[fermienrico]

Just to add to your conclusion, I think Apple leads in privacy. I would never buy a Chinese phone just from the fact that the Chinese government has a tremendous oversight and interference with large businesses.

Yes, US has that issue with NSA but at least Apple stands against abuse of data privacy and has a firm ethetical stance to protect consumers data. I don’t trust Google for that matter.

Edit: I feel like there is going to be what-about-tism responses. So, before you respond, ask yourself if you can criticize the Chinese government, protest against it and make a change in China. Last time that happened in Tiananmen square, there was massacre. That does not happen in US.

[jeffbax]

Removing some things from the Chinese App Store like VPN, Apple absolutely leads on privacy, by miles. Who knows what is going into the software for 100% Chinese phones, and Google's new iMessage answer isn't even going to be encrypted, not to mention reports their mobile OS is already losing out on privacy features to the Ad team.

[fermienrico]

I want to live in a world where businesses are formed based on the value they deliver to the consumer directly. Not siphoning the data and selling it to third parties. Ever growing advertisement and marketing needs/greed has created a universe of stuff around us that makes me ever so vigilant of companies selling me stuff for cheap and in turn selling me advertisements.

In old days (before the internet), if I buy a PC from Apple or IBM, you get what you pay for. Besides the cable companies / newspapers / magazines bombarding ads, everything back in the day was 1:1 - you pay for something, you get value for it.

Now a days, we have large companies losing money while killing competition (Uber), large companies in bed with government, and large companies in bed with advertisers and marketing agencies.

Fuck the world. I can't wait to see Dieter Rams' documentary premier this October. From the trailers, it looks like it is addressing the very fabric of today's society than talking about industrial design. [1]

I don't want to be a product. I want to be a loyal customer.

[1] https://www.hustwit.com/rams/

[flyinglizard]

IBM's XT also cost nearly $6k when it debuted (quick Google search, maybe I'm wrong). We get so much value for free now that paying directly for all of that would be a huge step back. Roughly speaking, Google makes something like $120bn a year, spread across 1bn users. Would you pay $120 for using Google a year? Realistically though you'd pay much more because there's no chance Google would charge a person in the developing/3rd world what it charges a US citizen. It's not unthinkable to get a bill of $500 per user in USA to get these services.

This is one side of the coin, the other side is that for economic activity to take place, advertising must be available. People need to be informed of services and consumption needs to be encouraged to grow economic activity. How would that happen if companies locked down their platforms altogether? Would P&G, J&J and all the other conglomerates just shrivel and die in a world where they can't access consumers?

[rayiner]

Attributing the decreased costs of computers to the rise of advertising-based business models is quite a stretch. As far as I can tell, advances in manufacturing technology and the broadening of the market base is what made that possible.

As to Google--I'd pay $500 per year not to have it constantly barrage me with reminders to use Chrome instead of Edge (so it can steal my apparently valuable browsing data). But, 90% of everything is crap. Crap is what the market wants, whether it's pop music or USA Today or advertising-based software. Who am I to argue?

[flyinglizard]

> Attributing the decreased costs of computers to the rise of advertising-based business models is quite a stretch. As far as I can tell, advances in manufacturing technology and the broadening of the market base is what made that possible.

The Internet was built on an advertising monetization model, and you could argue that the penetration of computing devices to our lives wouldn't be nearly as far reaching without the Internet. In other words, non-tech people buy iPhones to access the ad-sponsored Google, YouTube and Instagram.

[dragonwriter]

> The Internet was built on an advertising monetization model

No, it wasn't; the internet was built long before that. The advertising monetisation model didn't become significant until the internet was established as a popular mass venue.

Which makes sense; the audience drew advertising, not the other way around.

[Jedi72]

I have abandond Google and exclusively use DuckDuckGo. If Google wasnt giving search away for free to take users to the cleaners behind their back, there would actually be healthy competition in search and you would definitely not need to pay $500/yr.

[nicoburns]

People wouldn't pay that much, google would just make less profit...

[berbec]

I do pay Google exactly $120/year: I have my own GSuite Business account.

Think I can get them to stop datamining/tracking me?

[dijit]

Argh. I hate to play devils advocate on this issue.

