Hacker News Reader

Comment by munchbunny | Hacker News Reader

I'm glad Apple is at least making sure users are aware that this is even a thing. While people on HN are much more likely to follow the issue and do something about it, a lot of laypeople are just vaguely aware that Facebook might be a privacy problem without really understanding what levers they have to manage it themselves.

View on HN

all I hear from my non-tech friends is "Oh yeah, the government and companies have 'my data' nothin I can do"

they basically just assume they're living in a totalitarian society already and don't even think having any semblance of privacy is possible (or understand how easy it is for sinister, small-time third parties to spy on them via publicly-purchasable advertising data..)

The users have already been domesticated [1]. It feels like we have now come full circle back to the 80s to once again grapple with the inherent injustices of proprietary software. Except this time, the proprietary wolves have clothed themselves with "open source" software to prevent us from recognizing them.

[1] https://seirdy.one/2021/01/27/whatsapp-and-the-domestication...

Yes, but I think it would be a bit naïve to think that Apple is doing so out of the kindness of their hearts.

Apple already has access to all the metrics that Facebook would be interested in. It seems to me like this is a set-up for Apple to force FB to buy the data directly from them.

But Apple isn't selling any of that data (which is really just 'downloaded apps' - they don't have the web browsing habits that FB and GOOG have). Their financial interest here is selling privacy with the price being the ongoing commitment to buy Apple products.

Perhaps, but who is to say that they don't have plans to branch out into that business?

It's possible that they have no intent to do so, but a corporation's primary interest is making profit. And what would be a simple, yet significant, source of new revenue? Selling user data.

They tried offering an ad service called iAd that would do things the "Apple" way. No one used it.

> it would be a bit naïve to think that Apple is doing so out of the kindness of their hearts

Good. If they were doing it out of charity, a bit profit pressure, shareholder activism or change in management and the move is reversed. Being grounded in sound business logic and self-interest makes me trust it.

I never meant to imply that I thought Apple's (possible) intent was a good thing.

I just think that a significant number of people will see what they're doing and thing "Oh, they're looking out for me." I think it's best to be skeptical of any company's motives, whether their current business decisions seem to help their users or not.

I don't think it's that. More that Apple in this case is the old "devil you know".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com