This submission has no content. Please do better than that. An OP needs to have interesting information for the reader to process—otherwise we get lame and tedious discussions that we've all heard before.
In short: more fiber less sugar. Some sugar is ok, but not only. Indignation counts as sugar.
However, out of that list of four, Apple is the one that I have seen being “least evil” with me and my data.
Google dropped their “don’t be evil” motto for a very damn good reason, and the safety of their own app marketplace is a fucking joke.
Facebook is even worse than Google, in that it has never stopped trying to appear innocent of wrongdoing while paddling like mad under the surface.
Microsoft… has gone all Spyware with _all_ of their products as of late, although at least their business-class stuff is moderately neutered.
Apple may Hoover up some data, but it does at least employ actual security and privacy in many places. They make stands where it makes sense to take stands, and they bend in the wind where the hurricane would snap a stiffer branch. Finally, their walled garden - although not perfect - is far safer than any other one out there. They make missteps just like any other entity run by humans, but a fair number of their actions do point in the correct direction.
If given no alternative choice that is evil-free, I will chose the least evil option as my vote. Apple it is, at least for all my personal devices.
> If given no alternative choice that is evil-free, I will chose the least evil option as my vote.
I was on Android until the start of 2019 when my wife bought a new iPhone and I took her 6S. I'd had enough of Android spying on me.
My argument was the same as yours: Apple don't make (that much) money off my data so they MUST be better than Google. Right?
When I think about it, I honestly cannot say that they have better privacy than Google. How can I? They may market themselves as having that but Apple products and software aren't open source. And even if they were, how do I know that the version of some product that my phone is connected to is using a "non-evil" version at the backend.
I now don't believe any of them give a shit about privacy. At all! Not one bit! They say marketing-speak to reach the most lucrative audience and from a financial perspective it makes perfect sense.
However, there is/may be another choice! The Librem 5 could maybe just start something: I'm not in the queue for the first batch but by the start of next year I hope to have one.
I don't think services have to be open source for us to trust their privacy. In the context of Apple there has been enough conflict in the press with the FBI and other authorities that their actions speak enough I can trust them in the absence of source code.
And I think there is enough financial strategy for other companies - such as Samsung, who for example sell smart TVs at a loss to recoup money from Ad/tracking information sourced from the tv - to know that others are trying this while Apple doesn't seem to be.
> but it does at least employ actual security and privacy in many places.
It doesn't. It has total control over what you can use which is the least privacy and security friendly option you can have. That control means they can give up any privacy and security promises under a bit of government pressure, like Apple already did plenty of times. It's the same problem as with end-to-end encryption in vendor controlled binaries, they promise you it's there, but they can and will silently compromise it if pressured or decide to do so.
> Finally, their walled garden - although not perfect - is far safer than any other one out there.
Walled gardens are not inherently safer than anything out there.
Your argument is flawed. How do you know that Apple protects personal data better than others? I think it has the least experience and probably Google is the best in that area. Microsoft is maybe second.
Apple makes money on their HW and their media sales and application sales. You have to spend the money by choice for Apple to make money. What does most of the world pay Google for? At Google you are the product. Why is that so hard for everyone to understand. The same goes for FB.
You can easily argue that Apple unlike those others hasn't shown signs in the direction of selling your personal data (directly or indirectly).
Google is an advertisement platform so they are the most experienced in using and selling your data (indirectly).
Microsoft is moving heavily in the SaaS direction with an insane amount of telemetry going out towards their servers from Windows 10. (If you have any concern for your privacy you will have to either disable that via powershell or 3rd party scripts/applications and verify that after every update it is still disabled.)
Facebook is infamous for their facebook pixel, they're looked upon as invading the privacy of everyone in multiple ways. So they're rightfully looked upon as an evil. They've sold and continu to sell private data directly and indirectly, including people who are not on their platform.
Finally Apple doesn't make their money using your private data (at least not on the same scale as those other companies mentioned). So you can view them as the least evil, at least when it comes to private data.
Google hast the most transparency for your data. Google was one of the first to allow you to download it. It shows you all services you use. It tells you constantly that this is the case.
I don't really care how transparent they are if they still try to stalk me everywhere I go both online (with Google Analytics, ads, ReCaptcha, etc) and offline (buying card transaction data from MasterCard).
