Apple Executive Dismisses Google CEO's Criticism Over Turning Privacy Into a 'Luxury Good' (theverge.com) 158
Google CEO Sundar Pichai recently said that "privacy cannot be a luxury good offered only to people who can afford to buy premium products and services," a comment that some viewed as a dig at Apple. Well, Apple's software chief, Craig Federighi, says he doesn't "buy into" the criticism that Apple is turning privacy into a luxury good. From a report: Apple wants to sell products to "everyone we possibly could," Federighi said, adding that Apple's products are "certainly not just a luxury." [...] Federighi said it's "gratifying" to see other companies discussing privacy, but that it'll take more than "a couple of months and a couple of press releases" to change these companies' business practices, which rely on data collection. Federighi didn't name Google specifically, but likewise, it's pretty clear which company he's referring to.
In the interview, Federighi also addressed two other criticisms of Apple's privacy stance: that it shouldn't be storing Chinese' users iCloud data in China, where the country could spy on it; and that its choice not to collect much user data has made it fall behind when it comes to develop AI features, like Siri. On China, Federighi suggests that storing data within the country isn't as big of a risk for Apple as it would be for other companies, because of "all of our data minimization techniques." Between encrypting data and collecting a small amount of data in the first place, Federighi says there's not much to access on its Chinese iCloud servers, and that anyone who does gain access wouldn't be able to do much with that information. Federighi also says he sees the choice between collecting data and building powerful new AI features as a "false trade off."
In the interview, Federighi also addressed two other criticisms of Apple's privacy stance: that it shouldn't be storing Chinese' users iCloud data in China, where the country could spy on it; and that its choice not to collect much user data has made it fall behind when it comes to develop AI features, like Siri. On China, Federighi suggests that storing data within the country isn't as big of a risk for Apple as it would be for other companies, because of "all of our data minimization techniques." Between encrypting data and collecting a small amount of data in the first place, Federighi says there's not much to access on its Chinese iCloud servers, and that anyone who does gain access wouldn't be able to do much with that information. Federighi also says he sees the choice between collecting data and building powerful new AI features as a "false trade off."
Mighty Thin Ice (Score:5, Insightful)
Any exec at Google is on might thin ice for when criticizing Apple for its privacy policies.
Maybe Pilchai means that no one should have privacy at any price.
Re: (Score:3)
Mighty thin ice indeed. That would be the ice on which random Apple exec stands whilst claiming that Apple products are "certainly not just a luxury."
Re: Mighty Thin Ice (Score:3)
My iPhone 6+ cost me $300. That doesnâ(TM)t seem like a lot to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Times change.
There's no iPhone you can buy new from Apple for less than $600 today.
Meanwhile I bought my son a Galaxy J3 for $50 at Walmart and it's plenty for most people. My daughter's Moto X4 with a gorgeous screen and a better camera than iPhone is $150.
The "other four billion" people buy $50 phones and that stretches their budget. Google really is trying to help these people stay more private. I enabled ChaCha20 on my web clusters just to help them out (all web admins should do the same).
Re: (Score:3)
been on iOS for 5 years. First on a 4s. Now on an SE.
I have paid a total of $99 for handsets. They were carrier subsidized, obviously
You financed your phone, obviously. Otherwise you would have paid less than $50 a month for unlimited/high-data on the phone you bought outright.
I don't get why some nerds who can do math still fall for this. It seem like they just want to have toys they can't afford and will do mental gymnastics to avoid thinking about it. I mean, props to clever phone companies for bein
Re: (Score:2)
Could you please advise where in the UK I can find a mobile phone plan with unlimited SMS, unlimited data usage and 2500 included voice call minutes every month for £16/month that also includes a phone?
Just that.. you're full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Show me that in the US first.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true for most carriers. If you ask for a SIM-only deal, they will sell you something a lot cheaper. Someone did the analysis of these phone-and-plane deals in the USA 4-5 years ago and found that the best ones worked out to be the equivalent to a loan with an APR of around 40%, a lot were even higher. You can almost certainly get an unsecured personal loan from your bank with better rates than you can get a phone bundle from your network provider.
It's not surprising that a lot of people are
Re:Mighty Thin Ice (Score:5, Insightful)
Mighty thin ice indeed. That would be the ice on which random Apple exec stands whilst claiming that Apple products are "certainly not just a luxury."
