Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook on Privacy: 'We Very Much Are on Your Side'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
HomePod ($300) sounds a lot better than Sonos One ($200).
Having said that, a stereo pair of Sonos One ($380) will generally sound better than single HomePod. And of course, a stereo pair of HomePods will sound a lot better still.
Although Sonos Play:5 ($500 for single, $950 for stereo pair) is superior in many ways, HomePod is a lot closer to Play:5 than One.
They are related. Don't pretend that keeping your identity a secret has nothing to do with privacy.
Apple is also the only one who doesn't depend on monetizing your data to generate their revenues. Take Google, for example. They were fined by the FTC for writing malware to bypass Safari to continue tracking. A company that DEPENDS on your data for its very survival should never be trusted to keep your data safe.
Those companies can't talk about privacy because they'd get laughed at. So they keep quiet so as not to draw attention to themselves.
Please give some examples that specifically relate to the data that Apple sends to Google when performing a search. Or are you just ASSUMING that Google is able identify you just so you can claim Apple isn't protecting your privacy?
[doublepost=1557179543][/doublepost]
Ah, yes. The old "what if" doom & gloom scenario.
These nightmare cases could happen to anyone. The real difference between Apple and everyone else on privacy is that Apple doesn't need your data to survive (unlike Google or Facebook who make virtually all their revenues from your data).
If google was to let other 3rd parties access "our data", those 3rd parties would have no reason to pay google to show ads. Google has a strong monetary incentive to keep "our data" safe. Google's main business is ads. Google doesn't sell more ad space by selling/losing "our data".
Apple on the other hand makes their money selling hardware. They already got paid. They have no real strong incentive to keep "our data" safe. There are no negative consequences if apple was to lose our data on purpose or accidentally.
"We think technology should be in the background, not the foreground”
So this explains his treatment & relegation of the Mac to second-class citizen....
So this explains his treatment & relegation of the Mac to second-class citizen....
I guess it’s fitting to point this out again.
https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2017/4/26/apple-isnt-a-tech-company
Apple isn’t a tech company. Warren Buffet gets it. Perhaps in time, the rest of Macrumours will too.
https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2017/4/26/apple-isnt-a-tech-company
Apple isn’t a tech company. Warren Buffet gets it. Perhaps in time, the rest of Macrumours will too.
Talking about state actors, with China hosting all of its citizens iCloud infrastructure and holding all keys we must assume they have advanced inside knowledge of implementation wich would make Infiltration of foreign apple cloud services mich easier.
In anyway apple has proven it can not be trusted with encryption keys and is willing to sell out its users to totalitarian regimes that kill dissenters, free thinkers, even homosexuals.
Also we must assume from official apple statements, a simple setting in your iCloud account can move all your data to Chinese government servers.
Also when your traffic is routed through China, accidentally or by nefarious actors, you must assume your data is compromised.
Apparently developing your own SoC for chipsets, manufacturing devices for the health and mobile industry, and making computers does not make them a tech company.
I don't know what's worse here: the fact you and Neil Cybart got into the ecosystem circa 2011 and believe in this, or the fact you continue to cite Neil Cybart who got you to spend money on a subscription to this drivel
Neil Cybart says, "In reality, Apple's largest risk isn't found in being a design company or not being a technology company. Instead, it's in becoming a tech company. If Apple finds itself moving away from being design-led, the product will be put into jeopardy. This is likely one reason why Cook continues to bet so heavily on design".
The biggest risk is actually neither of these. The biggest risk is forgetting who your audience is.
These are the real problems though. Privacy invasion for advertisements is a nuisance. Privacy invasion for political, religious or sexual reasons is often a life and death situation.
Apple has not only proven to sell out to authoritarian regimes. They also have a strong political agenda on their own, so strong they ban dissenting opinion from all of their platforms.
Last edited:
Maybe if you brought the tech back into the foreground and kept your politics and other nonsense in the background we can get back to a great Apple.
P.S.: your products should be more compatible with each other than other peoples products.
P.S.: your products should be more compatible with each other than other peoples products.
Tim i’m a nvidia user, how can you say that you are on our side, the only side you are on is on your own side
this man is a clown, Tim you lost your credibility and your dignity, it doesn’t matter what your say, actions speak louder than words
this man is a clown, Tim you lost your credibility and your dignity, it doesn’t matter what your say, actions speak louder than words
have you ever consider that Tim is totally unfair to some of us, prices, products, etc
the only thing i find ridiculous is mr cook being apple CEO
the man can’t run a keynote but he can do interviews and public relations
he can talk and answer questions as long as they are not about technology and how their devices work
ask mr cook a technical question about software or hardware and see how that goes
Last edited:
That's quite the spin/BS.
Google has ALREADY broken the law to ensure they keep the data rolling. They can't be trusted with our data since they would cease to exist as a company without it. Not just because it's their source of income, but because they've shown in the past they will go to great lengths (including illegal ones) to keep getting data.
No negative consequences if Apple loses customer data? Can I have some of what you're smoking, because, DAMN.
Is that the reason enough not to buy hardware (tech) from them?
You’re partially off-base. Apple was (And Still is) considered a tech company, but they’re much more than that today, because they’re branching out more providing services, but to the point, Apple is mainly about being design-orientated _first_. That’s really what they are notorious for in terms of introducing things that are proprietary to them with things like the Apple Watch, AirPods, etc.
But more than anything over all their products, look where they’re expanding right now, it’s their services, things like Apple Pay, iTunes, App Store, now they are divulging into media content similar to what Netflix offers. Apple isn’t what it once was what they were 20 years ago, and they shouldn’t be expected to be the same today, and maybe that’s what some still don’t have an understanding of how this company has changed beyond what they think Apple should be.
Cook is an engineer, so I think it’d go well, actually. But you won’t give him credit for that.
He’s grown Apple by an additional $700B while creating products people continue to buy. As one example, he sold 3X as many iPhones as Jobs ever did.
He also created the wearables market, led Apple to industry leading mobile silicon, and has grown services into a $50B business growing in double digits.
You not liking the products is anecdotal and meaningless. This forum is an echo chamber of hate and disdain, yet the numbers keep rolling in.
Hate on.
Let's not forget about iTunes, or Siri either. Any attempts to further develop either of said "products" have resulted in complete futility.
Exactly! I don't know where people get off always saying Google sells your data because they don't. Those comments are laughable to say the least.
I may be reaching here but another thing I find funny is when people claim Apple and Google are different. They both sale your eyes to their customers, Google says I have X amount of customers that may be interested in your ad and I can put you in front of those eyes; Apple says, "we have a Billion actives devices" (they make a strong emphasis on the amount of customers they have) we can put your content in from of a Billion eyes if you give us a cut. With both companies you're the product, without your eyes they'd have a hard time selling to their customers so what's the difference? I don't see any.
I’ve a pi hole and as many privacy settings on my phone set to protect me as possible.
Listen Spotify and I get ads from Canada, Brazil etc (I’m UK) so clearly I’m not being targeted.
Listen to Apple Podcasts and I’m served an ad for a company in my town (a small town).
And people think Apple is not harvesting your data and targeting you? I’ve a bridge for sale if you’re interested...
Listen Spotify and I get ads from Canada, Brazil etc (I’m UK) so clearly I’m not being targeted.
Listen to Apple Podcasts and I’m served an ad for a company in my town (a small town).
And people think Apple is not harvesting your data and targeting you? I’ve a bridge for sale if you’re interested...
So what they're meant to somehow have justify things they've not done yet in the future? We know which company relies on data so regardless if you think its genuine or not, maybe sticking to the BUSINESS that only sells hardware is a safer choice.