> Also, I'm fairly sure that Apple also sells data.
Can you point to a source that shows this? This sounds like a lie to me.
Can you point to a source that shows this? This sounds like a lie to me.
Otherwise, the assumption is that they do.
Logically, apple has no reason to be selling our data in even close to the same way that google does. These arguments have been thoroughly outlined in the threads above. Furthermore, showing us the source code would not prove whether or not apple is selling our data, though it would certainly prove that they are collecting it. And even if they showed people their algorithms for differential privacy, you could always make the argument that they were hiding something.
Essentially it seems that there is no condition that would satisfy the criteria. It's obvious that we have to trust apple's word to some degree and that the relationship is asymmetrical. I've been convinced by the arguments about business model / risk outlined above. What hasn't convinced you?
Companies exist (only) to make money. The only reason Apple has to not sell users' data is because they think the reputational and other costs are more than the profit from selling it.
If at some point in the future, the expected costs and profits change to make it profitable, they will do it without a second thought.
If the code is closed source, the users are less likely to be able to tell whether their data is being sold. This reduces the expected costs of selling the data (in PR expenses, customers who take their business elsewhere on principle and so on).
If the code is open source, it's more likely to be more costly to sell users' data, so it's more likely that it won't be worth it even in the future.
Maybe they're even promoting drug use to kids under 5...I mean it's possible.