So, Google is actually making the claim that privacy is a luxury because the only place you can get some (because everybody else sells Google Android phones) is by buying an iPhone from the luxury brand Apple? Now that is pure and unrefined irony.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, Google is a bottom feeder cut from the same cloth as Apple. Not quite as pathetically rotten as Apple, how could they be, but rotten all the same.
Re: (Score:2)
At least Apple are willing to sell you privacy. Google's attitude to your privacy is, 'FUCK YOUR PRIVACY', not available at any price, EMAILS ARE POSTCARDS (google's own words). At least Apple make it available, whilst Google only provides it for fucking insiders for the rest of us fucking nobodies, we get the fucking probe, jammed right up their along the M$ Windows anal probe 10.
Privacy is a right that sure not be interfered with by psychopathic greed and a demand to analyse and manipulate us, silencing u
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, saying Apple is making privacy a luxury good seems to be a straight up pronouncement that Apple is the only phone maker to support privacy. How is that even an insult?
In fairness though, email was designed from it's inception as a postcard, which is something far too many people don't realize. Send a standard email from one PC to another, and anyone along its route can read it. You can add an encryption layer such as PGP, but as a general rule nobody does, for a wide variety of reasons that incl
Yep nonsense. Commonly believed nonsense (Score:1)
> Maybe Pilchai means that no one should have privacy at any price
Yeah the comment seems ridiculous to me. Why would he even bring up the topic?
On the other hand, although it seems ridiculous to me, a lot of people do subscribe to the "if I don't have it, nobody should have it" thinking. It's ridiculous thinking, but common.
For example, after many years of working 50-65 hours per week and then studying for another 20 hours, all of that effort is starting to pay off and I'm finally making some decent mon
Re:Mighty Thin Ice (Score:5, Interesting)
The point being made is actually more subtle and quite interesting.
Google is saying that rather than trying to improve privacy by making people pay for services instead of offering them for free, it's better to have free services that respect privacy. Not just better for the user, but better for the company that can use data to enhance its services. The key is to do it in a way that preserves user privacy.
For example Google carefully guards user's data and only sells advertising space based on broad demographics and keywords. There is no way for advertising companies to get at personal data, in contrast to say Facebook.
Apple instead charges for services. Great if you can afford it, but if you can't it's nice that there are free offerings that offer something better than the Facebooks of the world.
Re: (Score:1)
That argument doesn't work because (1) Facebook doesn't offer a luxury good service where you can buy your way out of their privacy violating and (2) Apple simply doesn't collect a lot of the private information that Google does* but it obviously comes at the price of a premium product**. Hon
Re:Mighty Thin Ice (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's OK for Google to collect all that data about you as long as they don't share it, and only sell ads based on your data?
Your sense of privacy is fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed out one key point. You get something in return. You sign up for Google services and benefit from them (free email, photo management, file storage, office suite, customized search, translation, navigation and mapping etc.) and in exchange you accept that Google will use some of that information to target ads at you.
And then you install an ad blocker anyway.
I'd suggest that it is actually your sense of privacy that is fucked up. Privacy isn't this absolute thing, it's something you decide on an app
Re:Mighty Thin Ice (Score:5, Insightful)
For example Google carefully guards user's data and only sells advertising space based on broad demographics and keywords. There is no way for advertising companies to get at personal data, in contrast to say Facebook.
NSA made the same argument about warrantless collection of everyone's phone records. It doesn't really count as collecting until you use it... Is that right?
Imagine the reaction by a judge when a thief accused of bank robbery admits they robbed the bank yet only used the money to help the homeless.
The reality is what you end up doing with the proceeds of subverting the privacy of billions of users is completely irrelevant. The offense is the COLLECTION in the first place. Google's persistent collection of location data from billions of people without their knowledge or any meaningful way to actually stop it (Comically enough including switching on airplane mode and disabling location services) with privacy controls that don't actually do shit is completely indefensible.
Google is saying that rather than trying to improve privacy by making people pay for services instead of offering them for free, it's better to have free services that respect privacy. Not just better for the user, but better for the company that can use data to enhance its services. The key is to do it in a way that preserves user privacy.
What Google says is irrelevant. The only point of relevance is what they actually do. Google has repeatedly demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt total contempt for privacy of humanity.
