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.
Tim Cook on What He Would Do in Mark Zuckerberg's Shoes: 'I Wouldn't Be in This Situation'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree with all of that and ultimately that's why I'm still using an iPhone and not android. But Apple can be infuriating with their lock-in.
I've installed a lof of IoT equipment over the past year, and I thought it would be nice to add some voice control. This is very easy to do with google or alexa using ifttt so I installed google assistant on my iPhone. Just to use voice control, google wants full access to everything on my phone. My contacts lists, my messaging and browsing history, everything. And there is no reason they need any of that to run a voice assistant. There is just no way. I very quickly deleted the google app and I'll continue to use my web interface.
Apple wins this one for sure, but do they really have to lock Siri out of everything except homekit and then lock down homekit so much there's nothing you can really do with it. Someone even uses siri to send text messages to their IoT controller and parses that into usable commands, what a clunky system just because Apple feels it's their way or the highway.
Doesn’t change my observation. You liked a claim about Apple without proof yet demand proof when it’s about Google. I find that highly hypocritical.
How's is it hypocritical if I already know the proof?
Last edited:
They clearly started touting privacy, which they alone can do because of their business model, years ago. It’s a “key differentiator” in business jargon. Their ability is the *direct* result of focusing on higher margin product rather than the tortured business model of razor thin margins.
I’m not going to knock them for having a winning business strategy from the start. I’ll knock the hell out of them for being massive tax evaders, but not for having foresight on privacy. They’ve been talking about this since 2010.
If there's one company for which I would trust my personal information it's Apple. They might not be perfect but I believe they make an effort to protect it.
As a side note, tax evasion is a crime, tax avoidance is an art. I don’t ding Apple for tax avoidance.
I think Google would be the next on the data mining scandal, it's the nature of beast - the advertising industry. Google cannot shake off it's advertising origins and for the most part only source of meaningful revenue. Google needs a business model that is not related to advertising, for starters they should try with two tiers of users - free (and data mine) or pay (no data mining or advertising) services. The more paying users they get, less they rely on advertising and less they have nefariously mine user data.
I know it's simplistic, but a step in the right direction.
That would be trying and failing for Apple, which is ok in my book, because you always have to keep trying to succeed. But in Facebook's case, the intent was always has been to profit from user data with implicit consent and no recourse to users.
It's easy to be on high horses when the wind is blowing your way. The day the storm is in your face and the share price is being slaughtered, then comes the true test of Tims words.
Also, hating on a company running their business as planned is sorta strange. If people are worried about their "data", then don't give it away then. Facebook et al is no public space, you give them all your data, they give you the service, that's the premise.
I don't think Facebook would have any problem keeping all the data super secure, if their users gave them $1000 every other year to be able to keep using their service.
But hey, this is the age of the millenials. Services should be free, so we can spend more on superficial stuff to flash in front of others.
Also, hating on a company running their business as planned is sorta strange. If people are worried about their "data", then don't give it away then. Facebook et al is no public space, you give them all your data, they give you the service, that's the premise.
I don't think Facebook would have any problem keeping all the data super secure, if their users gave them $1000 every other year to be able to keep using their service.
But hey, this is the age of the millenials. Services should be free, so we can spend more on superficial stuff to flash in front of others.
Apple may be a turn off to lots of Android users and old school PC guys (and gals), because of the walled garden approach they take to securing their customer's privacy, but what many of those same people may not understand is that Google is not giving software and services away, they're trading these things for your privacy and your online, and sometimes off-line, life.
It's a brilliant business model for Google, but it does baffle me that so many people willingly give up something so valuable without thinking about the ramifications. Apple's not perfect in software or hardware, but their stance on privacy and security is miles above Google and Facebook.
And what prevents governments or institutions mass brute-force decrypting that data if they get their hands on it?
Why on earth isn't Apple building their own datacenters if they care so much about privacy and security? They have enough money to bypass AWS, GCP and Azure. Most companies actually choose cloud hosting services to save money, because they don't have enough cash on hand to build their own datacenters.
I don’t think any company will ever be perfect in this regard, but I certainly trust my personal information with Apple more than any other tech company. Google makes 95% of its profits from advertising and its products only exist to support that business. I just don’t see the appeal.
Sounds like you're confusing security with active intent to gather and (mis)use people's personal data. At least with the intent not to share, Apple can actively move towards that goal rather than running in the other direction.
I don't agree with the more regulation part. The rest of what Tim said, I liked.
We need better privacy laws; not only to protect us from companies like facebook, but from the federal government as well.
The only people that do a better job is Experian.
/s
[doublepost=1522264775][/doublepost]
FaceBook is the electronic syphilis of our era.
I really love Apple. I'll pay a premium to get access and help such a great company!
With the backlash Facebook is facing now, I've been thinking more about their creating a different type of business model that removes or greatly reduces their reliance on ad generated revenue. If they've got 2 billion active monthly users and they could get every one to pay just $2 per month, $24 per year, they'd generate a very healthy $48 billion in annual revenue. In order to keep driving some revenue from advertisers, what they could do is provide a kickback to users who opt in to see certain curated ads, and in return FB would discount their monthly or annual user fee.
I also think Apples stance on privacy and security will pay off big time for them in the next 5-10 years. We are only at the beginning stages (which is scary) of people starting to realize that their private information should remain private. Apple made that bet years ago.
Here's an easy one Jailbreaking.
My thumbs up was actually directed at how smug Tim Cook's answer was and how the poster said that it could bite him in the butt in the future.
Not saying Apple isn't secure they do seem like one of the most secure tech companies but nothing is perfectly secure in tech. Hackers are smart and Cooks karma may come back and haunt him.
I think he has somewhat of a right to be smug. Apple has been preaching privacy as a main feature of their platform for years. As you said, nothing can be perfect in tech, but as long as they are knowingly making every effort to keep their customers data private, they are doing the best they can. Jailbreakers are damn smart people too though.
"I wouldn't be in this situation" Apple CEO Tim Cook told Recode's Kara Swisher in an interview where he was asked what he would do right now if he was Mark Zuckerberg.
Cook went on to say that Facebook should have self regulated to prevent the massive data collection scandal it's now embroiled in, but the time for that has passed. "I do think that it is time for a set of people to think deeply about what can be done here."
Cook made the comments calling for regulation in a wide-ranging discussion with Swisher and MSNBC's Chris Hayes, covering topics from privacy to DACA to education, where he also again pointed out Apple's strong stance on privacy.
Image via Recode
As Cook has said many times in the past, "you" are not Apple's product and Apple does not make its money selling customer data. Cook says Apple sees privacy as a "human right, a civil liberty."Curation is important to Apple, and that's one of the ways Cook believes Facebook went wrong. "We curate," he said. "We don't want porn on our App Store. We don't want hate speech on our App Store."
Apple, he says, looks at every app in detail. "Is it doing what it is saying it is doing?"
Cook also offered up some advice on how people can protect their privacy. He recommends people read and understand the privacy policy of every app and website frequented, use private browsing mode, and think about blocking cookies. "The only way to protect your data is to encrypt," he added.
Like many of us, Cook says he "finds it creepy" when he looks at something and it chases him "all across the web," something Apple has actively started blocking with cross-site tracking prevention tools in macOS High Sierra and iOS 11. "I don't like that," he said.
Cook was interviewed at the Lane Tech College Prep High School where Apple held its educational event earlier this week. The CEO's full interview will air on Friday, April 6 at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time or 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time on MSNBC.
Article Link: Tim Cook on What He Would Do in Mark Zuckerberg's Shoes: 'I Wouldn't Be in This Situation'
