Apple's "privacy" is really just data protection from other competing companies. It was just another marketing campaign to maintain their positive image.
Please no. There is no refuge from the ads. Not for all the money in the world, apparently. This is the worst timeline.
Can I pay 2x to get an ad-free iPhone? 3x? Surely there is some point where it makes sense to sell an ad free phone for those who _need_ to not see ads. They won't even take my money ;_;
Nope. You become an edge case which now has to be supported which likely costs more than you’re paying (except to a smaller efficient business). If you pay more and more you just become more and more of an outlier.
The only way out is buying devices on which you can flash and use OS/software that was built without profit as a goal (e.g., free software).
Anything short of that and you're just sitting under the Sword of Damocles of value extraction, ripe to be used and abused (within personal tolerance or otherwise).
I know you are right, but I've tried doing the de-googled Android thing (when I was an Android user even). It sucks, hard. Android is a pretty bad UX platform to begin with, and trying to make it work with free software is just... awful.
I can't contribute because I only have so many hours in a day. I'd rather pay. I'd pay a boatload for an operating system that replaces Android with something that has a good user experience and has no ads.
I pay for a lifetime license on adguard, on Android. It is vanishing rare to see ads and the audit logs show how often and which apps are having their telemetry and other trackers blocked. It blocks a lot of Google stuff.
That's the reason I stay with android. The Apple version of the app (which has to come through the app store) is not allowed to block anything for Apple apps or services. This they exempt themselves from user control.
I am skeptical of apps claiming to block telemetry. There is a feedback loop that app/service developers like Adguard can use for blocking ads - if an ad shows up, they can look into blocking it.
It's not the same for telemetry. There's no way to verify none is transmitted, and difficult to intercept it or distinguish it from essential traffic. Not all telemetry goes to an HTTP endpoint. Some telemetry-like fingerprinting data can be gathered from basic requests (like an email provider scanning email headers, a phone app developer screening spam calls/numbers, a password manager storing domains of your accounts, and so on). More can be sent along with basic requests. And there is much more data/telemetry engineers could do if the number of users interfering with their methods became statistically significant.
I don't mean to fearmonger. I believe that most telemetry gathered is harmless to any particular user and is just used by data scientists and MBAs trying to see trends they can exploit in their business strategy. Ads probably have a much larger impact on an individual (emotional and mental effects), and there is value to ad-blocking services like Adguard. Still, apps claiming to block tracking, fingerprinting, and telemetry seem to target a very naive audience.
I don't want to see ads. I will pay to not see ads. I earn well and can afford to spend a lot of money on making my life less bad/more good. Due to the way the world is, my phone is one of the most used items I own. I view ads as one of the biggest uncontrollable annoyances in my life. Yet I have no option to pay to not see ads.
In my humblest of opinions, those who accept ads are the ones without self respect. Please share what you think the problem is though.
In your comment you were begging one of the worlds most valuable companies to "allow you" to pay more for their already exaggeratedly expensive products, for the purpose of not seeing ads. And if that wasn't already submissive enough, you also voluntary become complicit in this ill-behaving industry by suggesting that ads are fine for the vast majority of people that could not or would not want to afford paying a premium on the already premium, for not seeing adds.
"… On Nov. 20, a pair of iOS developers known as Mysk discovered that Apple has a specific identifier (a “directory services identifier” or DSID) for every Apple iCloud account. …"
– as if Mysk discovered this. Not so.
DSID-related analysis was performed more than seven months earlier – by a group of five researchers, including four at the University of Oxford.
Konrad Kollnig, Anastasia Shuba, Max Van Kleek, Reuben Binns, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2022. Goodbye Tracking? Impact of iOS App Tracking Transparency and Privacy Labels. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 508–520. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533116
NextDNS has a "Native tracking protection" blocklist for Apple. Looking at my logs, it has blocked iadsdk.apple.com and many subdomains, and supportmetrics, securemetrics, books-analytics-events, weather-analytics-events (all under apple.com).
The first two do not have low latency high bandwidth connections (or often any connection at all) to the user to collect data, so it's not a reasonable comparison. As for the third, I understand that duck.com claims this, but I don't buy their claims, considering their behavior. None of these sites that claim to not collect user data should be trusted until they submit to a transparent audit that exposes all their infrastructure. As for the fourth, this is a tiny exception to the rule held up by some individual with standards.
Apple doesn't fit the pattern of any of your examples.
Had anyone actually substantiated the claim about the unconfirmed non-disabling device ID beyond a single packet and theorizing about encrypted packets?
Because the whole article is based on this evidence and peoples’ desire to dog pile on apple.
Can you be an ad company and respect your users, though? Google and Microsoft failed to do this, not because they didn't protect their user's identity but because they kept squeezing for more and more cash when the UX was already hurting. I'm not confident that Apple can resist those temptations (judging by the way they treat their own native advertising).
Adding advertising likely will cost them hardware sales. if so, their hardware branch might have enough clout to keep their advertising branch under control.
Phrased another way: adding a few billions of advertising revenue wouldn’t make Apple an advertising company, just as selling smartphones hasn’t made Google a hardware company
They already have advertising, at least in MacOS. Every time I put on my headphones I get a pop-up ad for Apple Music, and I can't hide iCloud or Safari's constant nagging to get me to use them.
Everyone has their own limits, but I left the ecosystem after Mojave (with this being one reason).
I don’t know, is that really advertisement? These seems more akin to a program’s popup of its new features or that you can also go pro. Sure, nitpickingly these are ads, but they are related to the context, not intrusive, and not coming from a third party.
