[workingon]

Regarding below comments, and Apple's desire to enter the ad business and still keeping data/not respecting privacy, that's definitely a bad thing, but I still am really happy Apple did this to Facebook/Zuck. Imagine building an entire business that ceases to be profitable as soon as you can't spy on users. It's entirely corrupt. If you took the same ability away from Apple, they would be fine, because most of their business model is actually trying to provide something of value to the world, instead of profiting off of catalyzing it's downfall like Meta.

I wish we could do the same thing to Google.

[ipaddr]

Apple kills many small businesses/apps unrelated to privacy but often wearing that shield as a defense. Why celebrate taking down another multinational when the reasons are self serving and creates bigger privacy issues?

[JKCalhoun]

If Apple's self-serving reasons are "because our users want it" then I am all for it.

That 2/3 of users opted out of being tracked suggests Facebook has no similar reasoning for their business model.

[imachine1980_]

the point is they aren't, they say we are against ads, and the whisper "except ours". if this will be they true purpose you may say what can they do?, don't sell ads.

[askafriend]

They never said they're against Ads - that's silly, digital advertising is here to stay and it will continue to grow.

They are against building specific profiles of people while tracking them across 3rd party sites without consent.

Here's Tim Cook talking about it: https://www.webpronews.com/tim-cook-were-not-against-digital...

[ksec]

>Here's Tim Cook talking about it: https://www.webpronews.com/tim-cook-were-not-against-digital...

Oh. The magic of PR.

Tim Cook came out to say they are not against Ads precisely because everyone thought they were against ads. Including the Ad industry. That piece, along with dozen of other interviews, during late 2021 or early 2022 were all about damage control. The Ad industry were absolutely pissed.

Why didn't Tim Cook said anything in 2019 when they started their war against Ads? The PR against Ads, from Mainstream to Social Media. How their Business Model were not to Sell Ads? How recording customer interaction at your own shop is still Apple's definition of tracking? And Apple somehow doesn't do any of that.

Yes, you may be right. Apple didn't said any of that by the strictest definition. But the market received it as such. And that is the beauty of their PR and marketing.

Edit: Just read this thread alone, suddenly people are coming out with First party data collection being different than third party data collection. Did we even had that discussion in 2019? May be that is the wrong question to ask, were we even allowed to have that discussion in 2019?

[cmeacham98]

Apple has personalized (i.e. targeted) ads in the app store, no?

[nemothekid]

Are you asking if Apple has ads in the app store that are personalized using data that apple collects from third party applications? I'm pretty sure the answer to that is no.

If you are asking if Apple has personalized ads using data from within Apple, then yes; but Facebook has that too and isn't banned from doing that.

I think it's very strange people keep equating the level of Apple's and Facebook's data collection. Facebook tried very hard to track you across the entire internet. Apple said you need consent to do that. Then people say "Apple tracks you too". Yes so does every other app out there that installs an analytics library. But you know what I can do? Just not use apple products. However with Facebook, you'd find that the Facebook SDK is installed on every app that didn't even have a social integration and Facebook would build shadow profiles on you, with no reasonable way to opt out.

[askafriend]

Not only do they ask for consent before personalizing, they use random/anonymized device identifiers to correlate only first-party data (aka data they already have when you use their apps). This correlation isn't even associated with your name. It's also super easy to reset this identifier whenever you want.

They don't build extremely targeted data profiles with every piece of personal information possible and they don't track you across 3rd party apps and websites across the internet generally.

Apple's view is consistent with their actions. They do the bare minimum level of data correlation to deliver a useful feature - personalization. They also ask you before they do it. And they make it extremely easy to opt-out.

Again, they're not against personalization. They're against data practices that are dishonest/sneaky, don't ask for consent, or collect/store way more data than is necessary.

[JKCalhoun]

I was referring to privacy, not ads.

But I agree that as Apple moves toward advertising they will lose the loyalty of their base (myself included).

[fooblaster]

Apple never cared about privacy to begin with. as soon as they are in a position to use their monopoly power to force their way into the ad eco system they will do so in force. I look forward to seeing how apple will market or more likely choose to hide this approach from their users.

[asimpletune]

They never said they were against ads though.

