You call it a smart business decision, everyone else calls it hypocrisy.
Everyone calls it hypocrisy? Are you the designated speaker for "everyone"?
Seems like there are more people in this thread that disagree with you than agree.
You call it a smart business decision, everyone else calls it hypocrisy.
Ok so then what do you call a multi-BILLION dollar payout to Apple to be the default search engine on Safari? A Christmas gift?
That's what Apple is doing. They know people like to use Google for search and they know Google isn't the best when it comes to privacy. So Apple allows people to use Google for search, but protects the user by controlling the information that gets sent to Google to retain my privacy.
The only difference here is that Apple is raking in billions without exposing their users. I'd call that a very smart business decision.
I call it a legal, above-board business contract. It’s not an illegal, under the table bribe. See the difference? Words have meaning. Don’t deliberately distort the facts in an attempt to bolster your argument.Ok so then what do you call a multi-BILLION dollar payout to Apple to be the default search engine on Safari? A Christmas gift?
Oh I’ve been paying attention. “He calls out Google and Facebook near weekly”? You know that’s not true. You mean maybe a dozen times in the last 10 years?Have you not been paying attention to Tim Cook’s platitudes? He calls out Google and Facebook near weekly for privacy (you are the product) but is more than happy to take their money.
Timmy has ZERO integrity.
This is brilliant. It’s a brilliant ad and a brilliant strategy.
It’s a funny ad that everyone can relate to and it positions Apple as the only viable solution on a topic where Google can never compete on because Google’s entire business model is about selling your data — it’s antithetical to privacy.
If Apple is so concerned about privacy, WHY can't you reply to a FaceTime call in AUDIO ONLY mode?
I've requested this for YEARS on Apple's website. Maybe you're not dressed or in the bathroom or having a bad hair day. SO SIMPLE to implement this. Sometimes I get a FaceTime call and I WANT to talk to the person, but I don't want them to see me.
This post has more spin than a top.Ok so then what do you call a multi-BILLION dollar payout to Apple to be the default search engine on Safari? A Christmas gift?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kickback_(bribery)
A kickback is a form of negotiated bribery in which a commission is paid to the bribe-taker in exchange for services rendered
Have you not been paying attention to Tim Cook’s platitudes? He calls out Google and Facebook near weekly for privacy (you are the product) but is more than happy to take their money.
http://time.com/5433499/tim-cook-apple-data-privacy/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...om-google-despite-privacy-concerns/ar-BBPR5Um
https://www.dailyherald.com/busines...r-data-for-better-services-is-a-bunch-of-bunk
This one is particularly laughable: https://www.cultofmac.com/324709/tim-cook-morality-demands-security-with-privacy/
Timmy has ZERO integrity.
Already answered here:Your enhancement request has nothing to do with privacy, but convenience. In you case, you simply need to ignore the call, then call back with FaceTime Audio.
Exactly what PII that Apple has collected on you is being passed to google? About the only thing I can think of is the google cookie, which YOU already created by the act of signing into google.
ROFL
That's pure B.S.
Apple does not control what info gets sent to Google.
B.S. How does Apple not expose their users? If you use any Google service, Google has data on you.
It's not like the iPhone connect to Google through a proxy or VPN
Call it whatever you wish, but a kickback is a kickback.Fees.
Apple develops a browser and gets bids for search engines - overtly or otherwise. Google paid the most - so the default search engine.
Completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.Even so, the user can disable this....
Perhaps but if Cook is going see fit to lecture me and others on privacy don't sit there and happily take a bribe from a company you demonize for supposed privacy issues. It's called integrity, something of which Cook is severely lacking in.It doesn't matter to us if they paid $1.00 or $20 billion - unless we are happy about it as stock holders.
I never said it was illegal. I said he's lacking in integrity and if you can't see that (willingly or unwillingly) that's on you.I call it a legal, above-board business contract. It’s not an illegal, under the table bribe. See the difference? Words have meaning. Don’t deliberately distort the facts in an attempt to bolster your argument.
Here’s how it works: Apple is charging a fee to someone (Google, the highest bidder) who wants access to potential customers who have a target demographic that’s likely to be profitable. In other words, the same, exact business arrangement google has with their own advertising customers.
