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.
Is Google that bad?
- Thread starter Bill21
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ElPaso
macrumors member
Naraxus
macrumors 68030
If you can use a free, non trackable app, why not?
Are those options better than Google? Sure. As long as they aren't too difficult to integrate, there's no reason not to use them. You think Google doesn't scrape all the info from everyone in your contacts?
Apple has 2 things going for it in favor of the other tech companies.
First, it has a legacy and a "corporate culture" of user privacy. That means by default, things were designed not to spam and scam. Where spamming and scamming is done, it is done piece by piece and rolled out to new products (ie the new Apple Maps scheme) versus Google where you can assume every product they release is spying on you in every way possible.
Second, Apple makes its money off the high prices we pay for its hardware. Google has to serve me a LOT of ads before they can earn $100 from me. Apple just has to sell me a phone and it gets the equivalent of $100 monthly over the phone's lifespan.
Yes, Apple is now heading down the road of scammy ad based user info sharing. But Google is far ahead of them.
The better question is why would you NOT use an open source, non tracking, free app when it's available??? That really has me scratching my head... it's not like you are installing linux and running your contacts from a command line interface. These apps have all the functionality of the Google alternative...
Are those options better than Google? Sure. As long as they aren't too difficult to integrate, there's no reason not to use them. You think Google doesn't scrape all the info from everyone in your contacts?
Apple has 2 things going for it in favor of the other tech companies.
First, it has a legacy and a "corporate culture" of user privacy. That means by default, things were designed not to spam and scam. Where spamming and scamming is done, it is done piece by piece and rolled out to new products (ie the new Apple Maps scheme) versus Google where you can assume every product they release is spying on you in every way possible.
Second, Apple makes its money off the high prices we pay for its hardware. Google has to serve me a LOT of ads before they can earn $100 from me. Apple just has to sell me a phone and it gets the equivalent of $100 monthly over the phone's lifespan.
Yes, Apple is now heading down the road of scammy ad based user info sharing. But Google is far ahead of them.
The better question is why would you NOT use an open source, non tracking, free app when it's available??? That really has me scratching my head... it's not like you are installing linux and running your contacts from a command line interface. These apps have all the functionality of the Google alternative...
dumastudetto
macrumors 603
Proton is a big company selling services that compete against the Google ecosystem. I’m not sure I’d be wasting my time on a deep dive from a company looking to upsell me on privacy as a service by ditching Google services they critique in a longwinded video.
iHorseHead
macrumors 68020
IvyKing
macrumors 6502a
I remember the "Do No Evil" era at Google and their efforts in scanning large numbers of library books. In the process of making large amounts of money from advertising, Google caught the eye of institutional investors who are solely focused on boosting near term share price - witness to what happened with Southwest Airlines.
Dirk Pieters
macrumors 6502a
There is a difference between not caring about privacy and making a living off privacy. The last one being Google.
Your only argument that “every company does it” is something you invented and keep telling yourself.
The fact is that Google gives us free things like software, a browser, mail, a mobile os, etc and buys companies like Nest and Fitbit for the sole purpose of having and selling your data.
If you can’t see the difference between that and a company like Apple then I don’t know what to tell you.
Dirk Pieters
macrumors 6502a
Parowdy
macrumors 68000
I am? Ok.
Prove it. Show me where and how Apple gathers and sells not-anonymized user data. How much money do they make with it and how does it compare to other services revenue. Why did iAds or whatever they were called fail? Meta uses user data one way or another for most of their products, where does Apple do that? They use identifiers for advertising, they are clear about that and you can disable personalized advertising, that’s all fair. Ads in Maps are not even worth mentioning.
Apple has private relay, advanced data protection and many other features designed for user privacy. Do you actually suggest it’s all a sham and not working?
If I am the product and not the App Store, iCloud and Apple Music, Apple is actually losing money on me.
