I learned in a meeting at my last job that many weather apps solely exist to collect and sell location data. Don’t have specific evidence but it seemed to be par for the course. So I’m glad to see this API, hopefully it’ll help more privacy focused weather apps thrive.
Apple has continued to take on services third parties previously used to exploit the private information of Apple’s customers.
This includes Apple Card, but also the recently introduced multi-week payment options Apple is offering to buy its products. (Previously offered by other services “for free.”)
I have no doubt that Apple is looking at how data is leaking across the ecosystem and is seeking to stop it as much as possible.
> I have no doubt that Apple is looking at how data is leaking across the ecosystem and is seeking to stop it as much as possible.
I have no doubt that Apple is looking to exploit it to their exclusive advantage as much as possible, while marketing it under the guise of their privacy measures.
Seems like a win/win when the customers and businesses interests align.
No one is pretending Apple is a charity. Of course they do all this for obscene amounts of profit. But if we get stronger privacy as a side effect, I think that’s a generally okay situation.
The point is that they don’t actually care because they’re not offering true privacy. Real privacy means my data is mine, and I decide individually which people or groups get access, including Apple.
Apples’ “privacy” is that they retain monopoly control over my data. Basically they stiff arm the competition (Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc) and get to profit exclusively by spying on me.
> Apples’ “privacy” is that they retain monopoly control over my data.
That's a strange way to describe the situation where Apple is not allowing third parties to share your private data without your permission. Apple is doing exactly what you wanted in your first paragraph, which is to let you decide who gets access to your private data. If you only give it to Apple, that's YOU deciding to voluntarily grant Apple that monopoly. It's only a "monopoly" if YOU choose it to be.
If you want to download the Facebook app from the App Store and voluntarily give your private data to Facebook, Apple isn't standing in your way. Monopoly? Seriously, I have no idea what that complaint could possibly be based on.
> and get to profit exclusively by spying on me.
I'll set aside the weird claim that Apple is "spying" on you, as though you didn't know Apple is involved in the functioning of your device. Really I'm confused why exclusivity would be a grievance. You think it'd be better if Apple were giving your data to other companies so more companies could spy on you?
The point is that there's no option where nobody gets to spy on me. I should have the option to host the server-side software myself, and/or delegate that to a third party of my choosing which provides a standardized API.
Calling what Apple does "privacy" is a sleight of hand. True privacy means my data is mine, I am not forced to share it with whatever random employees of a multinational corporation happen to be able to access it, it is not necessarily within the crosshairs of bulk warrants imposed on Apple by governments, and I have the option to refuse to allow it to be used to demographically and psychologically profile me for the purposes of advertising or anything else by any other entity including Apple.
What they are engaged in is the monopolization of user data, duplicitously dressed in the robes of "privacy".
Don’t use iCloud and all your wishes are granted. You can use non-iCloud services for email, calendars, contacts etc. It’s true that you won’t get the full iCloud experience of course, but any such complaint is invalid—you can’t have your cake and eat it too, as the saying goes.
The complaint was that Apple was supposedly spying with exclusivity, i.e. not allowing others to spy on you.
And regardless, if you don’t like it, the solution is entirely within your grasp. After all, there’s no law forcing you to reveal your private self to Apple.
I've heard (2nd-level -- ie, people that talked to people in Apple, in confidence) rumors that they want to use the data themselves to sell more stuff. All under the guise of "privacy," it's the best marketing ploy ever... if true.
I like what Apple is doing, but I've heard that rumor enough times from former employees who worked on this stuff, and people who've come out of meetings with the Safari guys, that I continue to be wary of Apple.
Apple has not that many products. The opportunities for sophisticated marketing based on purchase history are pretty slim. If they wanted to run a strategy like “market iPads to people who already have iPhones and Macs” starting a credit card business is a pretty roundabout way to do that.
I think it was clear from the beginning of Apple Pay that they’re running a very long term embrace-extend-extinguish on Visa and Mastercard, and everything in their product roadmap to date has been consistent with that, especially opening up native tap-to-pay acceptance on iPhones.
> The opportunities for sophisticated marketing based on purchase history are pretty slim.
Not really? Apple sells ads and directly profits from recommending high-margin, exploitative apps on the App Store. Seeing as their 30% cut is a multi-billion dollar market, I wouldn't just call it a "slim opportunity". More like "a better way to optimize the money printer without the SEC shouting at us" or something.
This is plausible. Apple is blocking methods used by more aggressive/invasive ad networks (at the App Store policy level, the iOS level like with IDFA, and the Safari level with ITP), which makes using Apple's ad network more advantageous (since Apple's anti-tracking strategy favors first-party tracking).
> Apple Ads Attribution API (used by Search Ads campaigns) provides visibility into clickDate, adGroupId, creativeSetId. “This is a massive, and unfair, advantage Apple is giving to its own systems and advertisers,” said Sergio Serra, senior product manager at supply-side platform InMobi.
> Which is particularly interesting considering that late last week, Eric Seufert, a mobile strategist and editor of Mobile Dev Memo, discovered a settings option in the forthcoming iOS 14 that would give preferential treatment to Apple ads personalization.
(IDFA tracking is opt-in, Apple's tracking is opt-out)
It’d be the dumbest marketing move ever, Apple makes billions from selling their devices and the rest of the ecosystem, the location data they could gather under the table would be worth small change compared to the risk they’d be taking.
It’d be an embarrassment to emphasize their privacy advantage in their announcements only to throw away that trust in pursuit of a few pennies.
Even if there is little upside reward, they might just want to decrease downside risk. It's inexpensive for them to limit data gathering. But letting data gathering fester outside their control and they are 1 PR disaster away from damaging their brand. Which is extremely valuable.
It is possible they don't get 30% cuts of any of that sale of info so want it out to avoid contagion ("but they dont pay 30% on X" spreads to "I don't want to pay 30% on Y and maybe we'll go to court over it").
Based on the emails that have come out from various trials, they want a 30% cut of everything, eventually including real world services mediated through the phone.
App Store is 14 years old. If Apple wanted to take a cut of literally everything that was facilitated using the phone e.g. Amazon or eBay they would've done it a long time ago.
The benefit to Apple is the same reason that Google invests in Project Zero.
Higher consumer confidence that a product is safe = higher engagement = higher revenue.
There is a whole ecosystem of apps that exist only to justify permissions. Weather and emergency alert/extreme weather notification apps are the most common ones to harvest location data from users in the background.