Re: (Score:1)
The better analogy would be if the bank robber admits to the theft but told the judge he hadn't spent any of it yet, so he shouldn't be held and punished for the robbery. Like you say, the collection itself is the offense even if it's just a "copy" of the original money/data. This is the absolute opposite of piracy--where the offense is that someone *wanted* copies
Re: (Score:2)
NSA made the same argument about warrantless collection of everyone's phone records. It doesn't really count as collecting until you use it... Is that right?
No, that doesn't make any sense and doesn't seem related to what I actually said. Obviously Google collects and uses that data, but unlike the NSA it does it with your permission and with full disclosure of what is being collected. It's there in the privacy policy, you can view it on your account dashboard.
Imagine the reaction by a judge when a thief accused of bank robbery admits they robbed the bank yet only used the money to help the homeless.
Except in this case the bank agreed to be robbed, with full knowledge of what would be taken, and the thief kept the money safe and will hand it back if the bank asks for it.
Tell us what you would suggest
Re: (Score:2)
No, that doesn't make any sense and doesn't seem related to what I actually said.
Your assertion as I understand it is that they take steps to guard personal information and don't directly give it to others (except of course governments who can demand "any tangible thing" on a whim) therefore there is no privacy problem.
My assertion is "steps" are irrelevant therefore so are your conclusions. The only relevant aspect is Google's collection on the front end not what they subsequently do with it.
Obviously Google collects and uses that data
It's NOT obvious to people they are being tracked 24x7 by Google no matter how they configure
Re: (Score:2)
Your assertion as I understand it is that they take steps to guard personal information and don't directly give it to others (except of course governments who can demand "any tangible thing" on a whim) therefore there is no privacy problem.
No, I'm saying that it's a value proposition that you can take or leave. You want an email service, you can pay, you can have a free one from Google, or you can have a free one from someone else who treats your data differently.
There is clearly a difference between, say, Google and Facebook in this case.
You want to take a binary view of it, but that doesn't make any sense. Even if you pay, someone else has your data. You have to trust that they will do what the privacy policy says they will do. You have mad
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm saying that it's a value proposition that you can take or leave. You want an email service, you can pay, you can have a free one from Google, or you can have a free one from someone else who treats your data differently.
Here is what you actually said:
Google is saying that rather than trying to improve privacy by making people pay for services instead of offering them for free, it's better to have free services that respect privacy. Not just better for the user, but better for the company that can use data to enhance its services. The key is to do it in a way that preserves user privacy.
I don't know how these statements are related. The first seems to be suggesting free and private is better. The second is saying privacy is an element of overall value proposition.
As a practical matter hard to compete with "Free". Choices are usually the first casualty of resulting race to the bottom market failure. You either adopt the same seedy business practices as those who depend entirely on monetizing the user every way they can get away with or you go out of busin
Re: (Score:2)
The first seems to be suggesting free and private is better. The second is saying privacy is an element of overall value proposition.
That's not what I'm saying. Don't be disingenuous, I was quite clear.
As a practical matter hard to compete with "Free". Choices are usually the first casualty of resulting race to the bottom market failure. You either adopt the same seedy business practices as those who depend entirely on monetizing the user every way they can get away with or you go out of business.
Google seems to prove that to be untrue. Google offers similar services to a number of other free providers, yet is very successful and doesn't need to emulate their shady business practices.
DuckDuckGo would be another example. Free search engine, even higher level of privacy than Google, been around for years.
Yet for many the point of privacy fundamentally is simply being left alone. My personal view is once information is disclosed to a third party I have no visibility into their systems and what they will or won't do with it.
In which case you need to run your own email server in your own home, which is not a very practical option for most people. Even if
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what I'm saying. Don't be disingenuous, I was quite clear.
Yes quite clear when you say and I quote in the context of what you believe Google is saying "it's better to have free services that respect privacy" and "I'm saying that it's a value proposition that you can take or leave"
Then I say "The first seems to be suggesting free and private is better. The second is saying privacy is an element of overall value proposition."
Perfectly clear I'm the one being disingenuous.
Google seems to prove that to be untrue. Google offers similar services to a number of other free providers, yet is very successful and doesn't need to emulate their shady business practices.
DuckDuckGo would be another example. Free search engine, even higher level of privacy than Google, been around for years.
