranging from a few years ago to our inception, we consider privacy in everything we do."

Now, there's nothing wrong with that, and that's not to say they haven't been privacy conscious in the past, but let's not confuse the current stance as entirely altruistic, when there are are multiple incentives at play, one of which is concern for the user.

Edit: s/months/years/, that's much more accurate.

[spullara]

Steve Jobs was pretty passionate about this and they are continuing on with it.

http://www.recode.net/2016/2/21/11588068/heres-what-steve-jo...

[kbenson]

Sure. But you can replace Apple in my comment with Jobs, and it would apply equally as well, had Jobs not passed away. The article you reference points this out specifically:

> His comments arrived as Apple started to identify Google, and its ascending Android operating system, as its chief competitor. Here we see the first signs of the hardware seller deploying its privacy position as a branding and competitive tactic, a strategy that has come to the fore during its current standoff with the feds.

[peteretep]

If Tim Cook wasn't part of a frequently and historically persecuted minority, I'd be more cynical too.

[kbenson]

I don't see it as being cynical, just as being rational. People rarely have a single motivation for their actions, even if they may report a singly motivation if asked (possibly the primary reason, or the one they feel comfortable talking about). I don't see why this would be any different for a corporation, generally being made up of many people.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with this. We just need to be sure we don't fall into the trap of thinking we can take what is presented at face value as the whole story, just as you can't when dealing with individuals much of the time. Apple is not our trusted old friend, that will look out for our best interests. They are at best an acquaintance that we have a business relationship with. That doesn't mean they won't act in a manner we appreciate, but it does mean we should not assume they will act as a good friend.

[Twisell]

Whoa you just opened my eyes I always believed big company were fundamentally altruistic!

What a bummer!