Lots of negativity/skepticism here which is reasonable I would say given tech companies' abuse of our trust. I for one, am happy that Apple can afford to offer privacy as one of its strong suites. Whether they can do it because of their business model or not is moot IMO. Everyone is here to make money, I would rather have someone who doesn't have to sell every aspect of my life to do it.
Apple's strategy is simple.<p>They want to retain control over their customers; at the same time, force the developers into relying entirely on Apple as a middle man so that they can't cut Apple out of any transactions.<p>This way, Apple gets their cut and user's get some level of privacy.<p>That they can get away with this arm-twisting as "privacy" is to give credit to their brand positioning.
It's a devil's bargain: now we have to choose between walled gardens that offer some privacy and extract their revenue from lock-in, and more open systems that live off spying our data.<p>Truth be told, the software development cost of these systems (Android and iOS) is not that huge, a reasonably good open source alternative could probably be created for less than a billion dollars, knowing how financially efficient are open source projects compared to commercial companies. That's a few cents per smartphone user per year, for the next decade, negligible compared to hardware costs.<p>If this order of magnitude funding could be secured for a well organized open source project, we could have the best of both worlds, a truly open ecosystem with privacy at it's center.
They’re offering privacy, yes, but not as a service. They’re still very much in the business of selling devices to their customers, and this business model is incidentally one of the main reasons they, unlike Facebook or Google, can afford to offer such comprehensive privacy measures.
In other news "Apple’s privacy reputation at risk with new iTunes class-action lawsuit"<p>> The plaintiffs allege that a third party can purchase a list of iTunes customers based on different demographic requirements, like a list of unmarried people who have a taste for a particular genre of music:<p>> The lawsuit further alleges that the third-party beneficiaries of this listening data match it to other sensitive personal information gathered about iTunes users from various sources, and then resell that information on the open market.<p>[1] <a href="https://thenextweb.com/business/2019/05/27/apples-privacy-reputation-at-risk-with-new-itunes-class-action-lawsuit/" rel="nofollow">https://thenextweb.com/business/2019/05/27/apples-privacy-re...</a>
When I was a teen, my uncle, who was an executive at Oracle at the time, yelled at me for admitting on a medical form that I smoked pot. I said, "But, it's confidential, right?". He told me, "It may be confidential now, but it won't always be. Databases are forever." Apple won't be a privacy company in 10 or 20 years.
I love this. Apple is one of the only companies (alongside perhaps Mozilla) with the brand muscle to get away with shooing third-party vultures away from a user's implicit information, like the new protections against inferring your location through IP addresses, the option to share your location only once, and enforcing other restrictions like requiring "Sign In With Apple" on all apps that offer Facebook/Google sign-in. [0]<p>Some developers may balk at giving up all that tasty data, but as a user, this is <i>GREAT.</i><p>Regardless of how you feel about Apple on the whole, who else do you think can afford to put their foot down against predatory practices in favor of the user?<p>[0] <a href="https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=06032019j" rel="nofollow">https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=06032019j</a>
It's worth remembering that Apple's privacy spin began with people noticing that Siri is a joke and other ML powered functions in Apple's software are not nearly as good as the competition's, so the company line basically became "our software sucks because we don't spy on you" and because tech journalists are predisposed to hate everyone else and really love framing their stories as rivals dueling they gladly adopted that narrative.
I've been an Apple fan for a long time but for the past 10 years or so I've been using more Google products. Well, I think that is changing. Google is proving itself more and more untrustworthy and Apple is moving in the right direction.<p>For example, I've been using Android phone ever since the second iPhone came out and have been very happy. I signed up for Google Fi as soon as I could and have been rocking a Nexus or Pixel device every since. However, this PaaS push by Apple, and Google's more recent announcements, have pushed me over the edge. I want to get cameras on my home. I want to sign up for things using email. I want to be able to use my personal devices without having to worry that law enforcement can back-door them. I think Apple is the only company that is taking this seriously and can be trusted to do it right.
As a non-iOS user, can someone explain what is happening in this image?:<p><a href="https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/20190603174213_461726.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019060317...</a><p>Does the 'X' mean "selected" or "don't share"?
Next up: Aaas, Anonymity as a service...<p>The bottom line is, only <i>you</i> care about your privacy, because you're the only one who <i>can</i> care about your privacy. You can do that by voting, and by running Free Software.<p>Effective privacy and anonymity are based on control:control of your software, control of your hardware, control of your life.<p>Everyone asking you for control in exchange for anonymity or privacy does not necessarily have your best interest at heart.<p>Apple's business model is about monetising control, and now they're extending that by ostensibly selling some of that control back to you. Apple will only grant you privacy as long as it doesn't interfere with them taking control.
My cynical side read this as
cheap/free = google/android who own your data in return for their services<p>vs expensive = Apple who are selling you some degree of perceived privacy baked into the operating systems of their primarily hardware offerings, which you pay more for.
Apple was the first company to take accessibility seriously. And that is definitely a market where it likely didn't make a lot of revenue, if any at all.
Just consider this, if you think every niche market is irrelevant.
It's good to see at least one tech giant wants to compete on privacy, rather than selling our data. It's great that Apple does this. And yet, I find the Apple ecosystem closed and restrictive. I'm not eager to get an iPhone and would much rather use something like Lineage OS, for example.