Last edited:
Steve Adams
macrumors 68000
You can disable "personalized" ads. I can do that in Microsoft and Google as well. I am saying it's marketing directed at users like yourself and not functioning the way you think. I don't trust ANY tech company. You shouldn't either. They don't care about your privacy, security etc. They care about money. Nothing else.
I have owned both iPhones and Android phones, including currently. There is no doubt that the business models of Apple and Google are different. Apple primarily makes its money by selling expensive, premium hardware and services. Google has an advertising-based business model.
Does Apple gather some of your personal information? Yes, but not as much as some people may believe. And the information they do gather tends to be anonymized for Apple’s uses - including in-house advertising and/or suggestions on some apps/platforms.
Google, it seems to me, is pretty upfront about what it does. And if you own an Android phone there are plenty of opportunities to block or limit the amount of data they gather about you and how they can store it. But one has to take the time to go through the device and Google account settings to do it.
Does Apple gather some of your personal information? Yes, but not as much as some people may believe. And the information they do gather tends to be anonymized for Apple’s uses - including in-house advertising and/or suggestions on some apps/platforms.
Google, it seems to me, is pretty upfront about what it does. And if you own an Android phone there are plenty of opportunities to block or limit the amount of data they gather about you and how they can store it. But one has to take the time to go through the device and Google account settings to do it.
Last edited:
Parowdy
macrumors 68000
They care about money, nothing else. So?
Apparently privacy is selling, you say so yourself.
But you also say they don’t sell privacy but only the idea of it.
I tell you again, prove it. Show me actual proof of Apple handling, like you suggested, user data as we know Meta does.
Do it, enlighten us with your knowledge or admit you argue based on feeling and not knowing.
ThailandToo
macrumors 65816
My dream phone would be a Samsung design, Apple silicon multiple OSes. I think all these companies are evil and will do anything to raise the stock price at the costs of all other stakeholders. It’s sad truly. I have a Nothing Phone and two new model iPhones. The iPhone Air is my current personal phone. Android is my travel phone with SIM card slots. iPhone 17 PM is work phone. I want a folding phone that runs three OSes would be ideal. iOS, Android and MacOS when attached to external keyboard and mouse. If the EU had its way, it would be mine today.
Technerd108
macrumors 68040
Let's use Microsoft. When they used to sell you the OS privacy was a lot better and ads in the OS didn't exist.
Once Microsoft started to use rolling updates and stopped charging for upgrades like next version of Windows you used to have to pay for they started using the customer data for profit. They changed their business model and since Windows has gotten worse and worse not because the OS sucks but because they shifted the focus from pleasing the customer to extracting whatever they could from the customer and sell it. As other's have said the customer became the product sold.
This is the business model that propelled social media to what it is today. Most people believed the PR pushed to them that these platforms brought people together and encouraged thoughtful debate. While these very companies were using people's interactions and building digital profiles they could sell to advertisers. This turns privacy on it's head. Inversion of principles sold as the opposite thing they are. This is a poison in my opinion.
However morally bankrupt this new business model was it is tremendously profitable and business exploits all profits. It is up to the customer base to educate themselves enough to make the proper informed decisions. Changing buying habits in priority of privacy and companies that charge money for their products and services. Anything that is free is not free. Even open source needs donations to survive. You have to follow the money. Open source software is amazing and I support and encourage Linux for example. I am also very pragmatic and people do things better when they are financially rewarded.
So the choices are a little more clear when you ask am I the product being sold or am I the customer to be pleased. You always want financial leverage otherwise you have zero power in the contract between you and said company. Apple has to listen to feedback and change things based on what customers want. Look at the VR glasses Apple made for example. Didn't sell. The market decided the fate of the product not Apple. When you remove the power of the customer and their buying power they no longer have any power or say in their use while those that remain customers and not the product have the ultimate power of the purse.
If you have a device where you are using free software that competes with paid software you have to ask how is that software free, and do you have enough power in said relationship.
