What Apple Does and Doesn't Know About You

Daniel_Stuckey writes "Tucked inside Apple's first-ever transparency report, published yesterday, was a not-so-subtle dig at the tech giant's competitors. 'Our business does not depend on collecting personal data,' Apple wrote. 'We have no interest in amassing personal information about our customers.' It's no secret that for social web companies like Google or Facebook, collecting, storing, and analyzing data about every aspect of your life translates into cold, hard cash—the more sensitive and personal, the better. But in the emerging post-NSA new world order, the unwritten privacy-for-cool services agreement that drives the internet ecosystem is making netizens increasingly uneasy."

Comments

It's true.

[grub]

Put the cash on the table for an iPhone or iPad: your deal is done. Get "free" Facebook, Google, etc. and your private information is how they make their money.

I'm happier paying up front and leaving the store with no parasites attached to me.

Re:It's true.

[ILongForDarkness]

I agree. Whenever I hear the next great company say "I don' know" like a blonde bimbo 5 years after being founded when asked how they are going to monetize I think: "I'm not going to like the answer when it comes".

There is a very easy way for companies to protect you from NSA if they so chose: don't collect info. User name and password so you know it is me when I log in. My IP, duration, what I did none of it needs to be tied to my account. Sure iTunes or Amazon might be able to make that upsale if they know everything I've ever done for 10hrs a year I spend shopping on their site but at what cost? I'd pay that extra $2 in lost profits to have them leave me the hell alone. Especially since I'm not a citizen of said big brother state.

Re:It's true.

[Nerdfest]

If Apple only makes their money selling hardware, how about opening up the OS to allow people to install anything they want? I'm happier having Google handle my searches and email than giving money to a company that keeps attempting to lock people to their 'walled garden'. Many people still use Google services even if they have an iOS device as well, as it tends to be some of the best available. Apple can get in all the 'digs' they want on their competition, but the RDF ain't what it used to be.

Re: It's true.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you (basically) have no problem with Google data mining your life. Good for you!

Re:It's true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you didn't bother to read the article. You're delusional if you think Apple doesn't collect your data but then again most mac heads are. It starts by paying 3 times more than comparable products. I give Apple a lot of credit though, at least their marketing department is highly effective. Who else could make "designed in California (and built in chinese sweatshops)" so sexy and expensive?

Re:It's true.

[gstoddart]

If Apple only makes their money selling hardware

I suspect these days Apple makes a lot of money from iTunes.

I'm happier having Google handle my searches and email than giving money to a company that keeps attempting to lock people to their 'walled garden'.

Have you used an Android tablet? I know my Nexus tries really hard to at least steer (if not downright force) me into using some Google stuff. I've had to actively prevent it from enrolling me in some Google services.

I'm betting Samsung tries to do the same thing. And, gee, I seem to recall Micrsosoft has decided to follow suit with their own 'walled garden'. Apple created a business model which everyone desperately wants to re-create.

Apple can get in all the 'digs' they want on their competition, but the RDF ain't what it used to be.

It remains to be see how they do in the long run, but Apple is still worth around $100 billion dollars or so -- I'd say that so far what you call the reality distortion field has, in reality, been working quite well from a business perspective.

Like 'em or hate 'em, Apple has had people lining up to buy their stuff (literally), and then keep buying stuff from iTunes and give them a pretty steady bit of revenue.

Re:It's true.

[smash]

You can install anything you want - if you have a copy of Xcode and a developer certificate. This is probably not what you mean, but i'll take the increase security of running only signed code over the device running any old stuff from anywhere, thanks. Computers have proven that doesn't work over the past 4 years.

Re:It's true.

[Runaway1956]

Exactly. Keep the absolute minimum of logs, and delete those logs routinely when they are no longer needed. Don't ask for personally identifying data, and if your business actually requires any type of such data - delete it as soon as practicable. Sixty or ninety days after payment for a purchase has cleared - you certainly don't need the identifying information any longer. Just delete it. There is no justification for selling that information to marketers. None. There is certainly no justification for keeping it around just in case Uncle Sam should ask for it. Tell Uncle to pay for his own investigations.

Re:It's true.

[Anonymous Coward]

if you believe this you're really dumb. apple wants and collects personal information, statistics, app purchase and usage histories, itunes browsing and purchasing histories, safari usage and a hell of a lot more... they not be as obvious as a google or facebook in monetizing this data, yet. but they still collect it all the same.

Re:It's true.

[Anonymous Coward]

how about opening up the OS to allow people to install anything they want?

Two words: quality control.

Re:It's true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet you advocate being the product of Google that they can sell to other people.

Re:It's true.

[TrollstonButterbeans]

Apple's path involves the customer paying with money.

