Craig Federighi Responds to Google's Subtle 'Luxury Good' Dig About Apple Products and Privacy

[MacRumors]

In a recent op-ed for The New York Times, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that "privacy cannot be a luxury good offered only to people who can afford to buy premium products and services," a comment that some viewed as a dig at Apple.

Craig Federighi at WWDC 2018​

Apple's software engineering chief Craig Federighi has unsurprisingly disagreed with that position. In an interview with The Independent, he said that Apple aspires to offer great product experiences that "everyone should have," while cautioning that the values and business models of other companies "don't change overnight."

"I don't buy into the luxury good dig," says Federighi, giving the impression he was genuinely surprised by the public attack.

"On the one hand gratifying that other companies in space over the last few months, seemed to be making a lot of positive noises about caring about privacy. I think it's a deeper issue than then, what a couple of months and a couple of press releases would make. I think you've got to look fundamentally at company cultures and values and business model. And those don't change overnight.

"But we certainly seek to both set a great example for the world to show what's possible to raise people's expectations about what they should expect the products, whether they get them from us or from other people. And of course, we love, ultimately, to sell Apple products to everyone we possibly could certainly not just a luxury, we think a great product experience is something everyone should have. So we aspire to develop those."

Federighi emphasizes Apple's commitment to privacy throughout the interview, noting that the company aims to collect as little data as possible. When it does collect data, Apple uses technologies like Differential Privacy to ensure that the data cannot be associated with any individual user.

Federighi also refutes criticism about Apple's products and services being worse off because of its pro-privacy position:

"I think we're pretty proud that we are able to deliver the best experiences, we think in the industry without creating this false trade off that to get a good experience, you need to give up your privacy," says Federighi. "And so we challenge ourselves to do that sometimes that's extra work. But that's worth it."

As an example of Apple's privacy efforts, the article provides a look inside Apple's "top secret testing facilities" where its Secure Enclave chips for devices like the iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple Watch are said to be "stress tested" based on "extreme scenarios" like ice-cold -40ºF or blazing-hot 230ºF temperatures.

One of Apple's chip-testing labs (Brooks Kraft/Apple via The Independent)​

Within these testing facilities near Apple Park is said to be "a huge room" with "highly advanced machines" that heat, cool, push, shock, and abuse chips before they make their way inside Apple devices, but no further details were shared.

The lengthy interview goes on to discuss Apple's dispute with the FBI over its refusal to unlock an iPhone used by the shooter in the 2015 San Bernardino attack, as well as Apple's decision to store the iCloud data of Chinese accounts on servers overseen by GCBD, a company with close ties to the Chinese government.

Article Link: Craig Federighi Responds to Google's Subtle 'Luxury Good' Dig About Apple Products and Privacy

 

[kis]

And that’s why I switched from Google services and Android to Apple.

Honestly, Google’s every fiber is evil IMO. They monetize on gutting their customers’ personal data, not giving a crap what that ends up doing to the individuals. And what’s especially low: they deliberately prey on those who can’t afford anything else.

What google does is, in my opinion, against basic human decency. But if you look at the constant flow of scandals about discrimination and sexual abuse within the company itself, it’s not really surprising.

 

[outskirtsofinfinity]

Uh, my iCloud data is stored in China?

 

[deeridiot]

I haven't yet read Pichai's column, but the comment quoted sounds very dense. Of course we (the users, not Google or Facebook) all agree that privacy should not be a luxury good. Pichai is in the unique position to make that happen! If they improved privacy on Android and Google services, suddenly everyone would have access to it! But that will never happen since that's where they get the $$$.

 

[MacInCharge]

Uh, my iCloud data is stored in China?

I believe from reading the article it's only for Chinese iCloud accounts.

 

[apolloa]

We will see, Apple is being sued for selling users information, that’s not been reported on this site though.

http://9to5mac.com/2019/05/25/apple-itunes-lawsuit/

So much for privacy Apple, sold to the highest bidder it seems... bunch of hypocritical liars.

 

[timber]

Sundar Pinchai is right, privacy shouldn't be a luxury feature. He is of course in the best position to make that happen. Is he going to do anything about it?

Apple is in the premium segment, even if it offered more value of money (as I believe it should) it won't leave that positioning so what can be asked of them is to offer privacy in their unique positioning and I believe they, more or less, do that

 

[1144557]

Google talking about privacy being a commodity is like the pot calling the kettle black; basically a joke. As laughable as Facebook's pledge to privacy, but maybe 1 notch up from that.

