Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The way Apple would have everyone view it is that they place user privacy above all else, as exemplified by turning the Apple logo into a lock in their marketing material. Also, it's interesting that it's apparently alright to sacrifice privacy for specific reasons deemed acceptable by Apple. I'm sure it's only coincidence that major $$$ is involved in this specific instance. /s
Privacy is the handling of your PII. Google is going to handle your PII the same regardless of defaults or $$$.

It’s not that I’m not seeing the alleged issue, it’s that I don’t agree there is one.
 
Apple's ecosystem is increasingly coming under intense scrutiny by governments around the world, including in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, the European Union, and more, with a clear appetite from global regulators to explore requirements around issues like app store policies, app sideloading, and interoperability amid concerns about competition.

Article Link: 'Brutal Battle' Expected as Regulators Close in on Apple Around the World
Apple should leave those markets, to teach them a lesson :p If it doesn't work out, they should just start their own country :D
 
Privacy is the handling of your PII. Google is going to handle your PII the same regardless of defaults or $$$.

It’s not that I’m not seeing the alleged issue, it’s that I don’t agree there is one.
Obviously whether Apple takes the money or not isn't likely to change Google's business model. That was never the claim. The point is that Apple has an opportunity to live by their claimed values and encourage people to use a privacy-focused option instead of taking a mountain of cash to not do so.
 
Desktop/laptop is an effective duopoly with Windows/macOS. Both platforms allow 3rd party stores as well as having 1st party stores. App prices are effectively higher on both for consumers than on smartphone/tablet operating systems.

Smartphone/tablet is an effective duopoly with Android/iOS. Android technically allows 3rd party stores but there are more obstacles than for desktop/laptop. iOS does not allow 3rd party stores. App prices on smartphone/tablet operating systems are effectively lower than for any other platform category.

Gaming consoles have three effective OS competitors with the systems that run on Playstation/Xbox/Switch. 3rd party stores are not allowed for digital downloads. Consumers can buy physical copies of games from 3rd party stores. Game prices are generally similar to desktop/laptop operating systems and more expensive than smartphone/tablet.

Software developers can sell their products across multiple platforms. Game developers in particular have the largest variety of choices for sales.

Consumers can purchase hardware running any of these operating systems from both 3rd party and 1st party stores. They are not limited to using a single OS or only buying hardware from a single manufacturer.

Do 3rd party stores prevent duopolies from existing? No. Do 3rd party stores guarantee lower prices? No. Is it unusual for software developers to sell products on more than one OS or consumers to buy products that use a different operating system? No.
 
I think you missed the point. Apple is primarily a hardware company so aren't as shady (info collecting) as Facebook and Google.
LOL what? Apple collects just as much data as Facebook and Google. They just pretend to be benevolent about it. Which apparently convinces some people.
 
It's nearly guaranteed that many apps would immediately pull out of the App Store and go direct to consumer, and do who knows what else to their apps in the process. Which ones remain to be seen.
Exactly. And the same regulators have already committed to having Apple open up all APIs so that apps that leave their store have full access. It will create a swamp of data collection apps. You can be assured I won’t use any that exit Apples store.
 
Desktop/laptop is an effective duopoly with Windows/macOS. Both platforms allow 3rd party stores as well as having 1st party stores. App prices are effectively higher on both for consumers than on smartphone/tablet operating systems.

Smartphone/tablet is an effective duopoly with Android/iOS. Android technically allows 3rd party stores but there are more obstacles than for desktop/laptop. iOS does not allow 3rd party stores. App prices on smartphone/tablet operating systems are effectively lower than for any other platform category.

Gaming consoles have three effective OS competitors with the systems that run on Playstation/Xbox/Switch. 3rd party stores are not allowed for digital downloads. Consumers can buy physical copies of games from 3rd party stores. Game prices are generally similar to desktop/laptop operating systems and more expensive than smartphone/tablet.

Software developers can sell their products across multiple platforms. Game developers in particular have the largest variety of choices for sales.

