Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
57,393
20,227


In a preview of an interview with The New York Times' Kara Swisher, set to be published on Monday, April 5, Apple CEO Tim Cook said he's "shocked" at the criticism Apple has received in recent months over upcoming privacy changes in iOS, and claimed that they're "hard to argue against."

tim-cook-data-privacy-day.jpg

Apple plans to begin enforcing App Tracking Transparency (ATT) changes following the release of iOS 14.5, meaning all apps that access an iPhone's ad identifier, or IDFA, will need to ask a user's permission before tracking is allowed.

The move has provoked criticism from some companies, particularly Facebook, which argues that the new changes will hurt small businesses.

Facebook says that small businesses rely on tracking to provide personalized ads and that with ATT, those ads will be less effective. However, when asked in the interview how ATT will impact Facebook, Cook said he's "not focused on Facebook" and that he doesn't know.
Swisher asked: "What is your response to Facebook's response — which is quite vehement — calling you essentially an existential crisis to their business?" Cook answered: " All we're doing, Kara, is giving the user the choice whether to be tracked or not. And I think it's hard to argue against that. I've been — I've been shocked that there's been pushback on this to this degree."
Facebook initially went all out against ATT; however, the company has recently shifted its tone. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg now claims it's possible that the new change may benefit Facebook by giving it an upper hand in the online commerce space.
It's possible that we may even be in a stronger position if Apple's changes encourage more businesses to conduct more commerce on our platforms by making it harder for them to use their data in order to find the customers that would want to use their products outside of our platforms.
Cook's latest comments are just a snippet of the full interview set to be published on Monday in which the CEO discusses the removal of Parler from the App Store, the power of Big Tech, and what it's like being called "Tim Apple."

Article Link: Tim Cook Responds to Facebook Criticism of iOS App Tracking Transparency Changes, Says It's 'Hard To Argue Against' Privacy
 
Last edited:

swingerofbirch

macrumors 68040
From a company that searches workers' bags on unpaid time.

Yes, hard to argue to against privacy, I agree.

Why did they ever make the hardware identifiers available to developers (UDID)? Why do they continue to make IDFA available?

They're saying you have a right to know about something --that they themselves invented and introduced in iOS 6 (IDFA) and didn't tell you about for years and make it look like the developers were doing something sketchy when they were using APIs Apple created.

If it's bad, just get rid of it.
 

xyz01

macrumors regular
May 17, 2009
215
244
Oslo, Norway
Says the CEO of a company which literally recorded people’s conversations without their knowledge and sent them to third party contractors! Kudos to focus on privacy but for the love of god start practicing what you preach.

The full context here is that these snippets were anonymous, and no longer connected to a user. It would also not be entire conversations, but situations that triggered Siri and Siri didn't understand.

Sure, it's better now where you are asked when you set up the device and then the same thing happens as before - but I just don't see that as a big deal.

There are aspects of Apple's business I find problematic (usually ones related to using position in one market to get positions in others), but privacy is not one of them.
 

The_Gream

macrumors regular
Jul 16, 2020
131
252
From a company that searches workers' bags on unpaid time.

Yes, hard to argue to against privacy, I agree.

Why did they ever make the hardware identifiers available to developers (UDID)? Why do they continue to make IDFA available?

They're saying you have a right to know about something --that they themselves invented and introduced in iOS 6 (IDFA) and didn't tell you about for years and make it look like the developers were doing something sketchy when they were using APIs Apple created.