I disagree with you regarding Apple - they are the ones who started the trend of the ultimate walled gardens by letting the platform maker decide which software resides on your device. Neither Google nor Facebook nor Microsoft were inclined to do that. Apple single-handedly changed the narrative (in a significant way, since earlier there were tiny pockets of walled gardens like gaming consoles). The society is going to suffer in the long term because of that.
Apple still complied with the alphabets, according to Snowden. IIRC they even let some NSA infiltrate into their supply chain to inject malware at the firmware level on phones and laptops.
That doesn't really address the issue he raises though, you are somewhat forced to use modern devices if you wish to partake in the world/society. In addition if you get the choice at work between certain laptops and certain phones, you are absolutely forced to use those.
In addition if you look at the alternatives in the smartphone branch you get the choice between high-end android-based devices and iOS devices or outdated mid-range hardware with relatively poor support and you might not have all the apps you require.
In addition to that there aren't any services out there as well integrated as apples ecosystem is. (device to device), so if you want features like that you don't really have much of a choice outside of the big three.
Off topic for this particular submission but on topic for Twitter submissions in general: is anyone else rate limited like 90 % of the time when accessing Twitter using the mobile browser on mobile data? Maybe it is because I'm signed out of Twitter in Safari, but I can't read most of the tweets and threads posted to HN.
Yes, me, I always have to tap my way out of some nagging dialogs that ask me to log in, or download the app. Then I'm rate limited. I then have to go back and click the link again before I can view it. 100% of the time.
Use a different browser, something like Privacy Browser [1] which enables custom Javascript/referer/cookie/etc. settings. For Twitter I tend to block anything and everything which makes it revert to its non-JS page. Enabling Javascript gives the normal page without all those popups and app nags. I have never been rate limited. I am a passive Twitter reader since I do not have an account there so for me this solution works, I do not know whether it is possible to actually post anything on that site in this manner.
Yes, I’ve seen this quite often and been annoyed with it. I thought it had to do with the embedded web view in certain apps or the user agent used by an app’s web view. Whenever this happens, I just skip going to that tweet. If Twitter wants to make things so frustrating and tough, I don’t need to patronize that platform further.
Unfortunately for me no amount of reloading fixes it. When it works, it is for no obvious reason except that maybe I got lucky and other users on the same CGNAT my cell service provider is using weren't using Twitter for a while so it's my turn in the Twitters IP white list.
Apple mightn't be your friend, it's true, but it's not as though they're blocking the web app version of this which has been available to any device from day 1.
I'm not stating this to defend Apple, whose decision I also find questionable (although relatively consistent with some other rejected/pulled apps, like the one for locating and avoiding alcohol-testing checkpoints), but rather to give us all a bit of perspective — the same information remains available and usable via a web app, probably the better place for it anyway as then no store front can limit it.
I've fallen for these mega-corp's marketing bullshit many times over the years: It's easy done!
It's also easy to forget that they only care about appeasing shareholders and the way to do that is to make money.
At any cost!
I am currently working on a (personal) .NET Core project so I'm using Windows 10 but when it's up and running I am going to spend some serious time looking into Linux instead and developing my .NET core stuff there. I'm also waiting for the Librem 5 now: All other phones are thinly-veiled spyware as far as I am concerned.
*takes off rose-tinted glasses!
Edit: changed focus from Apple to mega-corps instead
I would walk away from .Net Core as well. Microsoft have proven themselves on several occasions that they don't give a crap about the end user. The whole default opt-in telemetry nightmare of .Net core is an example. The final result of the discussion was a "fuck you, we're still doing it" and nothing more. Also getting support on anything is now basically "it's open source, raise a ticket we'll never fix". And not to mention the insane versioning, churn and schizophrenic direction changes.
Same old corporation. They just worked out how to label customers as consumers and pacify the userbase by putting it on GitHub instead of Connect and reducing the support availability (have you tried getting desktop support, even paid per incident on windows 10? Don't bother!)
For me a software ecosystem has to stand 100% alone for me to invest in it. That basically leaves Python and C at this point which I'm honestly not that unhappy with.