My commentary has nothing to do with either Google search or email. It's about Google software
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that personally identifiable data is very valuable, and its usually technically possible to de-anonymize data. Even if laws are passed to protect privacy, there is no guarantee that those laws will not be changed due to influence from various politically powerful groups (government and industry, and foreign interests) that want access to that valuable data.
Once the data is collected its difficult to verify that it has been completely destroyed.
Re: (Score:3)
Google: Hello UK, we'd like some of your lovely Great British NHS health data please.
NHS: Ok, if you promise to look after it carefully.
Google: Whoops, we took a lot more than we should have.
NHS: Can we have it back then please?
Google: No, because we're Google.
NHS: Err....
Re: (Score:2)
The fundamental problem here is that most people just didn't understand t
Re: (Score:2)
Google stated on day 1 that Gmail scans emails to target ads.
Is paying really the only option, and if you pay can you absolutely trust that the company isn't also violating your privacy anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Google stated on day 1 that Gmail scans emails to target ads.
No, they really didn't do that... Somebody actually had to conclusively prove that they did and even after that they tried insisting that it wasn't a person who read it and that this machine generated data would only be read by machines. I remember this because I've been using it ever since it was an invite-only beta.
While direct payment isn't the only alternative anyone's ever come up to monetization trough heavy datamining, it's the only alternative that anyone has ever been able to get working success
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the Gmail Privacy Policy page from 4 days after it launched (earliest archived): https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
"Email contents and usage. The contents of your Gmail account also are stored and maintained on Google servers in order to provide the service. Google's computers process the information in your email for various purposes, including formatting and displaying the information to you, delivering targeted related information (such as advertisements and related links), preventing unsolicited
Privacy is the Iceberg waiting for the S.S. Google (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple's retort was pitch perfect. "Yes, Google, please talk out loud about "privacy" as much as possible."
By all means full steam ahead on your Unsinkable ship.
The only way to win is by not playing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that comment was pretty surreal. Apple offering privacy doesn't make it a luxury product. Google doing their best to invade everyone's privacy does.
Re: (Score:2)
As democratic arsonists, we believe anyone should be able to buy fire insurance!
Re: (Score:2)
I mean what other possible defenses does Pichai have? Attacking what small measure of privacy Apple might provide as a luxury good is about the best they can muster since the whole Google model seems to be giving away web services in exchange for total information capture.
In that is the implicit assumption that Google is more or less preying at least on the people who can't afford a more expensive platform with better privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple fags aren't welcome here.
Yah, no, they are. At least they provide comic relief.
Entirely in his control (Score:5, Insightful)
Google CEO Sundar Pichai recently said that "privacy cannot be a luxury good offered only to people who can afford to buy premium products and services"
I really don't understand why he would say this in public. Tilt my head one way and it's a dig at Apple for doing the right thing. Tilt my head the other way and it's a tacit acknowledgement that Google hasn't done nearly enough to protect user's privacy.
If he thinks that a lack of privacy in non-luxury goods is a problem customers are facing, the company he leads is uniquely positioned to do something about that problem and has been for the better part of the last decade, so why haven't they already?
Re: Entirely in his control (Score:5, Informative)
Apple will pay Google 12 billion this year for services
http://fortune.com/2018/09/29/... [fortune.com]
No, you got that backwards. Re-read your own link: "Google to Pay Apple $12 Billion". That's the exact opposite of what you just said, as well as the opposite of what the AC claimed a few posts back.
Everyone knows Google is paying Apple to remain the default search engine on iOS, but the above AC claimed that Apple was paying Google for access to Google's data. While I'm aware of at least one case of Apple purchasing consumer data from another company, I haven't heard anything about them purchasing that sort of data from Google, nor am I aware of Google even offering it. If you know otherwise, however, feel free to link.
Re: Entirely in his control (Score:3)
I think you will find that it is Google paying Apple, not the other way round.
Re: (Score:2)
Instructions unclear, server stuck in toilet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
by enforcing a default Google home page.
You seem to be suffering from a lack of facts. The default home page in Safari is a display of your bookmarks and most visited pages. I think it comes with some bookmarks pre-loaded if it's your first time using Safari, but that's about the extent of it.
