Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by traceroute66 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

traceroute66

> I would never have this kind of confidence in a corporation.

Meanwhile back on Planet Earth .....

Going by your argument you should not own any electronic device.

Because you should not be trusting Intel/AMD to make your CPU because they might have put spyware in it ....

Because you should not trust your keyboard manufacturer because they might have embedded a keylogger in it....

Because you should not trust your choice of OS because you haven't personally reviewed 100% of the source code and all subsequent patches for spyware ...

In the end, its about balancing risk vs reward. And frankly, especially in terms of privacy, Apple are far more trustworthy than the vast majority of other options out there.

View on HN

I don't think "this is a problem for everyone" really precludes both informing people about the problem and hoping there is a solution to the problem. Just because Apple it "better", doesn't make it "good".

I personally feel some sort of regulatory framework around data collection and sales is not too much to ask.

My question is why is it always in discussions about Apple that people come out of the woodworks "worried about their privacy stance changing" and how we need regulatory stuff in place in the event Apple STARTS to be like Google, but nobody is ever in the Android stuff talking about how absolutely terrible Google is on this front?

Because everyone knows this about Google already. With Apple there seems to be some associated belief that it's better, when there's nothing really special about Apple. It's a publicly traded company and just because no one let the cow out of the barn yet, doesn't mean it couldn't in the future. Props to Apple for not doing a Google yet, but like someone said, I would never trust a corporation to put me above shareholder value.

> I would never trust a corporation to put me above shareholder value.

Normally I'd agree with you, but I think Steve Jobs has a long history of not giving a shit about what shareholders say because he was more concerned with delivering the perfect product to customers, so I'd like to think that Tim Cook has also carried this torch too.

Yes they are a for-profit company, I still get that... But everyone has been shouting "Just wait, Apple will become just like Google once they realize how juicy that data is to their bottom line!!" for literally decades, yet... Nothing.

> so I'd like to think that Tim Cook has also carried this torch too.

You'd like to think that. I would too. But even if it's true, Tim Cook will not be there forever either. Publicly traded companies are owned by shareholders who can and will do what they want. The last half century of business is littered with the corpses of once vaunted corporate bodies stripped by investors.

They are nothing like Google and have proven that over time. But they don't need to be because people trust them.

Many moons ago I worked for a large online gambling provider. They worked tirelessly to make their company trustworthy, make their games entertaining, and build relationships with their high rollers. Internally, they had strategies to squeeze as much money from every user as possible without causing distress. It was quite eye opening and I can't help but draw parallels between them and Apple.

Jobs went over and beyond to dictate to customers what HE thought they needed, not what they truly needed.

The fact that others might misbehave too does not invalidate OP's claim, in that no one should blindly trust a corporation. And let me add, an US corporation even more.

All those counterexamples are open platforms which get tinkered with to no end. Meanwhile, it's the apple platforms that get more and more restrictions per year.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com