I am not saying Google and Microsoft are not dependent on customers buying products but the customers are just buying the hardware and not the software. And that is the trick. Google basically owns Android even though it's base is open source and uses it's software engineers for dual use. How do we incorporate "features" customers want to use and make those features profit centers? AI is doing stuff for people while collecting all of their data, building a profile and building a predictive model of behavior for that person that can be sold to advertisers. The more features they add the more data completes a more complex profile and there is never enough data.
While when Apple makes new features they are focused on feedback and trends of selling their hardware and getting the most out of the hardware by optimization. They don't need vast amounts of harvested data as it doesn't serve their business model. They do there own data collecting to sell you more Apple products and services and ads. This is a big difference from Google or Microsoft. Apple is punished if it collects too much data as sales will drop off the hardware. While Google and Microsoft are not only rewarded the more data they collect they literally depend on it to survive.
Who do you think is going to serve your needs better? The one who is dependent on you buying and using its products and being happy so you keep buying more or the one who is dependent on selling your data and figuring out as many ways to harvest and sell it to profit and your overall satisfaction is less a priority than your data? This is the big question?
I really don't understand why more Windows users like myself don't push back. I have been voicing my concerns ever since they started "rolling releases" everyone was so happy about at the time. Windows has never been perfect or very secure but MS didn't have any real interest in your data beyond Apple back then so they could sell more MS software. They didn't actively harvest your data or advertise in the OS beyond some setup stuff. I liked Windows then.
Now it seems so bloated and like there is always a ton of stuff going on in the background no matter how you configure your privacy settings. I don't like being the product and would much rather pay for each new version of Windows and make Microsoft worry about the customer again. Windows could really use a leaner code base and get out all the data collection. Then we wouldn't need 32gb ram and a new processor ever year for Windows to feel snappy. Honestly Windows should run great on 8gb ram. What happened? Why is there no demand on the software side of things to be more efficient and need less ram and cpu instead of more each release. I understand that there is ram and cpu pressure from modern apps, games, video editing, etc but the goal of the Windows software engineering should be to get more out of less not more out of more. There is no incentive profit wise to make new OS iterations more efficient. It is actually better to make each successive release use more resources as it drives profits for partners. MS has to please its hardware partners and in order to sell hardware the old hardware has to become obsolete. One sure way to do that is to have multiple releases in a year upping ram and cpu base requirements. Over a couple years every device will feel slower. This is a huge driver in sales.
If you compare over time the ram and cpu needs of Apple vs Windows, Apple has remained more efficient with its hardware over time. This is by design. Since Apple needs to make a profit on the hardware then it is smarter to have a more efficient OS that doesn't need as much ram and cpu or utilize that hardware and optimize it as much as possible as long as possible. Linux is another example where you can use older hardware with less ram and cpu and still have a decent experience.
This is why Google and Microsoft current business model is actually toxic to its customers and they just don't know it. As a huge open source fan I loved Android for a long, long time. All of my first mobile phones with a real OS were Android. I didn't get an iPhone until many years later. I still have and use a Samsung S24U and a Windows laptop.
However, once I extract as many years as I can out of these devices I probably will focus on Apple and as a hobby Windows and Linux. Basically I will not buy another Samsung phone even though I prefer Android GUI simply because of the issues raised above. I will continue to buy cheaper Windows laptops Linux because I don't like being locked into any one system. But for now I vastly prefer the overall user experience and devices Apple sells over anything else and will prioritize new buying in that direction.
I have gone all in Apple, all in Windows, all in Linux and of all Apple was the best and still is the best despite ALL of them having a lot of flaws. There are a ton of weeds in the Apple garden but generally the software and hardware decisions they have ultimately stuck with I agree with and prefer. There are other decisions I don't am am not a fan boy for any company. I want to use the company more than they use me. That is always how the customer relationship with a business should be and the business should want to please the customer to make more profit and sell more products and services. It should be a win, win. Not a lose for the customer and win for the business at the customers expense.