[benreesman]

There are plenty of legitimate gripes with the consumer Internet megacorps. All of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and plenty more have done user-hostile and privacy hostile things. I was just taking them to task for their bullshit about AI ethics on the big language models yesterday.

But as someone working on my own Internet hyperbole problem, I’ll gently suggest that rabid-sounding hyperbole is just going to turn off the zillion employees at those companies who are also HN users and might be able to do something about it.

“Third-party cookies” === “spying”, a bit of a reach in 2022. “Grandma” knows about cookies now. It’s not an absurd argument, but it’s a bit extreme.

FAANG is “catalyzing the downfall of the world”? We’re in “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” territory.

[GekkePrutser]

I don't agree. Third party cookies exist almost entirely for the purpose of spying.

SSO is an exception but a minor one

[benreesman]

Reasons why cookies get dropped exist along a gradient. I like that Stripe knows who I am and only needs my CVV to buy something. I like that I can make a StackOverflow account with my GitHub. Within limits, I even like that the ads I see are relevant to me at least some of the time as opposed to the statistically roughly never that they would be without some basic demo stuff.

HN remembering that I'm logged in is unambiguously not spying. The Five Eyes dumping all my phone calls into a giant complex in Utah unambiguously is spying. Everything else is somewhere along that line.

Like most users on this forum, I have control over when and how I'm cookied and/or tracked bounded only by my "give a shit" factor, it's not technically advanced to send unwanted cookies to `/dev/null`.

Likewise, because I live in the US, all my basic demo information is a matter of public record because I've like, bought a house and interacted with the police and been born and stuff.

I know that the ad-supported Internet is extremely unpopular around here, but jump over to Reddit and people are flipping their shit that Netflix went from $10/month to $15 (or whatever it was): it's not hard to see why there's a certain skepticism that people will pay for Google in large numbers so it could be ad-free. I'd pay 50 or 100 bucks (or more) a month for Google because I'm a computer programmer and it saves me literally hours every day, but I'm demonstrably in the minority on that, and it would be a little narrow of me to project my preferences onto Internet users at large.

[GekkePrutser]

> HN remembering that I'm logged in is unambiguously not spying.

It also unambiguously doesn't require third party cookies :)

> Reasons why cookies get dropped exist along a gradient. I like that Stripe knows who I am and only needs my CVV to buy something. I like that I can make a StackOverflow account with my GitHub. Within limits, I even like that the ads I see are relevant to me at least some of the time as opposed to the statistically roughly never that they would be without some basic demo stuff.

A lot of these things don't need third party cookies. Stripe can remember who you are with a first party cookie if the page just refreshes to them.

But we do have a different viewpoint yes. I don't even see ads as I block them all and I never make exceptions. I never ever use the 'log in with <big tech company>' options and I avoid the services that don't bother to offer an alternative (eg pushbullet). But note that this is the SSO usecase I already mentioned. I do pay a membership for the sites I use a lot by the way.

I'd never pay for Google even if it were possible. But I'd pay for another search engine. I just lost trust in Google so badly that I'll never be able to come back from it. I've been trying kagi but it's not good enough for me yet.

[rvz]

> FAANG is “catalyzing the downfall of the world”? We’re in “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” territory.

All the free software and privacy activists needed was Edward Snowden to leak the illegal harvesting and collection of user data done by the NSA and with Big Tech helping along quietly with the PRISM project.

Ever since they were all caught in the act, they are now screaming about privacy all of a sudden as they pretend to care about it whilst they waste resources and burn up the planet with their broken deep learning models in tens of thousands of data centers on user data only for surveillance.

Little to nothing has changed. Despite these regulations, Big Tech is still getting bigger and pushing for more surveillance and aiding the existence of another digital dystopia.

[benreesman]

If that's the reason, why is it never ATT, or Verizon, or Comcast who are dramatically more implicated in ongoing cooperation with NSA/FVEY? Why is it never Palantir or Kratos or Pegasus whose business models are to explicitly market malware to the intelligence community? Why is it not Booz Allen Hamilton where Snowden worked when he took the files and is still chugging right along?

And why is the ultimate responsibility, which lies with the legislators and executives who put together these FISA kangaroo courts and NSL procedures, like a parenthetical on the way to blast Silicon Valley?