Here goes: it seems like that model doesn’t work anymore. People look for what it costs on paper. You already here people talking about Apple as if it’s some impossible luxury standard. Can you imagine if computers became £5,000 for the base model again? I can’t imagine anyone paying for email in this day and age. And I certainly can’t imagine people paying for operating systems. Windows only has market dominance because it comes pre-installed and is effectively free.

That’s the issue. If you’re competing in this market; then you’re competing with “free” from the consumers eyes.

[kalleboo]

The base model iPad costs $329, comes with free email and and an OS with free updates. And it doesn't data-mine you.

[dijit]

“But an android tablet costs £100! Apple tax is too high!”

[simonh]

Stopping advertising based business models would not make a $500 computer suddenly cost $5,000. Also Windows is not ‘effectively free’, it’s just you don’t usually pay for it separately.

Stopping invasive user tracking would make internet advertising less effective, sure, but it wouldn’t prevent it completely. Ad Words doesn’t fundamentally depend on user tracking to associate search terms to advertisements for example.

[dijit]

> Windows is not ‘effectively free’, it’s just you don’t usually pay for it separately.

https://www.howtogeek.com/163303/how-computer-manufacturers-...

The cost of a pre-installed license is cost neutral in most cases due to the crapware they add.

My overarching point is that 99% of consumers are cost-conscious. They look at the price in paper and rarely weigh anything else, especially a fuzzy notion of privacy. We are the 1% and we should be mindful of the 99%

[kodablah]

> Yes, US has that issue with NSA but at least Apple stands against abuse of data privacy and has a firm ethetical stance to protect consumers data. I don’t trust Google for that matter.

I have the opposite feeling. Apple gladly hands over iCloud storage management to the Chinese (gladly meaning they won't make a statement even about whether they are happy about it), whereas I trust Google to keep my data on servers they own and are subject to their rules. Be careful about "stands against abuse" when what you mean is "stands against abuse sometimes". Also be careful about "firm ethical stance" when they choose not to confirm that stance in places where it is at odds with the law...not very firm I'd say. At the very least, I'll take the consistent company even if I dislike their data collection practices.

[graeme]

If you turn off icloud, then the iphone is still presumably quite secure in China, correct?

I had assumed the android phones probably were breached by the chinese government, rendering data access superfluous in most cases. But I'm not especially well informed on the latter point beyond seeing articles like this one.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/tech-news/million...

[ksec]

Which is why I have been calling for an iOS Time Capsule. Especially for the Chinese Market. Instead Apple cared more about increasing their Services Revenue and push its user to iCloud.

And before anyone said you could use iTunes to Backup, please consider 90% of users don't like touching their computer anymore. It is simply not an elegant solution.

In an ideal world Cloud would be everything we wished for, No More BitFlip, Error, Drive Failure, Software Failure, Power Failure, File System Failure etc. But then it is very uneasy that government has all the data. Via iCloud Social Engineering, or Chinese Government forcing companies to give away those Data.

[fermienrico]

Very good points, I think I concede with "stands against abuse" and "firm ethical stance". Apple will do whatever the board and the shareholders demand.

I am mixing up ethics with business motivation.

Apple - Good ethics, but tied to business performance. They cannot and will not exit China or go against the grain with the Chinese authorities.

Google - Sells your data to advertisers, but has good ethical stance against authorities abusing data. Google doesn't operate in China since a decade or more I believe. They've somehow convinced the shareholders.

[scarface74]

It’s eady to “convince shareholders” when a negligible part of your revenue comes from China.

So far this is just a rumor....

https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/1/17638480/google-china-sear...

[e12e]

>> This is clearly a user hostile move: it makes it harder to load your own software on a device you purchased and, in my case, fix my own device.

> Just to add to your conclusion, I think Apple leads in privacy.

Its seems like a bit of a non-sequitor to go from an Android manufacturer that will (after an inconvenient interaction by email) allow you to run whatever code you want - to Apple - that doesn't allow anything of the kind?

Fwiw I do think ios is leading in terms of off the shelf security on a device. But not really in terms of privacy vis-à-vis a custom Android/Linux rom with telemetry etc turned off.

[fermienrico]

Apple’s business model is not to sell your data. Apple’s business model is to sell you hardware.

Google (Android) sell your data to the advertisers.

You are totally mixing up open/closed source projects and business models.