Once Microsoft started to use rolling updates and stopped charging for upgrades like next version of Windows you used to have to pay for they started using the customer data for profit. They changed their business model and since Windows has gotten worse and worse not because the OS sucks but because they shifted the focus from pleasing the customer to extracting whatever they could from the customer and sell it. As other's have said the customer became the product sold.
This is the business model that propelled social media to what it is today. Most people believed the PR pushed to them that these platforms brought people together and encouraged thoughtful debate. While these very companies were using people's interactions and building digital profiles they could sell to advertisers. This turns privacy on it's head. Inversion of principles sold as the opposite thing they are. This is a poison in my opinion.
However morally bankrupt this new business model was it is tremendously profitable and business exploits all profits. It is up to the customer base to educate themselves enough to make the proper informed decisions. Changing buying habits in priority of privacy and companies that charge money for their products and services. Anything that is free is not free. Even open source needs donations to survive. You have to follow the money. Open source software is amazing and I support and encourage Linux for example. I am also very pragmatic and people do things better when they are financially rewarded.
So the choices are a little more clear when you ask am I the product being sold or am I the customer to be pleased. You always want financial leverage otherwise you have zero power in the contract between you and said company. Apple has to listen to feedback and change things based on what customers want. Look at the VR glasses Apple made for example. Didn't sell. The market decided the fate of the product not Apple. When you remove the power of the customer and their buying power they no longer have any power or say in their use while those that remain customers and not the product have the ultimate power of the purse.
If you have a device where you are using free software that competes with paid software you have to ask how is that software free, and do you have enough power in said relationship.
I am not saying Google and Microsoft are not dependent on customers buying products but the customers are just buying the hardware and not the software. And that is the trick. Google basically owns Android even though it's base is open source and uses it's software engineers for dual use. How do we incorporate "features" customers want to use and make those features profit centers? AI is doing stuff for people while collecting all of their data, building a profile and building a predictive model of behavior for that person that can be sold to advertisers. The more features they add the more data completes a more complex profile and there is never enough data.
While when Apple makes new features they are focused on feedback and trends of selling their hardware and getting the most out of the hardware by optimization. They don't need vast amounts of harvested data as it doesn't serve their business model. They do there own data collecting to sell you more Apple products and services and ads. This is a big difference from Google or Microsoft. Apple is punished if it collects too much data as sales will drop off the hardware. While Google and Microsoft are not only rewarded the more data they collect they literally depend on it to survive.
Who do you think is going to serve your needs better? The one who is dependent on you buying and using its products and being happy so you keep buying more or the one who is dependent on selling your data and figuring out as many ways to harvest and sell it to profit and your overall satisfaction is less a priority than your data? This is the big question?
I really don't understand why more Windows users like myself don't push back. I have been voicing my concerns ever since they started "rolling releases" everyone was so happy about at the time. Windows has never been perfect or very secure but MS didn't have any real interest in your data beyond Apple back then so they could sell more MS software. They didn't actively harvest your data or advertise in the OS beyond some setup stuff. I liked Windows then.
Now it seems so bloated and like there is always a ton of stuff going on in the background no matter how you configure your privacy settings. I don't like being the product and would much rather pay for each new version of Windows and make Microsoft worry about the customer again. Windows could really use a leaner code base and get out all the data collection. Then we wouldn't need 32gb ram and a new processor ever year for Windows to feel snappy. Honestly Windows should run great on 8gb ram. What happened? Why is there no demand on the software side of things to be more efficient and need less ram and cpu instead of more each release. I understand that there is ram and cpu pressure from modern apps, games, video editing, etc but the goal of the Windows software engineering should be to get more out of less not more out of more. There is no incentive profit wise to make new OS iterations more efficient. It is actually better to make each successive release use more resources as it drives profits for partners. MS has to please its hardware partners and in order to sell hardware the old hardware has to become obsolete. One sure way to do that is to have multiple releases in a year upping ram and cpu base requirements. Over a couple years every device will feel slower. This is a huge driver in sales.