I'm not really a .net person, I'm mostly php w/ some nodejs/golang/elixir but I tried .net and tooling and things at least work now on arch linux where I don't think they would've 5-10 years ago.
Apple's imho one of the worst players, they have the most closed ecosystem imaginable it should be illegal to require a developer to buy your hardware just to develop apps on your platform. I'll never support or use an apple unless mandated by a client and they'll need to supply the hardware.
Google's bad too but at least I can side-load apps and install custom rom's easily enough.
There are a lot of mom and pop shops, which just do what is their passion and they want their customers to be happy. Money is just a means to support themselves. E.g. I frequented a lot of local record shops and it was clear that their owners did not want to get rich. They would talk to you for 15-30 minutes about bands and new releases, even if you just bought one record with a < 1 Euro profit margin. They just loved music and they enjoyed customers that loved music.
No profit-driven company is your friend. When it's about profit, money becomes the end.
How many of these mom and pop shops are 'venture-funded'? that's the point I think he's making. Venture funding and selling out takes all the passion out of the business and makes it into a greedy Mr. Burn's style enterprise.
Edit: Let me add -- just look at what happened w/ WhatsApp. The guys who sold it to Zuck n co, regret it fully but can't take it back. They know they sold their souls to satan, and at least now they're outspoken against the turn Whatsapp took, though a bit late and a few pay-days past.
I see where you are coming from but there's a scale-aspect to this.
These entities aren't traditional companies, like your local newsagent or plumber or whatever. They've reached a level that they can influence governments and can control entire populations (to a degree).
They have immense power and can effectively wield it as they please to further their own ends.
They are related to small local companies only as they have to file a tax return... that's about it!
In reality, no providers of service or product that you depend on are your friend. Extend these ideals to food providers, medical services, etc...Agreed that the choices of providers are little bit wider, but still the ideals are the same.
Of course no company is a friend. But there are businesses, who take their customer serious and more importantly, act with integrity, and treat you accordingly.
Readit News
In short: more fiber less sugar. Some sugar is ok, but not only. Indignation counts as sugar.
Google dropped their “don’t be evil” motto for a very damn good reason, and the safety of their own app marketplace is a fucking joke.
Facebook is even worse than Google, in that it has never stopped trying to appear innocent of wrongdoing while paddling like mad under the surface.
Microsoft… has gone all Spyware with _all_ of their products as of late, although at least their business-class stuff is moderately neutered.
Apple may Hoover up some data, but it does at least employ actual security and privacy in many places. They make stands where it makes sense to take stands, and they bend in the wind where the hurricane would snap a stiffer branch. Finally, their walled garden - although not perfect - is far safer than any other one out there. They make missteps just like any other entity run by humans, but a fair number of their actions do point in the correct direction.
If given no alternative choice that is evil-free, I will chose the least evil option as my vote. Apple it is, at least for all my personal devices.
I was on Android until the start of 2019 when my wife bought a new iPhone and I took her 6S. I'd had enough of Android spying on me.
My argument was the same as yours: Apple don't make (that much) money off my data so they MUST be better than Google. Right?
When I think about it, I honestly cannot say that they have better privacy than Google. How can I? They may market themselves as having that but Apple products and software aren't open source. And even if they were, how do I know that the version of some product that my phone is connected to is using a "non-evil" version at the backend.
I now don't believe any of them give a shit about privacy. At all! Not one bit! They say marketing-speak to reach the most lucrative audience and from a financial perspective it makes perfect sense.
However, there is/may be another choice! The Librem 5 could maybe just start something: I'm not in the queue for the first batch but by the start of next year I hope to have one.
And I think there is enough financial strategy for other companies - such as Samsung, who for example sell smart TVs at a loss to recoup money from Ad/tracking information sourced from the tv - to know that others are trying this while Apple doesn't seem to be.
on iPhones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute
and Smart TVs: https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/how-to-turn-off-smar...
What prevent them to do it later?
There's investigation about iOS/Android telemetry: https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/android-devices-send-10...
It doesn't. It has total control over what you can use which is the least privacy and security friendly option you can have. That control means they can give up any privacy and security promises under a bit of government pressure, like Apple already did plenty of times. It's the same problem as with end-to-end encryption in vendor controlled binaries, they promise you it's there, but they can and will silently compromise it if pressured or decide to do so.