Oh I’ve been paying attention. “He calls out Google and Facebook near weekly”? You know that’s not true. You mean maybe a dozen times in the last 10 years?
Don’t try to pass off “alternative facts” in an attempt to bolster your argument. There’s zero integrity on display here, and it’s not coming from Mr. Cook.
Perhaps but if Cook is going see fit to lecture me and others on privacy don't sit there and happily take a bribe from a company you demonize for supposed privacy issues. It's called integrity, something of which Cook is severely lacking in.
When you accuse someone of taking a bribe, you are accusing them of an illegal act (under US law).I never said it was illegal. I said he's lacking in integrity and if you can't see that (willingly or unwillingly) that's on you.
This is brilliant. It’s a brilliant ad and a brilliant strategy.
It’s a funny ad that everyone can relate to and it positions Apple as the only viable solution on a topic where Google can never compete on because Google’s entire business model is about selling your data — it’s antithetical to privacy.
Google’s entire business model is about selling your data.
You're upset FACEtime is showing your face. If only there was a way to use audio only to call someone, with a phone...If Apple is so concerned about privacy, WHY can't you reply to a FaceTime call in AUDIO ONLY mode?
I've requested this for YEARS on Apple's website. Maybe you're not dressed or in the bathroom or having a bad hair day. SO SIMPLE to implement this. Sometimes I get a FaceTime call and I WANT to talk to the person, but I don't want them to see me.
but unfortunately the the App Store is rife with data miners, loggers, trackers, and "analytics"... and that's just the App Store.
Then you've got your cellular providers selling precise location data to the highest bidder regardless of what phone you use.
I think the time has come to realize that "privacy" using a smartphone is a sham and a lie. It doesn't exist. Apple's narrative is very very misleading to the point of being harmful.
You and I may not approve of the Chinese laws and regulations (and Apple may not either) but we don’t get to pick and choose which laws Apple must follow and which they can ignore.Then you got apple, selling out to Chinese totalitarian government handing over iCloud infrastructure ( and keys for what it matters cause E-Mails and most data on iCloud is not end to end encrypted) or not encrypted at all.
Feel like a broken record but it’s the truth
I love this. It sums up perfectly what privacy is and why people do want it. That scene in the restaurant left the most impression on me, people do not want waitress to hear what they are talking about, but they will say and write the same on their phones, where so many privacy invaders. This is because people are uninformed, and they do not know what is happening behind the scenes.
And I love that Apple is upping up their privacy game!
I can’t wait for iOS 13 and macOS, to see what kind of new privacy measures are they gonna introduce. I already see many crying “foul” just like they did before.
As long as you focus on privacy, Apple, you will have me as a customer forever. Competition can do whatever they want with they foldable surveillance devices and other gimmicks. I don’t care.
You and I may not approve of the Chinese laws and regulations (and Apple may not either) but we don’t get to pick and choose which laws Apple must follow and which they can ignore.
I guess you could argue that Apple should pull out of China rather than follow the law there, but playing devil’s advocate, is it really up to Apple to decide what’s best for China? It seems like they’re a sovereign nation with the right to make their own laws, but maybe Apple knows best and should be able to tell them how to run their country. Then if China won’t do what Apple wants them to, Apple could just “take their ball and go home”.
I know what happens in China, and I know it is because Apple needs to obey Chinese laws.I don’t care if the waitress hears what I am talking about most of the times. I am much more concerned of privacy invasion by state actors and censorship.
apple is actively supporting communist China with implementation of total surveillance and as has been leaked is involved in PRISM mass surveillance.
Meanwhile they censor people from the AppStore and podcasts who criticize exactly this...
I know what happens in China, and I know it is because Apple needs to obey Chinese laws.
I am not Chinese citizen, therefore it does not affect me.
PRISM is joke compared to what Google does. Also, 98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft.
Apple is useless to PRISM. PRISM needs data, which Apple cannot provide.
Stop with nonsense, privacy is sold neither to Google nor NSA.Any way they preach about privacy and how it should be a “basic human right” in marketing presentations, and their business decisions go in opposite direction where privacy is sold to highest bidder (China, nsa, google search)