 

[paul4339]

I guess he can claim that iphone is luxury, but 45% of US users use iPhone alone... more importantly, it still doesn't mean they (google, etc) can't extend similar tech to their products as well. I agree with Federighi... it goes down to the foundations of a company as well as their business model.

 

[mi7chy]

I believe from reading the article it's only for Chinese iCloud accounts.

If Apple is bending backwards for China then it begs the question who else it's bending backwards for? Google at least has refrained to do business in China due to state controlled censorship and spying on dissidents. That's why Apple's privacy claims come across as lip service.

 

[Attirex]

Those who can't afford, and don't have, a smartphone probably have the best privacy of anyone.

 

[adamjackson]

As a consumer, what I want is for every technology company to respect and value my data and protect it against intrusions or simply not put my data on a public S3 bucket at the very least. To give me control over my data and ask me permission when they want to share it with a 3rd party or use it for benchmarking and development.

If every company took Apple's lead, it would no longer be a service available only to 'luxury goods' and that would be a great thing.

Apple sells the most expensive phones, headphones (outside of audiophile stuff), laptops, tablets, desktops, smart speakers, cloud storage, cables and services. They are a luxury company accessible only to people who pay for the product over time, finance or save for a long time. $2500 for a laptop is not normal, $159 for wireless headphones is expensive. $299 for a speaker is ludicrous.

BUT I see the value in these price points, I know it goes beyond the transaction when you have USA based AppleCare people, 500 stores, leeway on repairs and replacements and an ecosystem of developers who have to disclose what they do with your data and ask the user permission at every step. But that doesn't make the technology attainable to everyone. Apple can remain a premium product and hopefully other companies can follow their lead in the privacy space. I'm afraid since so many subsidize their costs by selling your data, that's why their products are cheaper.


I also would imagine a huge swift of users would buy a $499 iPhone w/ ads and no privacy built in. As sad as that is. If Facebook charged $90 a year (which is what they make on each user), people would stop using fAcebook.

 

[69Mustang]

And that’s why I switched from Google services and Android to Apple.

Honestly, Google’s every fiber is evil IMO. They monetize on gutting their customers’ personal data, not giving a crap what that ends up doing to the individuals. And what’s especially low: they deliberately prey on those who can’t afford anything else.

What google does is, in my opinion, against basic human decency. But if you look at the constant flow of scandals about discrimination and sexual abuse within the company itself, it’s not really surprising.

What exactly is it you think Google is doing? I see rhetoric and hyperbole in your comment, but nothing of substance. Evil, gutting, preying, against human decency... like how? It's totally fine not to want Google in your life, but you should probably save the overly dramatic prose for something that's worth it. Still I'd really like to know what you think Google is doing.

 

[Glockworkorange]

I have some questions about Apple and encryption that I hope someone can answer.

iMessage conversations are protected by end to end encryption. My understanding is the only people who can see the contents of the discussions are 1) sender and 2) recipient.

I don't know what Google/Android calls their thing---Messages?

If I'm using Google's version of messaging, I can see the contents of the message and the recipient can see the contents of the message. There is no end to end encryption.

In both cases the sender and recipient are the only two parties that can see the content of the message---how does encryption protect iMessage more than Messages? Is it that the government can't somehow intercept the contents of the messages? That Apple can't read the contents of the messages? As a normal, run of the mill consumer, I like the idea of saying my messages with my mother or wife or whomever are "end to end encrypted," but I'm not really sure what that does for me, practically speaking, that Google Messages doesn't.

This is as opposed to "tracking" on the web, which is easy for me to understand and see as it's happening.

 

[I7guy]

Uh, my iCloud data is stored in China?

You're from Calgary and your icloud data is stored in China? Really?

 

[unchecked]

"Our mission compels us to take the same approach to privacy. For us, that means privacy cannot be a luxury good offered only to people who can afford to buy premium products and services. Privacy must be equally available to everyone in the world."​

The way I read the original piece is Apple's products are luxury goods (which they are), and they have their privacy. Apple doesn't sell non-luxury products and the universe they operate in does not encompass the budget users (like buyers for the Pixel 3a) and thus couldn't provide privacy for those who couldn't afford their phones.

Basically it's more of a dig at how Apple couldn't provide that lower end market segment with a product.

 

[itsmilo]

It’s annoying that people refuse to make the switch from WhatsApp to iMessage in my country but then I use iMessage and realize I can’t even quote people in a group chat and I kind of get it.

