Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Tim Cook Says Apple is 'Not Against Digital Advertising' Ahead of iOS 14.5 Launch With App Tracking Transparency

  • Disagree
Reactions: macsareveryinteresting
BootsWalking said:
I agree 100%. The difference though is those other companies and their CEO's aren't sanctimonious virtue-signalers who pretend they care about something other than profit. If Mr. Cook instead said "we're protecting your privacy because it doesn't cost us anything to do so and provides us a competitive advantage" then I would applaud, both because I actually agree with privacy protection and because he was actually being forthright.
Click to expand...
A "sanctimonious virtue-signaler" would be someone who is all talk and no action. Since Cook has Apple take action, that means Cook is not a virtue-signaler. But I'm sure if one looked hard enough the could find some other "sanctimonious virtue-signalers" within this big world of ours. On the bright side of things, if you believe Cook is a "virtue-signaler" than you only have an additional 5 years of him CEO of Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jarman92
I7guy said:
Conflating committing to privacy while following government regulations, eg in the US your icloud data is available to government based on legal request.
Click to expand...

False equivalency comparing the strong due process rights available in the US to some schmuck in China; and the consequences of what may happen to someone on the wrong side of the government in either country.
 
Jim Higgins said:
Yes
Click to expand...

And what good does that do? Then Chinese consumers have less choice, and the choices they do have are all Chinese companies that are completely infiltrated by the state. Whatever modicum of control/privacy they have with Apple is better than nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: subi257
mtneer said:
False equivalency comparing the strong due process rights available in the US to some schmuck in China; and the consequences of what may happen to someone on the wrong side of the government in either country.
Click to expand...
My statement was no more a false equivalency than your original statement that i quoted. It's obvious Apple to follow local laws, so don't conflate things when they are following local laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macsareveryinteresting
I7guy said:
A "sanctimonious virtue-signaler" would be someone who is all talk and no action. Since Cook has Apple take action, that means Cook is not a virtue-signaler. But I'm sure if one looked hard enough the could find some other "sanctimonious virtue-signalers" within this big world of ours. On the bright side of things, if you believe Cook is a "virtue-signaler" than you only have an additional 5 years of him CEO of Apple.
Click to expand...
He certainly takes action on matters that don't affect Apple's bottom line, and avoids doing so on matters that do. Which is the precise point I made in my original post for this article.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 123, Naraxus and dk001
I7guy said:
My statement was no more a false equivalency than your original statement that i quoted. It's obvious Apple to follow local laws, so don't conflate things when they are following local laws.
Click to expand...

Actually Apple's the one who started talking about highfalutin "fundamental" rights and such. If they had just released an honest statement about taking whatever angle makes them more money, and using the excuse of local laws to turn a blind eye to abuses : then all would be well.
 
BootsWalking said:
He certainly takes action on matters that don't affect Apple's bottom line, and avoids doing so on matters that do. Which is the precise point I made in my original post for this article.
Click to expand...
This is nothing but a generalized blanket statement and moreso to your opinion. I think Cooks is taking action not only on what matters to Apple, but what matters to the world at large.
 
mtneer said:
Actually Apple's the one who started talking about highfalutin "fundamental" rights and such. If they had just released an honest statement about taking whatever angle makes them more money, and using the excuse of local laws to turn a blind eye to abuses : then all would be well.
Click to expand...
They are clearly allowed to not mention the obvious: that they have to follow local laws. It's actually honest not to mention that. They only can do what they can do in the jurisdictions they do business in.

Don't ding Apple for "turning a blind" eye unless one is prepared to walk the talk 100%. (or do as I say and not as I do)
 
DNichter said:
I wouldn't expect Apple to have much pull when it comes to country specific laws. I am assuming you feel Apple should pull all business from China?
Click to expand...
If corporations play a political role in the USA (like boycotting events because of racism, etc.), why couldn't they consider doing the same in other places?

I know it's not an easy solution, and it's also a collective action problem (if one company pulls of from China, won't make a huge difference). But Apple could be part of the momentum, for instance some clothing companies are doing some pressure currently because of the current Uyghurs genocide (among other numerous human rights violations accross the country).
 
Last edited:
I7guy said:
They are clearly allowed to not mention the obvious: that they have to follow local laws. It's actually honest not to mention that. They only can do what they can do in the jurisdictions they do business in.

Don't ding Apple for "turning a blind" eye unless one is prepared to walk the talk 100%. (or do as I say and not as I do)
Click to expand...

Maybe you would allow them to get away with those words - that's fine. 'I' don't think the public should allow them to anoint themselves with words like "fundamental" and "worldwide privacy" when all they are doing is just being another corporate player talking their book. There is no fundamental stance there, just whatever makes them more $$.
 
  • Like
Reactions: siddavis
I7guy said:
This is nothing but a generalized blanket statement and moreso to your opinion. I think Cooks is taking action not only on what matters to Apple, but what matters to the world at large.
Click to expand...
World at large? You mean issues like human rights and freedom? You need to check your math on that one.
 
BootsWalking said:
What Apple defines as bad or good depends entirely on whether or not it's a profit center for Apple.
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure about that. This seems to be a cultural thing at Apple even if it has the nice side effect of attracting/retaining customers. And this is to our benefit which is good, so I don't mind the motivation behind it.
 
hans1972 said:
You can believe in "privacy is a fundamental human life" and "any business should obey the law" at the same time. When these two beliefs collide, "obey the law" wins.
Click to expand...

It is not a binary between obey or disobey laws. There is a whole spectrum of options between those two extremes - for example, maybe a press release criticizing the laws they obey??..
 
BootsWalking said:
What Apple defines as bad or good depends entirely on whether or not it's a profit center for Apple.
Click to expand...

Which is a great thing if you agree with Apple.

If focus on privacy makes Apple more money I am very happy with that. It provides incentives to keep doing it. Relying on a company's good will doesn't last long.
 
MajorFusion said:
I don't know . . . do you like being tracked without your consent? This one seems pretty obvious to me. The company has bet on the idea of security and privacy as a selling point to their products. I don't really have any objections to it. At the end of the day, they're a corporation and their job is to make money. If they do this by offering features I agree with, what difference does it make?
Click to expand...
I have allowed Google to "mine" me with my permission, mostly.
I have not allowed Face Book to do the same.

I have a Google account and routinely look at what they are gathering.
I do not have a Face Book account and have no idea what they have collected on me.

To me that is the biggest difference.
 
mtneer said:
Actually Apple's the one who started talking about highfalutin "fundamental" rights and such. If they had just released an honest statement about taking whatever angle makes them more money, and using the excuse of local laws to turn a blind eye to abuses : then all would be well.
Click to expand...
Don’t you remember when one of Apple’s investors complained to Cook about the potentially poor return on investment in their accessibility initiatives, and Cook replied (on an earnings call) that when it comes to some things “I don’t consider the bloody ROI”.

>Mr. Cook replied –with an uncharacteristic display of emotion–that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues. “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind,” he said, “I don’t consider the bloody ROI.” It was the same thing for environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas that don’t have an immediate profit. The company does “a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive. We want to leave the world better than we found it.”

www.forbes.com

Why Tim Cook Doesn't Care About 'The Bloody ROI'

Why Tim Cook Doesn’t Care About ‘The Bloody ROI’. Time for the NCPPR to learn the fundamentals of 21st Century management and the Creative Economy. The new bottom line for business is customer delight.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: hans1972 and mtneer
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back