If you compare over time the ram and cpu needs of Apple vs Windows, Apple has remained more efficient with its hardware over time. This is by design. Since Apple needs to make a profit on the hardware then it is smarter to have a more efficient OS that doesn't need as much ram and cpu or utilize that hardware and optimize it as much as possible as long as possible. Linux is another example where you can use older hardware with less ram and cpu and still have a decent experience.
This is why Google and Microsoft current business model is actually toxic to its customers and they just don't know it. As a huge open source fan I loved Android for a long, long time. All of my first mobile phones with a real OS were Android. I didn't get an iPhone until many years later. I still have and use a Samsung S24U and a Windows laptop.
However, once I extract as many years as I can out of these devices I probably will focus on Apple and as a hobby Windows and Linux. Basically I will not buy another Samsung phone even though I prefer Android GUI simply because of the issues raised above. I will continue to buy cheaper Windows laptops Linux because I don't like being locked into any one system. But for now I vastly prefer the overall user experience and devices Apple sells over anything else and will prioritize new buying in that direction.
I have gone all in Apple, all in Windows, all in Linux and of all Apple was the best and still is the best despite ALL of them having a lot of flaws. There are a ton of weeds in the Apple garden but generally the software and hardware decisions they have ultimately stuck with I agree with and prefer. There are other decisions I don't am am not a fan boy for any company. I want to use the company more than they use me. That is always how the customer relationship with a business should be and the business should want to please the customer to make more profit and sell more products and services. It should be a win, win. Not a lose for the customer and win for the business at the customers expense.
Last edited:
Maybe it’s not that Apple genuinely cares more about principles than the others, but at least Apple’s business model is different from Google’s, Meta’s, and Microsoft’s. Apple doesn’t need to sell your data to third parties like advertisers. Personally, I also see it this way: when I pay for Apple devices, I’m also paying for better privacy.
Or why do you think Android devices are often so cheap? Or why are Meta’s services free for users while the company is still worth billions?
Or why do you think Android devices are often so cheap? Or why are Meta’s services free for users while the company is still worth billions?
Jason2000
macrumors 6502
Ai is 100% not a fad. Its here to stay. Right now its AI AI AI but eventually things will settle down and AI will no longer be the buzzword of the day. Its going to get better and better. People will stop thinking about it as it will become a part of their everyday life.
Steve Adams
macrumors 68000
Thankfully I will dead by that time. It's one of many things ruining society.
dmr727
macrumors G4
I don't harbor any illusions that Apple collects less data than the others, but using that data for their own purposes hits me differently than Google selling it to third parties. Maybe it doesn't make any difference at the end of the day, but it feels less gross to me.
Steve Adams
macrumors 68000
Again, how do you know they don't? Nobody knows. You are only told what they want you to know. All of the companies. I am not crapping on apple, apple fans, I am stating that they (insert company name here) don't care about your privacy, security, online safety etc. If it makes them money, they will do it. Simple. I have and use apple products, I have and use Android devices, I have and use microsoft products. I use want I want and don't care about what said companies say about my privacy, security etc because they DON'T CARE about you.
Use what you enjoy, but don't think for one second that ANY company cares about you or your privacy. It's smoke and mirrors. Angry face me, thumbs down me all you want, it does not make what I say any less true.
MarkX
macrumors 68000
I get you have strong feelings on this and I agree with you for the most part.
But as you say, I don't know they don't, however, you don't that they do. You and I just have what information is already out there and it's not conclusive.
Steve Adams
macrumors 68000
No. I don't know they do either. But guess what. If they can make money on it, You think they won't? I am going to say, EVERY one of them are the same. Don't base buying decisions on what ANY tech company tells you with regards to your privacy and security. That is what I am saying. Buy what you want because you like it. Not because it's "private". The only truly private systems are Linux where you are 100 percent in control and graphene OS, or linux mobile where, again you are 100 percent in control.
Anything else, Privacy and data security are smoke and mirrors.