[yellowapple]

That is indeed a serious suggestion, and an absolutely correct one.

Transparency is a dependency of trust. Neither Google, Apple, nor Microsoft are transparent about the software they offer, the data that software collects, or how they use the data collected. They are in fact quite opaque about all of those things. The only assurance of privacy they offer is their word.

[sureIy]

Microsoft I agree, same as Google if not worse.

Apple does have the occasional third-party review of cryptography and whatnot.

Apple also have an actual, single phone support number in multiple languages and countries that you can use as a paying customer. Day and night with Google.

[Schiendelman]

If I showed you that you were wrong, would you change your mind?

Usually when you ask this, people just tell you again why they're right. That means they aren't really open to changing their mind. If I can prove you're wrong, will you change your mind?

[yellowapple]

I'd absolutely change my mind if proven wrong. If any of those companies publish the source code of all the software running on their devices and servers (and can prove that said source code corresponds to what's actually deployed), then that'd be an excellent start.

[Schiendelman]

That is not the statement you made.

"Neither Google, Apple, nor Microsoft are transparent about the software they offer, the data that software collects, or how they use the data collected."

Apple is very different than the other two here. Do you actually believe otherwise or are your goalposts just... set as to be useless?

[yellowapple]

Apple is not different from either of those two in any of those senses. No source code = no transparency. If I am incorrect about that - and Apple does openly publish all of the code that collects and interacts with their customers' data - then I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong.

That's a major component of what transparency entails, and that's what's a dependency of trust. No source code = no transparency, no transparency = no trust. Simple.

[Schiendelman]

"Usually when you ask this, people just tell you again why they're right."

[yellowapple]

I'm at least trying to have a good-faith conversation. If you ain't interested in the same, then surely there are better things for you to do than to waste both of our time, no?

[xethos]

And while that's not an unreasonable rebuttal, my first argument (in agreement with yours) is that Google does not sell their users' information, and neither does Apple.

Being up in arms about the lack of privacy from Google is fair, and something I agree with. But Apple doesn't offer dramatically more privacy from Apple that I'm aware of. Both allow, but discourage, free accounts, and run ad networks (that they don't sell user information on)

I'm not even arguing there's no difference, just that there's less than everyone likes to pretend

[Schiendelman]

What do you think of Apple's privacy whitepapers?