Consumers can purchase hardware running any of these operating systems from both 3rd party and 1st party stores. They are not limited to using a single OS or only buying hardware from a single manufacturer.

Do 3rd party stores prevent duopolies from existing? No. Do 3rd party stores guarantee lower prices? No. Is it unusual for software developers to sell products on more than one OS or consumers to buy products that use a different operating system? No.
Its funny when you read this because one of the takeaways here is that changes to Smartphone/tablet software market would seem to imply prices going up.
 
Exactly. And the same regulators have already committed to having Apple open up all APIs so that apps that leave their store have full access. It will create a swamp of data collection apps. You can be assured I won’t use any that exit Apples store.
Unless the apps are doing something nefarious like trying to steal people's banking info, this idea of "data collection" is way overblown. People volunteer more data than this on social media all day long every single day, and then pretend to be outraged over inconsequential data being collected by apps.
 
LOL what? Apple collects just as much data as Facebook and Google. They just pretend to be benevolent about it. Which apparently convinces some people.
Collecting the data is not the problem. It’s what it is used for that is the issue. Collecting user data to provide you with useful products and services is good. Using that data to sell advertising, not so good.

Google would be fine if they got rid of the advertising and simply got people to pay for their services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pacalis
A smartphone's ability to function as a cellphone (calls and texts) is at very best 33% of what the product can do. It functions as a cellphone, a GPS, a mobile media player, a gaming system, a computer, and probably several other things I'm forgetting. If you still fail to understand what's being said, replace above mentions of "cellphone" with "feature phone" and maybe you'll get it. Feature phones were a mature market that smartphones killed off when they themselves matured.


Sure, or you could just acknowledge the truth behind what's been said rather than defaulting to "Apple can do no wrong."
But it doesn’t matter how much a smartphone differs from a cell phone in the manner you’re describing. It’s still a a cell phone. It doesn’t matter how you try to twist it. To again bring up your absurd comparison, a horse is in no way a car.

There is no truth behind calling Apple hypocrites for being paid to offer Google as an option. Just your opinion. Conflating the two is dangerous but also extremely common, so I suppose it’s not your fault for being confused with these often quite subtle nuances.
 
LOL what? Apple collects just as much data as Facebook and Google. They just pretend to be benevolent about it. Which apparently convinces some people.
The point isn’t really what they collect, it’s what they do with it. Facebook’s (for example) entire business model is to use it for financial gain. Apple allegedly doesn’t need that due to the fact they make their money from hardware sales and software services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pacalis
But it doesn’t matter how much a smartphone differs from a cell phone in the manner you’re describing. It’s still a a cell phone. It doesn’t matter how you try to twist it. To again bring up your absurd comparison, a horse is in no way a car.
It matters in the context of the original discussion that was taking place, which is somewhere outside of these weeds we now find ourselves in.

There is no truth behind calling Apple hypocrites for being paid to offer Google as an option. Just your opinion. Conflating the two is dangerous but also extremely common, so I suppose it’s not your fault for being confused with these often quite subtle nuances.
They're not hypocrites because they offer Google as an option. They're being disingenuous for making it the default while simultaneously crowing about how seriously they take user privacy. You getting tired of beating up these strawmen yet?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
Obviously whether Apple takes the money or not isn't likely to change Google's business model. That was never the claim. The point is that Apple has an opportunity to live by their claimed values and encourage people to use a privacy-focused option instead of taking a mountain of cash to not do so.
So you believe apple isn’t walking the talk? Encouraging people to have a worse search experience is not really a great option. Let them take the $$$ for a better search experience and then let customer decide their own path.
 
The trouble is the very things people accuse Apple of using to maintain dominance are the same things people were cheering for when they were first released (App Store in 2008 and iMessage in 2011).

This can certainly complicate things as illegal anticompetitive activities are not necessarily undesirable to all consumers, at least initially. In the 1990s, for example, Microsoft was charged with violating antitrust laws relating in part to how they were marketing IE but their actions had actually resulted in consumers and businesses being able to get browsers for free and not just from Microsoft. This also forced Netscape to give their browser software away for free.