If, like me, you're deeply concerned about NSA/FVEY overreach, there are far, far more pressing issues, present day concerns than Google or Meta or Microsoft most likely having knuckled under to a bunch of NSLs rather than send their CEOs to Leavenworth in like 2009 or whatever when the Obama administration was collecting scalps from everyone with a datacenter who didn't play ball.

And what in God's name does the Federal government's energy policy have to do with it? You want clean energy (nuclear) take it up with the NRC and EPA.

[Apocryphon]

Everyone hates the telecom and cable providers. But that hate is wrapped up in complacency because 1) everyone knows they’re oligopolistic dinosaurs with terrible customer service and 2) they are fundamentally unshakable because they are utility companies.

Certainly we should call for them to be broken up too, but we already did it to AT&T once and it got better. And it seems a little old hat compared to the new FAANG big tech giants that have arisen in the current generation.

[pete_nic]

> Imagine building an entire business that ceases to be profitable as soon as you can't spy on users.

>I wish we could do the same thing to Google.

You’re assuming Google’s core business would not exist without spying on users and I disagree. You can run a search business and still protect privacy, this is DuckDuckGo’s whole model. This is a fundamental difference between a search product and a social product.

[pmontra]

As a long time DDG user, Google Search is better. I end up searching again on Google about half of the time I search for technical stuff (software) or for non English sites. I just feel DDG didn't understand what I want and Google usually does. I don't login on Google and use a Firefox extension to clear the cookies so Google might only rely on the search term, not my history, but who knows.

[tpetry]

Google is not a search product. Their revenue come from Adwords, which is only effective with good targeting to the fitting users.

[criddell]

Google's ads do not seem particularly well targeted, even with the 20+ years of information they have collected on me. I feel like I've given up way, way too much of my privacy for what I've been given in return.

By far, the best targeting is to show an ad as I explicitly search for something and that's not going to go away for them anytime soon.

[eastbound]

> which is only effective with good targeting to the fitting users

You talk like that’s the only way. Instead of fitting the ad to users, we could fit the ad to the content, like we’ve always done. Tracking users isn’t necessary.

[111111101101]

> is only effective with good targeting to the fitting users

This isn't true in my experience. When I was an affiliate marketer in a past life, it was extremely profitable to promote health and fitness products on generic search terms such as "basketball" and "football scores". User demographic data wasn't required.

Unfortunately, Google decided that they don't like affiliate marketers.

[s17n]

Of course we'll never know how much of a difference targeting makes to the bottom line, but I doubt that it's huge.

Google's revenue comes from people searching for queries like "good traffic ticket lawyer", and from competitors bidding up each others' brand names. It would probably work just fine without targeting.

[remarkEon]

Breaking up Google and Meta would be a huge boon to all of us. Think of all the extremely intelligent and driven people who are being paid dump trucks of money to build internet surveillance or psychological manipulation technology at scale.

They could be working on so, so many more interesting and important problems.

[biztos]

I'm sure there are some extremely intelligent and driven people working on internet surveillance or psychological manipulation, but if the only reason they're doing it is for the dump-trucks of money then I have zero confidence they will go work on interesting and important problems should MetaGoo somehow tank.

They'll just go wherever the largest dump-trucks are offered. Because they already did that, and it made them relatively wealthy, and yet there they still are.

[remarkEon]

I don’t disagree with you, but the destruction of those particular business models would still be a net good for society, no? And these people, ostensibly smart and driven, would seek their dump trucks somewhere else. It’s a guess that those other places with the dump trucks up for grabs are better then Metagoo, but I’ll take it.

[colechristensen]

>I wish we could do the same thing to Google.

Sell computers with chrome preinstalled with a good adblock extension.

[mlyle]

You can't, because the Chrome license is personal and non-assignable. If you enter into a contract with them to deploy them on computers, I assume this is precluded explicitly by the terms.

You could with Chromium, but that's problematic and annoying in minor ways. (Some of the things consumers value involve Google integrations).

[mrtksn]

What about selling computers that prompts to install ad blockers the moment the user downloads and installs Chrome?

[Nextgrid]

Firefox then.