> Finally, their walled garden - although not perfect - is far safer than any other one out there.
Walled gardens are not inherently safer than anything out there.
Google is an advertisement platform so they are the most experienced in using and selling your data (indirectly).
Microsoft is moving heavily in the SaaS direction with an insane amount of telemetry going out towards their servers from Windows 10. (If you have any concern for your privacy you will have to either disable that via powershell or 3rd party scripts/applications and verify that after every update it is still disabled.)
Facebook is infamous for their facebook pixel, they're looked upon as invading the privacy of everyone in multiple ways. So they're rightfully looked upon as an evil. They've sold and continu to sell private data directly and indirectly, including people who are not on their platform.
Finally Apple doesn't make their money using your private data (at least not on the same scale as those other companies mentioned). So you can view them as the least evil, at least when it comes to private data.
It has the best 2fa.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/13/google-lo...
You don't see Apple doing shit like that... quite the opposite.
They didn't drop it though.
>> "And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!"
https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/
The press at the time ran articles like "Google Removes 'Don't Be Evil' Clause From Its Code Of Conduct" (https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/05/google-removes-dont-be-ev...), even though they mention keeping that mention at the end.
In addition if you look at the alternatives in the smartphone branch you get the choice between high-end android-based devices and iOS devices or outdated mid-range hardware with relatively poor support and you might not have all the apps you require.
In addition to that there aren't any services out there as well integrated as apples ecosystem is. (device to device), so if you want features like that you don't really have much of a choice outside of the big three.
Which is essentially selling data in the same way that other advertisers do…
Only way to get around it is to check "Request Desktop Site" but that's an annoying workaround.
Never understood how such a major website could be this broken.
[1] https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.stoutner.privacybrowser....
I'm not stating this to defend Apple, whose decision I also find questionable (although relatively consistent with some other rejected/pulled apps, like the one for locating and avoiding alcohol-testing checkpoints), but rather to give us all a bit of perspective — the same information remains available and usable via a web app, probably the better place for it anyway as then no store front can limit it.
So this is partly why we're all at the mercy of walled garden App Stores.
Are you suggesting that random websites should have the same level of access to your device as native apps?
It's also easy to forget that they only care about appeasing shareholders and the way to do that is to make money.
At any cost!
I am currently working on a (personal) .NET Core project so I'm using Windows 10 but when it's up and running I am going to spend some serious time looking into Linux instead and developing my .NET core stuff there. I'm also waiting for the Librem 5 now: All other phones are thinly-veiled spyware as far as I am concerned.
*takes off rose-tinted glasses!
Edit: changed focus from Apple to mega-corps instead
Same old corporation. They just worked out how to label customers as consumers and pacify the userbase by putting it on GitHub instead of Connect and reducing the support availability (have you tried getting desktop support, even paid per incident on windows 10? Don't bother!)
For me a software ecosystem has to stand 100% alone for me to invest in it. That basically leaves Python and C at this point which I'm honestly not that unhappy with.
By ecosystem I mean, an IDE as good as Visual Studio and the simplicity of pressing F5 to test my code... that sort of thing.
You mean opt-out. Opt-in is when it's off by default.
`export DOTNET_CLI_TELEMETRY_OPTOUT=1`. Wow, such nightmare.
Apple's imho one of the worst players, they have the most closed ecosystem imaginable it should be illegal to require a developer to buy your hardware just to develop apps on your platform. I'll never support or use an apple unless mandated by a client and they'll need to supply the hardware.
Google's bad too but at least I can side-load apps and install custom rom's easily enough.
No profit-driven company is your friend. When it's about profit, money becomes the end.
Edit: Let me add -- just look at what happened w/ WhatsApp. The guys who sold it to Zuck n co, regret it fully but can't take it back. They know they sold their souls to satan, and at least now they're outspoken against the turn Whatsapp took, though a bit late and a few pay-days past.
These entities aren't traditional companies, like your local newsagent or plumber or whatever. They've reached a level that they can influence governments and can control entire populations (to a degree).
They have immense power and can effectively wield it as they please to further their own ends.
They are related to small local companies only as they have to file a tax return... that's about it!
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment