Apple CEO Tim Cook on iOS 13's Sign In with Apple: 'We're Not Really Taking a Shot at Anybody'

[briloronmacrumo]

This really isn’t true at all, see Enron and Bernie Madoff for examples of companies that acted in their own self interest first.

Exactly. Apple's behavior is in its own interest and the interest of its customers. Doing one doesn't preclude the other.
[doublepost=1559756564][/doublepost]

I'm not sure what planet you are from, but Apple is the only company making a concerted effort to protect your privacy.

I'm aware of Apple's efforts. What's not being discussed is Apple's use of this goal as a marketing campaign. Also, despite and even with Apple's best privacy efforts, full and complete internet privacy is difficult to achieve.

 

[Timemaster]

I understand the sentiment, but Apple is stating publicly they are the company for privacy. The others don't. It'd be a PR nightmare if it were to be discovered one day that Apple has been lying about it all along.

'
Apple would not be the first company to do a stunt like that either.
Apple also been caught covering up things before. An example from the pass was the Antenna issues on the iPhone 4. Turns out if someone came in for those issues they had were told to pull from a different batch of phones that had that flaw fixed in it but Apple covered it up and did fix it. Just they there admitted they had a massive engineering design fail. Things you learn from old Apple store employees after their NDA ended.

Apple could more than likely weather to storm. Something I would like Apple to do is make it very easy to see everything they have on you. For all the flack people give Google one thing I like is every so often they force you to look at your privacy and security settings and go threw it all. Log in to Gmail fro the web and you are redirected there. It is a good thing.

 

[briloronmacrumo]

That is not my concern, nor should it be anyones other than those living in China. They have their own laws that you have to respect if you want to do business. There is no away around this unless you want to lose the ability to do business (sell product) in their country.

True. But it proves Apple doesn't have an ethical dilemma divulging customer information when they can blame China ( i.e. "China's law force us to to it" )

 

[SomeSoftwareGuy]

I'm not sure what planet you are from, but Apple is the only company making a concerted effort to protect your privacy. No other company cares about your privacy and are only interested in monetizing your data. As a shareholder it would be to my advantage for them to sell their users out to the highest bidder, but thankfully they have chosen not to.

Oh come on, there are more than a handful of companies that are dedicated to protecting your information, or "privacy" as you are calling it. Apple, is not the only one or even the best one doing it. I love how you throw a slam down like not knowing what "planet a person is from" and then have a limited understanding yourself. Classic.

 

[Worldspinning]

'
Apple would not be the first company to do a stunt like that either.
Apple also been caught covering up things before. An example from the pass was the Antenna issues on the iPhone 4. Turns out if someone came in for those issues they had were told to pull from a different batch of phones that had that flaw fixed in it but Apple covered it up and did fix it. Just they there admitted they had a massive engineering design fail. Things you learn from old Apple store employees after their NDA ended.

Apple could more than likely weather to storm. Something I would like Apple to do is make it very easy to see everything they have on you. For all the flack people give Google one thing I like is every so often they force you to look at your privacy and security settings and go threw it all. Log in to Gmail fro the web and you are redirected there. It is a good thing.

Yeah, but if they’re lying about telling their user base that they aren’t selling them out is wildly different from trying to protect their own R&D.

I’m not suggesting any cover-ups are acceptable but lying about privacy would likely hurt them pretty badly and open up a huge can of worms surrounding their efforts to fight the Feds over user privacy. One bad product decision is very different from betraying your entire user base.

Apple does offer you the ability to download the info they have on you. It isn’t much and that’s good. I agree it’d be nice if you could opt-out of more things and to be able to do so with more transparency... but Im not sure putting opt-out in your face like Google does is necessarily a good sign. I sort of think it shows how much Google expects you to accept their default snooping from the get-go.

 

[I7guy]

Exactly. Apple's behavior is in its own interest and the interest of its customers. Doing one doesn't preclude the other...

Ok, we disagree on this point. All the signs point to Apple NOT doing what you say they are doing.
[doublepost=1559759700][/doublepost]

True. But it proves Apple doesn't have an ethical dilemma divulging customer information when they can blame China ( i.e. "China's law force us to to it" )

No, more spin on this. Apple is complying with local laws.

 

[KidAKidB]

Apple doesn’t force or “lock” anyone into using iOS or any other apple software.

Yes they do.

 

[iMEric984]

Yes they do.

Here’s a handcuff key to get out.

 

[ErikGrim]

I understand the sentiment, but Apple is stating publicly they are the company for privacy. The others don't. It'd be a PR nightmare if it were to be discovered one day that Apple has been lying about it all along.

Very few people seemed to care when Google went from "Don't be evil" to "Be totally evil" though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[ipponrg]

Very few people seemed to care when Google went from "Don't be evil" to "Be totally evil" though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Google is pretty evil. They make my life easier day to day.

 

[I7guy]

'
Apple would not be the first company to do a stunt like that either.
Apple also been caught covering up things before. An example from the pass was the Antenna issues on the iPhone ...

