Hacker News Reader

Comment by figassis | Hacker News Reader

At this point it’s probably existential. They AB test this and see immediate and drastic impact on revenue so they do them.

View on HN

Yeah, the market loves growth and services have been their growth lately so that being hit is a big deal for the stock price (and execs are bonused on stock price).

Additionally, because they control all of the payments on iOS they can provide much better targeting to advertisers for purchases, which open payment processes would reduce the value of.

But they've played this so badly that they are going to lose most of their app store revenue at this point. Sucks to be them I guess.

It's definitely existential if they DON'T put a warning because then it undermines the core promise for which they charge (security/privacy)

But that's already been principally undermined by PRISM compliance, NSO Group and Tim Cook's hunky-dory relations with Donald Trump.

Users don't actually care about security. They don't even know what it looks like, or how to assess it. They do care about the Jungian shadow of security, vulnerability, which is what Apple's marketing instills in them as a customer: https://youtu.be/0HjDpPnxcP0

So, it's not existential at all. Apple could announce tomorrow that the CIA has unfettered access to all iCloud data, and Apple's customers wouldn't perceive any real alternative. Not because there aren't secure alterantives - but because they were taught that Apple knows best, and without them they're powerless to choose for themselves. This is the critical danger of becoming reliant on a commercialized "protection" service, both online and in real life.

you're in a bubble. trust me out there 99% of Apple customers are not trying hide from NSO, PRISM, CIA or NSA and for regular people security and privacy is not about that. it's about having your bank app not being hacked or not being spied on by your ex with a hidden app. small things like that.

You've missed my original point. People only care about the small things, not what actually make them secure. They accept whatever fear-du-jour is marketed to them ("Google spies on you!") and then surmises that Apple protects them. But[0] they[1] don't[2]. Apple actively neglects runtime security to justify their centralized entitlement service they sell to developers. And users don't care because, like you said, they never have. They don't respond to anything, besides what they are explicitly told is scary.

This isn't about holding Apple to some arbitrarily high standard. It's about exposing just how apathetic their customer base truly is, something that has been documented by nearly every Apple enthusiast since the birth of the Mac. The "reality distortion field" we call marketing tenders more sales for Apple than any security investment they have ever made. Take a class in advertisement, I guarantee Apple is on the first-week syllabus.

[0] https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/apple-gave-ubers-...

[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/06/apple-governments-surve...

[2] https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/15/nso-group-admits-cutting-o...

You miss the point. What actually makes the difference secure is the basic things like not being able to install an app that steals your banking info. If the government is after you you are toast regardless of whether alt stores are allowed. Believe me none of the three letter agencies or companies mentioned care about the average joe. But that average joe is the one making apple money.

So if company promising security and privacy promises cannot provide average joe security and privacy (often by saving him from his own choices by not allowing insecure behavior) it is very existential for it yes

Reply on news.ycombinator.com