> with better alternatives from Apple and Microsoft.
There is no difference in terms of privacy. If that's why you replaced them.
There is no difference in terms of privacy. If that's why you replaced them.
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.
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.
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?
"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?
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.
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