A dominant company can certainly claim that what they are doing is for the benefit of consumers but that doesn't mean shenanigans can't also be going on at the same time. It's those shenanigans that need to be investigated and dealt with according to antitrust laws in various countries or regions.




I find the whole ‘different rules apply’ when you are a big company very problematic.

Different rules apply because the actions of large, dominant companies can have a greater impact on the market including unfairly stiffing competition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
Apple and Google aren't doing anything illegal either.

That's for the regulators and courts to decide. If Apple and Google aren’t found to be doing anything illegal then they should be fine. Again, being part of a duopoly or having a dominant position in a market is not itself illegal but it does open the door for greater scrutiny of business practices and when potential violations are uncovered, they deserve to be investigated and dealt with accordingly.
 
This can certainly complicate things as illegal anticompetitive activities are not necessarily undesirable to all consumers, at least initially. In the 1990s, for example, Microsoft was charged with violating antitrust laws relating in part to how they were marketing IE but their actions had actually resulted in consumers and businesses being able to get browsers for free and not just from Microsoft. This also forced Netscape to give their browser software away for free.

A dominant company can certainly claim that what they are doing is for the benefit of consumers but that doesn't mean shenanigans can't also be going on at the same time. It's those shenanigans that need to be investigated and dealt with according to antitrust laws in various countries or regions.






Different rules apply because the actions of large, dominant companies can have a greater impact on the market including unfairly stiffing competition.
This is why I am strongly against companies giving stuff away for free by cross-subsiding from a different market (such as using advertising revenue to give away an operating system). This business model de-incentivises anyone else from ever getting into the market and therefore shuts out competition.

The whole model is highly anti-competitive. It should be illegal to cross-subsidise and illegal to sell a product for less than it costs to ‘manufacture’ said product as a means to dominate a market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: huge_apple_fangirl
It matters in the context of the original discussion that was taking place, which is somewhere outside of these weeds we now find ourselves in.
You put us in these weeds.

They're not hypocrites because they offer Google as an option. They're being disingenuous for making it the default. You getting tired of beating up these strawmen yet?
But again, it’s an option. A changeable option. It’s highly irrelevant whether Apple get paid by the most commonly used search engine to offer it as a choice, albeit the default one or not. It matters not one whit. They even offer a safe way to browse using Google as search via iCloud plus, which really spits in the face of Google, whilst still being paid from them.

I’m not sure what you think strawman means, but I’m directly arguing with your very point. You say Apple are being hypocrites, I say not. There is no strawman. It’s a cool buzzword though. Well done. 👍
 
  • Haha
Reactions: siddavis
LOL what? Apple collects just as much data as Facebook and Google. They just pretend to be benevolent about it. Which apparently convinces some people.

You're thinking only consumer data, not all the behavioral data that facebook and google are testing, manipulating and selling for every interaction.
 
Apple is pro-privacy simply because consumers want that and it gives them a competitive advantage over google and facebook. If the EU rips that out, it will make everyone lose except for said information services firms, criminals and government. And I'm not sure those are different categories.
 
That's for the regulators and courts to decide. If Apple and Google aren’t found to be doing anything illegal then they should be fine. Again, being part of a duopoly or having a dominant position in a market is not itself illegal but it does open the door for greater scrutiny of business practices and when potential violations are uncovered, they deserve to be investigated and dealt with accordingly.

At this point, illegality is more for the regulators and courts to construct. The EU never investigated Nokia. Clearly, Apple and Google are being targeted for being American companies. The most likely result of all of this is that in 5-10 years, the EU will be swamped in Chinese brands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim Lahey
So you believe apple isn’t walking the talk? Encouraging people to have a worse search experience is not really a great option. Let them take the $$$ for a better search experience and then let customer decide their own path.
Right so we're back to sacrificing privacy on things that make Apple $$$. Also, how does this comport with Siri using Google for web searches, even with a different browser selected as the default for Safari?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.