And Apple already makes it trivially easy to switch the default search engine to DuckDuckGo, Bing, or a number of other engines I rarely hear mention of.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, changing browsers IS much harder. Changing search engines takes nothing more than toggling an option that you'd naturally stumble on if you ever looked through the app's settings, but changing browsers requires:
1) A presumptive awareness of competing browsers, since there's nothing in the OS to educate you of their existence
2) The wherewithal to find them, which is something we take for granted, but which much of the public does not, and particularly did not back when search engines were in their
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy is a luxury. It is the difference between living in a entry controlled building with a private elevator or a mansion on a large estate and a thin walled apartment where everyone knows your bussinees.
It is the difference between taking a bus and a Uber.
It is the difference between having your own Netflix and sharing.
It is the difference between public school where criminals
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't understand why he would say this in public.
The thing to remember here is that for most outside the tech field, (and probably for a disquieting number of people in the field), the public you mentioned just doesn't get it and/or doesn't care. Pichai may have said it just to see how controversial it is or isn't, to gauge how much more shit Google can get away with. He may also have been taken in by his own personal reality distortion field - drinking one's own Kool-Aid seems pretty common in Silly Valley. Hell, he may simply have had a few too many and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If he thinks that a lack of privacy in non-luxury goods is a problem customers are facing, the company he leads is uniquely positioned to do something about that problem and has been for the better part of the last decade, so why haven't they already?
I think there's the idea that there's this race to build up data collections. In this phase of industry development you want maximal data collection, selling privacy costs you some of the most valuable data (ie, the data of people with money).
At some point, the marginal return on more collected data will be less useful. They will have enough data that they can be more selective about what they continue to collect, plus growth will have slowed, making the sale of "privacy" more lucrative than the marginal
Apple gets $9B/year privacy cake and eats it too (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Apple gets $9B/year privacy cake and eats it t (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Me too, but millions of typical iOS users have no idea they can switch their search engine. And Apple knows this. And Apple profits off of it, to the tune of $9B/year, all while claiming their care about their users' privacy.
So you are saying it's Apple's fault that there is no equal or better alternative to Google search?
Have you seen the current Slashdot Poll and read its comments? [slashdot.org]
I'd love to go full privacy and ditch Google but as long as the alternatives are below Google's par I, and probably most other iOS users, won't switch search engine.
Even more amusing is your confusion. (Score:2)
I always chuckle when reading how Apple is supposed some privacy-minded brand. They may not directly violate users' privacy but they happily accept $9B/year to be an enabler for Google to do so
Myself, I always get a chuckle out of folks like yourself thinking that Google being the default search engine means anything compared to what Google gets form Android devices.
For instance - web pages in iOS don't get any location data unless you authorize it, so the Google search page is not getting location data fro
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm the one confused?
No, my argument is this is best compromise (Score:4, Insightful)
So your argument in support of Apple profiting off handing their users to Google to have their privacy harvested
I'm saying Google doesn't get very much from Apple users even with that deal. There's very little privacy Google has access to on iOS. Can you elaborate on what you THINK they are getting, instead of just using scary broad terms? I am pretty sure Google is getting a lot less than you think.
Here's the thing; the hard truth is that Google is still, by far, the best search engine. I know because I have my defaults set to Bing on the phone and Duck Duck Go on a desktop. But depressingly often, I have to turn to Google.
So what Apple is doing is the best possible compromise for people actually using phones - give people the Google that works, while minimizing what data Google can collect.
I mean, what is the REALISTIC alternative here? If Apple did not include Google by default for a search engine, people would clamor for it. Anyone that cares can easily switch away from it in a second. So what is the problem here?
Re: (Score:2)
* All of the users' search queries
* All of the users' click-through data from those queries
* The ability to track users across sites using exploits like the one described here [cultofmac.com]. That one has since been plugged but Google has some clever engineers and likely has deployed others.
I mean, what is the REALISTIC alternative here?
The realistic alternative is for Apple to either stop their insincere claims about u
Nope (Score:2)
All of the users' search queries
Not the ones that switched to some other search engine.
That is important because you are claiming they get ALL of Apple users data from that deal.
All of the users' click-through data from those queries
Yep, true, but that is the extent.
The ability to track users across sites using exploits like the one described here.
Come on. That article is from 2012, long blocked... if that's the best you can come up with, you have nothing else.
The realistic alternative is for Apple to ei
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of iOS users don't know they can change their search engine, let alone know how to do so. Apple knows this. Google knows this.