[ipaddr]

Your chrome id still is used to link you and the sites you visit.

[barbacoa]

I someday hope to see pihole like dns filtering built into residential routers.

[account-5]

I still dream of a Firefox OS device in the vein of a Chromebook. I was gutted when Mozilla abandoned Firefox OS.

[irrational]

I thought google was changing chrome so that adblockers can’t work anymore on that browser?

[ksec]

That is exactly what is wrong. When Apple does it, it is all good. As if other business provides zero value to the world.

And to answer your last point. Apple are already doing it to Google. Apple collect $10+ Billion per year from Google just to be the default search engine. Squeezing Google left and right, partly forcing Google to increase the amount of Ads around the web.

[Gibbon1]

My thinking of late is we need to change the laws of incorporation to prevent product and service companies from making money off ads.

[smoldesu]

We could do the same to Google; it would require Apple working with the government, though, and adding more regulations is the last thing Apple wants. This is a shame, because we're never going to make lasting change by having private corporations do our battles for us. Furthermore, we have no way of holding Apple accountable if they're doing the same thing as Facebook. I don't care if you're the biggest company in the world, you still have to play by the rules.

> If you took the same ability away from Apple, they would be fine, because most of their business model is actually trying to provide something of value to the world

Sure, they make money hand-over-fist by exploiting Uighur labor for your shiny metal laptop. Bettering the world is just their nature!

Pragmatically, though, none of these companies will ever champion true privacy. What's the point of even arguing over this stuff when every one of these corporations is compliant in PRISM? Here on HN we love to white-knight for multi-trillion dollar companies and quibble over whitepapers, but everyone has lost. Privacy is unattainable. Security is feasible, but privacy? It doesn't matter if you're on iPhone or Windows or MacOS; you're not in control of your data. Period.

[JKCalhoun]

> Furthermore, we have no way of holding Apple accountable if they're doing the same thing as Facebook.

Not buy their products?

[smoldesu]

Well sure, just tell everyone to do that with Facebook products too. That will definitely solve the issue, right?

[astrange]

> What's the point of even arguing over this stuff when every one of these corporations is compliant in PRISM?

PRISM = subpoenas. It’s not an illegal spying program. You don’t want companies to answer subpoenas?

[aaaaaaaaata]

Not FISA ones that are never public.

[mistrial9]

> they make money hand-over-fist by exploiting Uighur labor for your shiny metal laptop.

your case would be stronger if you don't overreach .. overall component assembly business is race-to-the-bottom for worker rights, in China now.. that ethnic cleansing you mention is horrible but not exactly the same thing, and intelligent readers may know that. From my point of view, it is the Tibetans to be concerned with, not Uighur. And that is possible a more potent insight .. that Apple knowingly profited from race-to-the-bottom worker conditions, orchestrated under a government responsible for Tibetan cultural genocide. But, it is not the Tibetans that did the assembly, nor to my knowledge the Uighur.

[soperj]

> provide something of value to the world

Just for a limited time when the purposely made their phones unusable through OS updates.

[Swizec]

Apple in my experience has a marvelous track record with this sort of thing.

I upgraded from an iPhone 4 to X because it worked fine for so long. This summer I updated my mom’s 8 year old Macbook Air to Monterey and it works great.

And I’m starting to think about upgrading my 2018 iPad only because of memory issues with 3rd party apps dumping context when multitasking.

[soperj]

They were fined 5 years ago for this very reason (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51413724), so not so marvelous.

[tzs]

The fine was for not giving notice. They have implemented the same battery saving update on several more devices without any objection from the regulators because they gave notice for those.

[astrange]

European fines are entirely cope, it doesn’t mean they’ve actually done anything. Similarly laws like the GDPR and DMA aren’t made with the intent of being followed, just with the hope they’ll get fines or lead to the breakup of foreign tech companies.

There was no slowdown of devices; what happened is the devices didn’t randomly turn off anymore.

[soperj]

Then why did they go about replacing batteries for free?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/ne4a8d/apples-iphone-slowdow...

[astrange]

Cause old batteries are why the devices were randomly turning off.

Nevertheless, the "slowdown" is in fact faster than the alternative, because if your device turns off the task never completes.