They’ve been building up to this point, taking this lead by presenting at EU data conferences in Brussels, and calling for stronger US data protection law.<p>Facebook on the other hand, has announced they are now a Privacy focused company (whilst appealing the Cambridge Analytica fine of £500k) and gearing up with legal teams. Not walking the walk.<p>I wouldn’t say they are a privacy-as-a-service company, I’d suggest they are a company that are future proofing their revenue streams by enforcing privacy rules on their development / APP environment.<p>Remember Apple control their environment. It’s a closed shop. So perhaps these changes are really protectionism against Regulation.
Is it only me imagining some kind of scenario where, if this gains traction, suddenly 3rd party developers will have to share revenue with Apple for being able to use the Apple sign in.
I don't think there's any need to pretend Apple is marketing this simply as a virtuous act. They have competitive advantages in some areas, and not in others. They are taking advantage of such an advantage.
From reading the developer documentation it looks like developers need to implement & maintain Sign In with Apple as a new SSO method: <a href="https://developer.apple.com/sign-in-with-apple/" rel="nofollow">https://developer.apple.com/sign-in-with-apple/</a><p>When I read the keynote highlights I assumed Apple were extending the existing (iCloud) Keychain/Safari integration to include username generation, and obfuscated email generation resolving to your iCloud account. Since they implemented 2FA codes auto filling in the QuickType bar in iOS 12, they could've extended this UX further, or used 'Siri suggestions' to complete email verification.<p>I assume they didn't take this approach as it's harder to present a consistent call to action to initiate sign up, but it seems like a missed opportunity to me.<p>Does anyone know of a password manager that allows you to generate unique email addresses as a part of the core UX?
Apple delivers privacy from 3rd party developers and at the same time retains all that user data for itself, shoring up its unfair competitive advantage as a non-neutral-platform who makes major forays into its partners’ businesses. Eg health apps, maps, news, podcasts, imusic, etc, etc.
It is good to have alternative.<p>Except in china I guess. That place seems somehow everyone is making exception like people are different kind of human. They are the same human. Should have the same human rights.
That's all fine and very good for the consumer. Now they just have to get the fuck out of PRISM and I'll start taking them seriously in the privacy realm.
They had to focus on privacy to separate out from the competition. Also this distracts the focus on walled garden criticism and freedom to own the devices.
And you need to pay an absolute premium for this pricacy - I've plotted the price of iPhone prices increase here and even after adjusting for inflation the price growth is really high. Especially if you look at the flagship phones<p><a href="https://kyso.io/eoin/iphone-prices" rel="nofollow">https://kyso.io/eoin/iphone-prices</a>
Give me an example of Apple not bowing down to chinese censors and i just may believe you.<p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18020508/how-china-complicates-apples-chest-thumping-about-privacy" rel="nofollow">https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18020508/how-china-compl...</a>
I don’t get how this is a value proposition. Privacy should be included in any service related to technology and data. It’s not a plus, they are trying to charge for an obligation. We are losing our rights for the creation of new markets.
I highly doubt apple isnt collecting inform on users of their services, they just aren't letting anybody else access it. Its matter of time before Apple builds something that uses all the info they have collected.
Control f "china". Nothing.<p>I have a hard time trusting anything that doesn't message how iMessage is end-to-end secure but Apple operates in China.<p>Nobody has ever talked about that.
Is there an existing alternative service (read: FOSS) that would auto-generate temporary emails and manage identity for services like "Login with Apple"?
I am clearly in the minority here but I think "Sign in with Apple" is terrible for consumers. You keep your email address hidden from service providers, sure, but you are also placing your online identity entirely in the hands of Apple. If you get on the wrong side of Apple's algorithms, there is zero recourse. At least in the case of Facebook and others the third party still has your email address so you can always start using that to identify yourself.
Apple makes good products, but they build closed ecosystem for premium price.<p>So, I not use they products, maximum run macOS in VM sometimes.<p>And if will be forced to use a smartphone (maps in new city for example), it will be iPhone, 'cause I prefer privacy vs "open source with spy" by Google.
I still can't access Techcrunch and other Oath website on mobile. Instead of the article I land on a GDPR cookie page and I can only say "OK" there is no way for me to refuse tracking or turn off part of the cookies like on <i>every other websites</i>. WTF?
The ‘service’ here is the apple developer subscription of $100/year. Apple is pandering to its beloved developers here, because, let s be real, the public doeskin care.
Apple is a 'use all of our products, or else we will make life inconvenient for you' company. The fact that this happens to offer some privacy benefits is just a strategy credit[1]<p>[1] <a href="https://stratechery.com/2013/strategy-credit/" rel="nofollow">https://stratechery.com/2013/strategy-credit/</a>
ITT people who are blowing off privacy as though it's not valuable while simultaneously talking about Apple lock in like they're the only company to do that.<p>Idk what yall are on but privacy is valuable to most of us. That comes with a cost and it's not hard to see why - selling private data is how companies make more profit while charging less than apple. Don't wanna pay? You lose privacy. Want privacy? You pay. It's that simple. At last apple gives an option, meanwhile idk how Facebook and Google and all don't face regulation for the egregious privacy violations they commit.
I feel Apple is abusing their dominant position (single app store) to force all the developers to implement & maintain Sign In with Apple as a new SSO method: <a href="https://developer.apple.com/sign-in-with-apple/" rel="nofollow">https://developer.apple.com/sign-in-with-apple/</a><p>I'm really curious to see how this will fly with the Antitrust