So the low bar on this, is any company that has done anything ever? We could even extend that concept to people.

 

[xaqt93]

Again, yes, that is precisely how we are (very transparently and openly) using users' data. It's an opt-in experience with a super crystal clear, GDPR-compliant privacy policy. I really can't say more than that, and I'm sure you'll understand. There are many companies offering similar products — anything with a real embedded social component, for example.

I get that users want privacy in most cases. I share that desire.

The problem is presuming that principle applies to all use cases. In your post, you acknowledged that yes, there are situations where the social network and direct communications might be important. And that's the problem with this mandatory proposal from Apple. It applies a blanket philosophy indiscriminately.

The way I see it, on my app, I have, “Log in with Facebook” and I really love it because I can get there E-mail and phone number and Profile picture makes it simple. However, that is all the information I need, which I tell the user right after they press the button. Now here is why I don’t see the “Sign in With Apple” a big deal. If they hit that button, I assume, I am going to be able to get an e-mail, and after that, I will ask the user for the phone number in a text field, and finally have the user pick a picture themselves. It’s really not a big deal, just a few extra steps for the user. It’s the same as if the user had to sign up the old way before these buttons existed. That is why I don’t see this as a big deal at all. In the old days, the user had to put in the information they wanted to share and we, as developers, had to explicitly ask for the information, and we would not worry about burying the info we are getting in a long T&C or privacy policy. Plus, no one reads those anyway...and that is not the users fault. There is a reason they don’t hold up in court. Haha.

Anyway, I don’t see any negative at all with having to have this “Sign on with Apple” button, except that Developers have to add one more button to our app. Maybe an extra page or two during the sign up process to get any information that we need. So I ask again, what is the real negative? Besides the fact that you actually have to explicitly ask the user for every piece of information you want instead of burying it into a long and drawn out T&Cs or privacy policy?

 

[john123]

Anyway, I don’t see any negative at all with having to have this “Sign on with Apple” button, except that Developers have to add one more button to our app. Maybe an extra page or two during the sign up process to get any information that we need. So I ask again, what is the real negative? Besides the fact that you actually have to explicitly ask the user for every piece of information you want instead of burying it into a long and drawn out T&Cs or privacy policy?

Despite your two long paragraphs, it seems like you didn't read what I typed. The point is that some companies (like mine) have an entire opt-in product and business model around the seamless transfer of that information. It's an opt-in user experience. It's not right for everyone. And it's not underhanded or slimy, as you are implying — although I'm certainly not denying that there are plenty of slimy companies out there. The point is: the mandatory Apple sign in option is fundamentally incompatible with that product model.

You referenced "the old days." These aren't the old days. Why would we want to go back to the old days? The seamless, frictionless, and automated transmission of information — and yes, I'm talking about Facebook — has a place. If you aren't interested in participating in that model, that's OK. If 95% of people aren't interested in participating in that model, that's OK too. What's not OK is precluding the model for the users who want it.

This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And as a result, it's also bad design. Good design wisely takes into account corner cases.

 

[Tom G.]

As a very long time Apple user I have come to appreciate Apple’s dedication to the protection of my privacy. I have used Apple Pay since it as first available because of its protection of my financial data, and when given the choice of shopping at at two stores, one which offers Apple Pay and one that doesn’t, I will always go to the one that protects my data by offering Apple Pay.

Therefore, I personally plan to continue this practice when using apps on my Apple devices. If given the choice between two similar apps I will use the one offering me the option of “signing in with Apple.” This is simply because I again appreciate their interest in helping me keep my information private.

 

[chatin]

Apple is in a unique privacy space carved out by walled garden approach.

 

[I7guy]

Plenty of companies are fighting privacy battles. Just now even tinder is fighting to keep its data out of the Russian government's hands. Apple just hands over data whenever requested.

According to your bio you're in Singapore. FYI here's Apple's website for the data they hand over there: https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/sg.html

The uninformed comment is Apple just "hands" over whatever is being requested. As if Apple just throws their customer's personal data over the wall willy-nilly.

A more accurate way of saying the same thing, would be Apple has to comply with local laws in the jurisdictions the company does business in. And that may include lawful requests for customer information, of which Apple has no choice but to hand over.

 

[Khedron]

The uninformed comment is Apple just "hands" over whatever is being requested. As if Apple just throws their customer's personal data over the wall willy-nilly.

A more accurate way of saying the same thing, would be Apple has to comply with local laws in the jurisdictions the company does business in. And that may include lawful requests for customer information, of which Apple has no choice but to hand over.

You always have a choice. Apple chooses to put profit ahead of privacy.

 

[I7guy]

You always have a choice. Apple chooses to put profit ahead of privacy.

Apple absolutely should put lawful operation to local laws and profit ahead of critics misguided attempts to show Apple in a bad light. Thankfully Apple operates the way it sees fit, in spite of the critics.

If Apple didn’t do this, rational people/the board would ask what the heck is the CEO really doing.