Also if Apple wants to talk about privacy they should not allow apps to use all kind of crazy trackers built into the Apps approved for the AppStore. The CleverTap SDK for example let’s you track every single tap inside the App down to a user level. Even the users real name if your app requires registration.

For example I could track my ex girlfriends parking behavior if I wanted to with our App from work.

 

[SubduedTiger]

Jesus. Chips have rights too. I cringed listening to what they went through on a daily basis.

[doublepost=1558975501][/doublepost]

"Our mission compels us to take the same approach to privacy. For us, that means privacy cannot be a luxury good offered only to people who can afford to buy premium products and services. Privacy must be equally available to everyone in the world."​

The way I read the original piece is Apple's products are luxury goods (which they are), and they have their privacy. Apple doesn't sell non-luxury products and the universe they operate in does not encompass the budget users (like buyers for the Pixel 3a) and thus couldn't provide privacy for those who couldn't afford their phones.

Basically it's more of a dig at how Apple couldn't provide that lower end market segment with a product.

Apple's economics in a nutshell:

Rich? We just launched the new iPhone XS Max!
Poor? We just launched the new iPhone 7!

Yeah, super sick of the "$479" iPhone XR "promotion" whereby—by their apparent reasoning—of course budget users are trading in their previous $999 iPhone X when they've decided they want to downgrade to an LCD screen with a lower resolution a few months later. *rolls eyes*

If Apple doesn't think it's a luxury brand, it's clear that it's completely out of touch with itself.

It's obvious the company is comprised of aliens, but are their human minions keeping them informed of the same news and the same reality others in this country are living in? Half of the residents within the most prosperous country in the world can't afford $500 in a life-or-death emergency. I'm pretty sure the iPhone 7—a three-generation old phone—isn't the emergency being referred to. Selling previous year's editions at retail prices while they supply prepaid carriers with them at half the price is not considered entry level access to me. That's offloading old technology, sweethearting to help uphold the carrier-as-a-banking-institutions economics, and class division in technological access.

 

[aaronhead14]

I just wished my “great product” wasn’t crippled. If I want to buy a Kindle book, that’s my right! And if I want Google maps as my default maps app, that’s my right! Apple’s biggest annoyance is that they want to control what we’re able to purchase and customize on our phones, and that’s not ok. Sure, privacy is amazing and very welcomed. But you can’t just keep calling your devices “great” when you intentionally cripple them.

 

[macfacts]

Apple offers anonymity, not privacy. Aka differential privacy.

 

[HobbsAndCalvin]

Except the lawsuit provides no evidence, at least based on the article provided. As always, I take these kind of lawsuits with a grain of salt.

 

[mashdots]

We will see, Apple is being sued for selling users information, that’s not been reported on this site though.

http://9to5mac.com/2019/05/25/apple-itunes-lawsuit/

So much for privacy Apple, sold to the highest bidder it seems... bunch of hypocritical liars.

This has JUST been filed. Calling them hypocritical liars this early on is a bit of a jump to conclusions, wouldn't you think?

 

[MX20]

...

 

[mi7chy]

Federighi also refutes criticism about Apple's products and services being worse off because of its pro-privacy position:As an example of Apple's privacy efforts, the article provides a look inside Apple's "top secret testing facilities" where its Secure Enclave chips for devices like the iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple Watch are said to be "stress tested" based on "extreme scenarios" like ice-cold -40ºF or blazing-hot 230ºF temperatures.

One of Apple's chip-testing labs (Brooks Kraft/Apple via The Independent)​

Within these testing facilities near Apple Park is said to be "a huge room" with "highly advanced machines" that heat, cool, push, shock, and abuse chips before they make their way inside Apple devices, but no further details were shared.

Btw, this picture is misleading when discussing high and low temperature testing often referred to as 8-corner or 4-corner testing. Environmental testing is usually done in chambers the size of a fridge/freezer (see images below) and not in open room for obvious reasons which looks more like regression testing.

 

[racerhomie]

If Apple is bending backwards for China then it begs the question who else it's bending backwards for? Google at least has refrained to do business in China due to state controlled censorship and spying on dissidents. That's why Apple's privacy claims come across as lip service.

iOS does not change from country to country.The CCP is an unique evil entity, which has little competition. sells hardware & software packages, with manufacturing expertise from China. They also hire 1 million people via Foxconn. Thats why they are allowed into the nation. Google would not censor enough & would not be making jobs, thats why China blocked them. They didn't voluntarily go out. Same with Uber. Ubers office got raided by Chinese cops. Google's chinese networks were hacked by Chinese hackers.