If anything, it is more analogous to my friend telling me about that vacuum cleaner he bought that he finds a great buy when I bring up the topic of vacuum cleaners. Surely, it is still an ad, but you get the difference.
That’s a mac, and while I agree it is one of those pesky, annoying ones, it is likely more of an oversight/not enough people care thingy to count it as a bug.
I use a mac and an iphone without apple music and never seen anything like that.
As an ad broker, you usually cannot. If you respect the users privacy, and another competing ad broker does not, then the competitor will make better ad placement decisions, get a higher click through rate, and give advertisers better ROI. Therefore, the ad broker that respects privacy will get less and less business and die.
The only way an ad broker can respect privacy is if they can prevent any other ad broker operating in the same marketplace. Ie. You need to be a monopoly in your niche.
Apple can do this by hobbling any other ad provider operating on iPhones or targeting iPhone user through their app store rules.
I think they point in the general direction of Google's Play Store, and exclaim, "Here's another app store, hence we're not a monopoly", and then proceed to enjoy their monopoly.
It's all a matter of definitions. For example, Google doesn't sell user data to third parties, does that make Google respect user privacy a lot better than other ad companies? Sure yes. But Google often takes user data from one product and uses it for targeting in a different product, and it doesn't respect user privacy as much as a non-ad company.
Ad companies generally don't. Data brokers will set user data, but advertisement based companies do not sell user data.
> does that make Google respect user privacy a lot better than other ad companies?
"better" is the operative word in that statement. Just because Google spies on me and is slightly less worse about how they use that data, does not mean that they respect my privacy.
I mean, I haven't audited their systems and haven't seen any reports from independent auditors, but at least they are making direct statements about privacy that the other ad networks aren't.
Could you elaborate on this? Genuine question, because how Apple is so successful is a complete mystery to me.
I worked there during the pandemic and my experience was that there is no company culture, it's just a bunch of totally siloed small teams. Culture grows as a result of people speaking to each other, which I didn't really see happening.
Could be that I was in a particularly siloed part though.
Silo'd teams that don't talk to each other? That sounds like a sign the culture is already deteriorating, or the lack of communication is inherently part of the culture.
I'd be curious as to how the iOS team would be independent of the hardware team or the app dev experience teams. I suspect your team experience was a corner case.
Not all ads are about click-through. Impressions can be a goal by itself for some who are seeking brand recognition benefits in addition to or even as an alternative to clicks or installs.
Indeed. Look at anything you or anyone spends money on. It all comes down to controlling your environment. The environment that corporations inhabit is structured in such a way as to demand user attention and data exploitation in order to survive.
Sad and true. Attention and value extraction from every aspect of human life is the only goal in corporatism. It’s never enough for these companies, endless growth is all that matters.
Lovely free advertising for Proton. Very smart blog post, since numerous employees and fans of Apple competitors, as well as anyone who dislikes Apple for whatever reason, has plenty motivation to upvote this post.
Also: Calling someone an ad company when approximately 1% of revenue seems to be generated by ads would seem quite a stretch.
Also: Being tracked while on someone’s property isn’t exactly the same as tracking someone across unrelated properties.
Also: Every company with a decent CRM system and culture has been tracking all kinds of (often personal) details about their (potential) customers gathered from their interactions and whatever sources they could get their hands on. This has been going on since before the Internet was widely used.
But while this blog post (attack ad?) doesn’t seem to have that much meaningful substance, it’s also kind of just doing the same to Apple as Apple often does to others.
Also: Yet I see many comments rushing to perform mental gymnastics on their behalf.
There are several attributes here that match up exactly with other companies that are somehow vilified. The blog post is on point, the user have been in denial for a long time and will continue to be.
> Also: Yet I see many comments rushing to perform mental gymnastics on their behalf. There are several attributes here that match up exactly with other companies that are somehow vilified. The blog post is on point, the user have been in denial for a long time and will continue to be.
I’m all in favour of calling out Apple on their crap. But Apple’s evils aren’t the same as Google’s and Meta’s evils.
I just prefer my conversations and criticisms to be more nuanced, rather than brushing everyone with the same simplistic brush.
Also: Calling users to be in denial is a cheap attack. The reality is, that all of us users live in a world filled with nothing but imperfect choices. — So all we can do is pick our poison according to our personal priorities and preferences at any given time.
I’d categorize that as a beef with the walled garden system, more so than Apple becoming an ad company.
I don’t have an issue with criticism of the walled garden approach and that being a reason for many individuals to avoid the Apple ecosystem.
But I think that’s quite a different discussion than the business model of companies who make most of their revenue from ads and the tracking they do while one is visiting different properties all over the web.
Approximately 1% of revenue from ads doesn’t really make someone an ad company.
Again, I have no problem with critical comments about Apple (I have a lengthy list myself) - but advertising is not an equivalence between Apple and other truly advertising based companies.
My concern is that ad revenue is just too tempting, especially as other revenue sources plateau. That's why once paid and ad free services like cable devolved into paid-with-ads.
If you’re essentially extrapolating into what Apple may become one day, rather than what it is now (i.e. if/when the 1% of revenue from advertising becomes a meaningfully larger share like 51% or whatever the threshold for being an advertising company is in your thinking), then I understand where you’re coming from.
However, I’m coming from a perspective to let history play out a little more before trying to predict the future too far out.
In addition, I find calling Apple an advertising company distracts from much more legitimate complaints about Apple.
And it whitewashes Google, Meta and their ilk.
Apple is far from perfect on privacy issues, but todate also nowhere near as horrific as the much more fully ad dependent companies.