Apple must comply with local laws/regulations period.

 

[Abazigal]

You always have a choice. Apple chooses to put profit ahead of privacy.

So you are telling me that google doesn’t do the same thing in Singapore?

 

[john123]

So you are telling me that google doesn’t do the same thing in Singapore?

This seemed like a veiled "corporations should fight the system" claim, so I don't think he was telling you anything.

i7guy and I have our disagreements, but he hit this one on the head.

 

[ErikGrim]

You always have a choice. Apple chooses to put profit ahead of privacy.

“When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind,” [Cook] said, “I don’t consider the bloody ROI.” He said that the same thing about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader.

As evidenced by the use of “bloody” in his response — the closest thing to public profanity I’ve ever seen from Mr. Cook — it was clear that he was quite angry. His body English changed, his face contracted, and he spoke in rapid fire sentences compared to the usual metered and controlled way he speaks.

He didn’t stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR representative and said, “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.”
​

 

[Abazigal]

Apple is in a unique privacy space carved out by walled garden approach.

Regardless, it's fascinating to see Apple slowly but surely tighten the noose around Google and Facebook. Especially Google.

For one, we know that Google is paying Apple about $9 billion a year to keep google search as the preinstalled default search engine in Safari. Yet, Apple clearly owes Google no loyalties, and are at the same time slowly but surely moving users off google services. But because Apple has aggregated the best customers, google has little choice but to continue paying an increasingly sum of money to access an ever-declining portion of Apple's user base, because that's where the money is.

Meanwhile,

Apple maps replacing google maps
Siri search replacing google browser search
Safari blocking ads and limiting tracking
And now this Apple-sign-on feature

The irony is delicious. It wasn't so long ago that the haters here claimed how dependent Apple was on Google, and how google could easily hold Apple hostage with withholding their services from the iOS platform should they so desire. Recently, we saw just the opposite happen, with Apple crippling apps at Google and Facebook with a snap of their fingers.

What is more worrying however, is how dependant Google apparently is on Apple users for their revenue and how much more poorly Android monetises for developers and Google themselves. Google's cash-cow continues to become harder and harder to exploit, while their own in-house platform Android continues to fail to deliver to anything like the same degree.

Remember when I said that we are witnessing the start of a new world order, where Apple is now in a position of power relative to google, and Google would be in deep trouble if its arrangement regarding default search on iPhones and iPads was put into jeopardy?

Well, that time is now.

And with each passing day, the Apple ecosystem grows ever stronger and stickier, both to Apple's benefit, and Google's detriment.

 

[Khedron]

“When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind,” [Cook] said, “I don’t consider the bloody ROI.” He said that the same thing about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader.

As evidenced by the use of “bloody” in his response — the closest thing to public profanity I’ve ever seen from Mr. Cook — it was clear that he was quite angry. His body English changed, his face contracted, and he spoke in rapid fire sentences compared to the usual metered and controlled way he speaks.

He didn’t stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR representative and said, “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.”
​

It was simply impossible for the richest tech company in the world to deliver basic mouse support for disabled users any sooner than 9 years after the iPad was released.

 

[ipponrg]

Regardless, it's fascinating to see Apple slowly but surely tighten the noose around Google and Facebook. Especially Google.

For one, we know that Google is paying Apple about $9 billion a year to keep google search as the preinstalled default search engine in Safari. Yet, Apple clearly owes Google no loyalties, and are at the same time slowly but surely moving users off google services. But because Apple has aggregated the best customers, google has little choice but to continue paying an increasingly sum of money to access an ever-declining portion of Apple's user base, because that's where the money is.

Meanwhile,

Apple maps replacing google maps
Siri search replacing google browser search
Safari blocking ads and limiting tracking
And now this Apple-sign-on feature

The irony is delicious. It wasn't so long ago that the haters here claimed how dependent Apple was on Google, and how google could easily hold Apple hostage with withholding their services from the iOS platform should they so desire. Recently, we saw just the opposite happen, with Apple crippling apps at Google and Facebook with a snap of their fingers.

What is more worrying however, is how dependant Google apparently is on Apple users for their revenue and how much more poorly Android monetises for developers and Google themselves. Google's cash-cow continues to become harder and harder to exploit, while their own in-house platform Android continues to fail to deliver to anything like the same degree.

Remember when I said that we are witnessing the start of a new world order, where Apple is now in a position of power relative to google, and Google would be in deep trouble if its arrangement regarding default search on iPhones and iPads was put into jeopardy?

Well, that time is now.

And with each passing day, the Apple ecosystem grows ever stronger and stickier, both to Apple's benefit, and Google's detriment.

Well said by a zealot.

Let’s just get rid of all 3rd party app support. After all, Apple is only successful because of their 1st party apps

 

[I7guy]

It was simply impossible for the richest tech company in the world to deliver basic mouse support for disabled users any sooner than 9 years after the iPad was released.

What does your response have anything remotely to do with the quoted post?