That is important because you are claiming they get ALL of Apple users data from that deal.
Where did I claim that?
Come on. That article is from 2012, long blocked... if that's the best you can come up with, you have nothing else.
Google was using that workaround for years before Apple realized it. Wh
Re: (Score:2)
I know because I have my defaults set to Bing on the phone and Duck Duck Go on a desktop. But depressingly often, I have to turn to Google.
Try using startpage.com instead? Google results, but without the tracking. Unfortunately, it's not one of the alternatives offered in Mobile Safari, but you could just go to their page, or download and install the startpage app instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Try using startpage.com instead? Google results, but without the tracking.
Yeah, I keep trying to use Startpage, and in fact it's the home page in the browser profile I'm using right now. But I end up using Google a LOT. Startpage may use Google; but entering the same search terms in both of them often produces wildly different results, and Startpage's are always lacking. Also, there is no equivalent to "allintext:", and to even get somewhat close you have to go to their 'Advanced Search' page. And there's no equivalent to "site:"; that means there's no equivalent to "-site:", so
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, what is the REALISTIC alternative here?
It's obvious: Make a privacy-focussed search engine the default or even force the choice like the Windows/EU 'browser ballot'. I'm sure you remember the power of having the default wrt IE on Windows, that value isn't lost on Google which is why it is willing to pay Apple billions more every year to retain the default position.
If Apple did not include Google by default for a search engine, people would clamor for it.
If that really is the case then why is Google paying Apple billions of dollars for it?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't have an argument, just likes to smell the stink of his own posts on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing that you're somewhere in Dallas is far less useful to Google than knowing your exact location and orientation within 10 feet. Please don't insult everyone by equating the two.
Re: (Score:2)
12 billion
http://fortune.com/2018/09/29/... [fortune.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They may put google as their default search engine, but they killed third party cookies 2 or so years ago on their web browser, effectively making it extra difficult for others (read, Google) to track their users. So there's that.
The default position ... (Score:2)
Re: The default position ... (Score:1)
voice assistants, browser and keyboard suggestions, etc.
Those explicitly rely on aggregate user input for things like trends.
So you're saying many aspects of apple products are garbage?
Try out Apple’s products, Siri is fine(none of the voice assistants is are that great). Differential Privacy is how Apple collects data [apple.com] for these things.This isn’t an either/or situation.
Pot, meet kettle ... (Score:3, Funny)
Apple Executive Dismisses Google CEO's Criticism Over Turning Privacy Into a 'Luxury Good'
Considering that Google has made it its mission to eradicate any shred privacy form the face of the universe I'd say that's the pot calling the kettle black.
Everything sucks (Score:2)
None Has privacy anymore (Score:2)
So, how could they sell it?
Well,it kinda is. (Score:1)
a couple of months and a couple of press releases (Score:2)
What a BS comment from Google. (Score:2)
Yeah. Apple products are luxury items. Regardless of what Apple say.
But it's not Apple who are deciding that all other products have to be leaky spy-gadgets which possibly let you pay for the product with your privacy.
It's everyone else who decide whatever privacy should be a thing and if so what that should cost.
Then again privacy may very well be a luxary feature by itself - and that's sad. In that companies like Google earn a lot of money from people's data so it carries a value and if you don't want to
Dissappointed they even responded (Score:3)
Seriously, Google's comments are nothing short of moronic, and don't even deserve a response.
There's nothing stopping Google from improving privacy to Apple's levels except their own greed.
Google (and Facebook, etc) *created* this issue in the first place. Apple simply identified a need and is capitalizing on it. Apple would have nothing if Google didn't give it to them on a silver plattern.
Do I wish Siri did a better job with voice rec? Of course I do. Siri desperately needs improvements. But not at the cost of what Googbookazon is doing.
Apple has a LOT of problems right now (like, their entire damn product line across the board...) but privacy is NOT one of them.
actions speak louder than words (Score:1)
if this is the case, why isn't google making more of an effort to ensure privacy in it's app store and within the android platform?
Apple isn't perfect, but has made a lot more effort to bring awareness to privacy and restrict apps that might go agains this. Google on the other hand, though they are more open and relaxed, does not put forth the effort within their os or app store.
Re: (Score:2)
Ban this fucktard at the firewall, please.