[eafkuor]

> Just to add to your conclusion, I think Apple leads in privacy.

I just switched to an iPhone after 8 years of Android and I'm loving this aspect. And generally the phone seems to be more designed for humans compared to android. Also, the automatic do not disturb mode when I'm driving is great and I don't think I could go back to not having it. It's making me a better driver. Not that I was texting during driving, but not receiving notifications takes the phone out of my mind completely.

[robotresearcher]

Kent State is within living memory, lest we forget.

Tiananmen Square massacre, 1989.

Kent State massacre, 1970.

[rayiner]

That's quite a raging false equivalency. It's not clear exactly why the National Guard started shooting at Kent State, but there is no credible allegation that anyone ordered the shooting. In the aftermath, a federal commission was convened, and declared the shootings "unjustified" by the threat of violence to the guardsmen. (The protesters were violent--a few days before, they had set the campus ROTC building on fire.) Eight guardsmen, including all the ones believed to be responsible for the deaths, were indicted and tried. They were acquitted due to insufficient evidence of intent. The Supreme Court permitted civil suits against Ohio to go forward (the state ultimately settled). The incident led to the National Guard changing its crowd control policies. Today, Kent State is taught widely in schools and is recognized as a national tragedy.

Now, how many of these things apply to Tiananmen Square?

[robotresearcher]

Tiananmen was much bigger and differs in many ways. The scales are not comparable.

Yet Kent State is a simple counter example to the grandparent’s claim that political protestors are not massacred in the US.

I’m not sure how much more clear I can be.

[DmenshunlAnlsis]

There’s a difference, namely that you can say “Kent State” and look it up online, read about it in textbooks, see the newspaper articles, and discuss it online without fear.

Try that with the Tiananmen Square massacre in China.

Another difference is that four civilians died in Kent state, while 1022 died in Tiananmen Square. That’s three orders of magnitude difference, and why Kent State is typically called “Kent State Shootings” while Tiananmen Square was a “Massacre”. In fact an order of magnitude more policemen and military died in Tiananmen than overall fatalities at Kent State.

They are not comparable. I’m fact more people died in Tiananmen than died protesting the entire Vietnam War in the US.

[robotresearcher]

No one claimed they were identical. Kent State is a simple counter example to the claim made in the parent comment.

[simonh]

Kent state was tragic, but not only is it not subject to pervasive and draconian state censorship, it also was not explicitly ordered as an intentional massacre by the government. That particular distinction really does matter.

[robotresearcher]

So it was a less bad massacre of protesters by government forces. Shall we forget about it, and claim it doesn’t happen here?

Hell no.

[simonh]

Because forgetting about it was exactly what I was suggesting? Those straw men burn real nice, don't they.

[bsder]

Your post places Kent State and Tiananmen in equivalent counterpoint without comment. That is a rhetorical device generally used to point out equivalencies.

As such, you are getting blasted, and rightly so.

People are finally becoming tired of the "false equivalency" and the "well, just pointing it out" as these are the tools of the propaganda arms of the Chinese, the Russians, and, yes, the US governments in order to manipulate social media sites and people are striking back when they occur.

I find this a very useful form of social vaccination that has taken far too long to take root.

[amaccuish]

> Your post places Kent State and Tiananmen in equivalent counterpoint without comment

It doesn't actually, if you'd read the thread. Maybe you missed the edit? He was replying to someone who stated that there are no such massacres in the US. He pointed one out. That is all.

Parent

> Edit: I feel like there is going to be what-about-tism responses. So, before you respond, ask yourself if you can criticize the Chinese government, protest against it and make a change in China. Last time that happened in Tiananmen square, there was massacre. That does not happen in US.

[DmenshunlAnlsis]

It’s still comparing the deaths of four people to the deaths of well over a thousand. On every level of the comparison it’s dishonest, from antecedent to impact to aftermath. There really is no comparison except thst both events are called “massacres” which really just tells you more about how many need to die at government hands in the US to achieve that status. If the government killed 1022 civilians in a comparable event in the US... honestly it’s hard to imagine. At the very least, it would be one of the most significant events of the century, and would be a lot more notorious than the already infamous Kent State shootings.

[greedo]

Equating Kent State with Tiananmen Square is very disingenuous. While the loss of life at Kent State (4 killed and several wounded) was reprehensible, it pales in comparison to the thousands killed and wounded in Tiananmen Square.