If it's bad, just get rid of it.
The bag thing I am pretty sure got taken care of (not saying I wouldn’t have fought for something better or compensation), but the employees knew about the bag search rule when they took the job, so I can’t feel to sad for them.
The IDFA was created to centralize the tracking (and people always had the ability to turn it off - sort of) and allow Apple more control over the information. Just like a lot of decisions made, hindsight is 20/20.
Says the CEO of a company which literally recorded people’s conversations without their knowledge and sent them to third party contractors! Kudos to focus on privacy but for the love of god start practicing what you preach.
You mean the people who clicked okay on allowing Apple to collect their data in an unlinked to them method to make improvements to Apple services?
The people agreed to it, but probably forgot they agreed to it - and from my experience most people don’t read the question in the set up phase of their tech products and just click “Accept/Next” then complain later about what ever the issue is.
 

laz232

macrumors 6502a
Feb 4, 2016
694
1,337
At a café near you
Tim Cook realises that (the illusion of) privacy is a commodity, which he is willing to sell to the public. Facebook encroaches on his sales pitch. (FWIW I don't have facebook because they are a terrible company, so I don't care either way)

Tim Cook was shocked, shocked I tell you, about privacy breaches...

https://9to5mac.com/2016/10/25/lisa-jackson-podesta-email/
"Jackson writes that Apple is constantly giving government “information about Apple customers and devices.” While it’s easy to jump to conclusions with that statement, the next sentence is important as Jackson explains that the information is given in response to warrants and other legal requests."

What’s interesting to note here is that Jackson’s tone in the email is far different than the tone Apple takes publicly. Generally, in public, Apple tends to play the “good guy” and downplay its response to government requests for information. Jackson, however, almost seems to boast of its “thousands” of responses to government aid and various ways encryption doesn’t help Apple users hide information.

Jackson has served on the board of directors of the Clinton Foundation since 2013.


Note: this is not political, but within the context of privacy to show that Apple can be duplicious by stating one thing about privacy publicly and doing another thing privately - and that they do so by being friendly with administrations.

Apple clearly wants to make an ad ecosystem - with the app store, Apple Music, Apple TV, Apple Fitness, Apple Health (hello Pharma tie-ins!) - at a certain point they will be in all the markets that have revenue potential. That will not be a good thing.
This is sold as "privacy", but it's a convenient sell for Apple.
 
Last edited:

amartinez1660

macrumors 65816
Sep 22, 2014
1,320
1,231
Tim Cook realises that (the illusion of) privacy is a commodity, which he is willing to sell to the public. Facebook encroaches on his sales pitch. (FWIW I don't have facebook because they are a terrible company, so I don't care either way)

Tim Cook was shocked, shocked I tell you, about privacy breaches...

https://9to5mac.com/2016/10/25/lisa-jackson-podesta-email/
"Jackson writes that Apple is constantly giving government “information about Apple customers and devices.” While it’s easy to jump to conclusions with that statement, the next sentence is important as Jackson explains that the information is given in response to warrants and other legal requests."

What’s interesting to note here is that Jackson’s tone in the email is far different than the tone Apple takes publicly. Generally, in public, Apple tends to play the “good guy” and downplay its response to government requests for information. Jackson, however, almost seems to boast of its “thousands” of responses to government aid and various ways encryption doesn’t help Apple users hide information.

Jackson has served on the board of directors of the Clinton Foundation since 2013.


Note: this is not political, but within the context of privacy to show that Apple can be duplicious by stating one thing about privacy publicly and doing another thing privately - and that they do so by being friendly with administrations.

Apple clearly wants to make an add ecosystem - with the app store, Apple Music, Apple TV, Apple Fitness, Apple Health (hello Pharma tie-ins!) - at a certain point they will be in all the markets that have revenue potential. That will not be a good thing.
This is sold as "privacy", but it's a convenient sell for Apple.
Solid insight. I just went by the default sentiment that a company won’t put too much effort, marketing and campaigning on something that has not enough potential to be profitable and for sure as heck won’t if it means extra costs and loses.
But that gives a fuller perspective, “commoditizing privacy”.

Now, it’s great that our privacy happens to align with their specific pockets (and misaligned towards tons others like Facebook et al), that’s a good thing today but I also wonder if there’s a monster hiding behind it (hint: there usually is at least long term, intended or not).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.