[robotresearcher]

I didn't equate them. It was a counter example to the parent’s claim and nothing more.

[rayiner]

It's not even the same type of thing. When police react to violent protesters, there is the risk of people getting killed. Now, you can debate in any given situation whether enough was done to minimize risk--and that is exactly what happened after Kent State. A national commission declared it was unjustifiable to send guardsmen armed only with lethal weapons to control campus protests. But at bottom, the purpose of police is to use the State's monopoly on violence to maintain order, and that always carries the risk of people getting killed.

That is completely different from state-directed killings intended to suppress political dissent, which the government then covers up and nobody ever talks about.

[bsder]

And Kent State is taught in US history classes in high schools.

Where is Tiananmen taught in Chinese schools?

We shouldn't become desensitized to Kent State lest we enable the equivalent of Tiananmen in the US.

But equating the scope of the two is actually giving in to Chinese propaganda.

I can condemn the bad things that the US does while still realizing that China is orders of magnitude worse.

[michaelmrose]

For reference actual death toll of Tiananmen Square massacre 10K deaths.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-42465516

[CaptSpify]

> I think Apple leads in privacy

How do you know that? Unless you have some special access to see the source, you are just taking their word on that.

[simonh]

Firstly in terms of market and brand perception Apple absolutely leads on privacy. That’s not really credibly contestable.

Next even if the source was published there’s no way to know of the published source is what is in the phones they sell. This is just as true of an AOSP or any open source phone unless you literally audit the source and compile the whole stack from source yourself.

However at least we have Apple on record and accountable, and it seems like their actual commercial interests align with their stated policies. Going with them seems like a reasonable risk to take, especially considering how poor we know for a fact most of their competition is in this regard.

[CaptSpify]

> Firstly in terms of market and brand perception Apple absolutely leads on privacy. That’s not really credibly contestable.

I'd say it's highly contestable, especially since we have no actual direct proof that they do value privacy. Additionally, I don't care about brand perception, I care about reality.

> Next even if the source was published there’s no way to know of the published source is what is in the phones they sell.

So because they ship a poor OS that doesn't let you manage and control your own system means that there's no way to tell? Interesting, considering that a lot of other hardware works that way....

> This is just as true of an AOSP or any open source phone unless you literally audit the source and compile the whole stack from source yourself.

A) So? What if I want to do that?

B) The point of open-sourcing everything isn't so that everyone can audit everything everytime. It's so that we can audit when we need to. I would never buy a car that doens't let me pop the hood if I wanted to make modifications, why can't the same be true for Apple's products?

> However at least we have Apple on record and accountable, and it seems like their actual commercial interests align with their stated policies.

Their commercial interests actually align to look like they care about privacy, while actually double-dipping. Additionally, they still cater to governments.

> Going with them seems like a reasonable risk to take, especially considering how poor we know for a fact most of their competition is in this regard.

I completely agree that their competition is awful, but that doesn't in any way mean that Apple is good.

In the end, none of what you said refutes my point: You are still reliant on Apple being honest.

[Aaargh20318]

> A) So? What if I want to do that?

So what if you do ? You can't.

Android isn't really open source. They let you look at some unimportant parts of it, that's all. It's a token gesture at best, or deliberately deceptive at worst.

> The point of open-sourcing everything isn't so that everyone can audit everything everytime. It's so that we can audit when we need to

But you can't audit the most important parts of Android, as they are closed-source. Hell, even Google doesn't have access to the source of the most important bits such as the baseband firmware.

[CaptSpify]

> So what if you do ? You can't.

That is my complaint. There are plenty of other operating systems where I can. The fact that Apple won't let me implies that they are hiding something.

> Android isn't really open source. They let you look at some unimportant parts of it, that's all. It's a token gesture at best, or deliberately deceptive at worst.

I agree, but this is whataboutism. Android being shitty doesn't give Apple the right to be shitty.

[Aaargh20318]

> There are plenty of other operating systems where I can.

Name 1 OS + hardware combination where you have the ability to fully audit every part of security-sensitive software. I'll wait...

> Android being shitty doesn't give Apple the right to be shitty.

No, but you can whine about stuff you're never ever going to get, or you can just pick the least problematic option available. Currently that's Apple.