Android/Google's path involves the customer paying via advertising --- which means being annoyed with popups and crapwares --- but not having to pay $$$ for features.

You do have to pick one of these 2 options, you know. If Apple were to let go of the walled garden --- they can't be gatekeeper and their devices would be the same as Android for all intensive purposes.

I'm thinking you don't understand that if Apple isn't Apple, the Google/Android way would over-run the experience and very quickly (no supervision = the insane run the asylum).

The only other way is the Linux-style scorched Earth policy that makes it incredibly hard to make money resulting in a barren, but interesting, retro self-help paradise of sorts.

Fast. Cheap. Good. Pick any 2.

Apple is Fast and Good, but not cheap. (Anything you want exists but isn't cheap)

Android is Fast and Cheap, but not good. (Anything you want is free, but comes with unwanted side-effect)

Linux is Cheap and Good, but not fast. (Anything you want exists and is free, but is time consuming and inconsistent).

Re:It's true.

[UnknowingFool]

I suspect these days Apple makes a lot of money from iTunes.

Well if only Apple released quarterly earnings so that you could find out.

iPad: $19.51B
iPhone: $6.19B
Mac: $5.62B
iPod: $0.57B
iTunes/Software/Services: $4.26B

For the sake of argument all of the $4.26B was iTunes sales. That means Apple gets $1.26B after they give their 70% cut to the copyright/developer. But that's revenue not profit. Well $1.26B is a lot of revenue and again let's assume it's 100% profit (it's not). However, they make almost 6x as much revenue on the iPhone and 18x much on the iPad. In other words, their software sales is a pittance compared to hardware.

Re:It's true.

[theshowmecanuck]

FTFA:

Apple gathers up about as much personal information on users as any other big tech company. The main difference is, it says it doesn't connect the dots. It may know everything about you, but it doesn't know you're you.

As to the last sentence of that: Sure and the cheque's in the mail. ... And

... Even if it does anonymize non-personal information, separate the sensitive life details you reveal to Siri or Safari from the company's user profile of you, and not associate your always-tracked device with your real identity, there's no question that personal user data (is a) big part of any technology company's business model these days. Even Apple.

Tell us your theory again. Mine is that Apple is a great marketing company. Really great. And that includes marketing its spin. You can believe Apple has your best interests at heart because you pay more. I just chose to believe you pay more. FWIW, my next computer is likely to be an Apple. I will not use Windows 8. But I don't buy into crap like 'you pay more for less intrusion into your privacy'. That's naive and/or self deceiving.

Re:It's true.

[smash]

UH... that was meant to be past "40" years, not 4.

Re:It's true.

[smash]

I already leave gatekeeper on, and can sign code if need be. Again, it is a necessary evil in my opinion - allowing unsigned code from anywhere to run is just a disaster.

Re:It's true.

[smash]

Above isn't troll, it's pretty much fact. Newsflash kiddos: there is no free lunch. You either pay up-front with money (Apple), or you pay with privacy/advertising (Google), or you pay with spending time to sort things out yourself (Linux/BSD/etc.). Make your choice.

Re:It's true.

[bhagwad]

Yes, I would feel better because you have a choice not to use Facebook.

Re:It's true.

[bhagwad]

Good for you. I happily and willingly give my private information to Google and benefit from their free services. I win. They win. Everyone wins. What's not to like about this?

Re:It's true.

[feral-troll]

If Apple only makes their money selling hardware, how about opening up the OS to allow people to install anything they want? I'm happier having Google handle my searches and email than giving money to a company that keeps attempting to lock people to their 'walled garden'. Many people still use Google services even if they have an iOS device as well, as it tends to be some of the best available. Apple can get in all the 'digs' they want on their competition, but the RDF ain't what it used to be.

IIRC Apple also makes tons money selling software and media. If you prefer living naked in Google's glass house to living fully clothed in Apple's walled garden that's your preference.

Re:It's true.

[feral-troll]

I suspect these days Apple makes a lot of money from iTunes.

Well if only Apple released quarterly earnings so that you could find out.

iPad: $19.51B iPhone: $6.19B Mac: $5.62B iPod: $0.57B iTunes/Software/Services: $4.26B

For the sake of argument all of the $4.26B was iTunes sales. That means Apple gets $1.26B after they give their 70% cut to the copyright/developer. But that's revenue not profit. Well $1.26B is a lot of revenue and again let's assume it's 100% profit (it's not). However, they make almost 6x as much revenue on the iPhone and 18x much on the iPad. In other words, their software sales is a pittance compared to hardware.

Yeah but they still have a point, their business model is not based on "collecting, storing, and analysing data about every aspect of your life" and then converting it into cash. It's a question of prioritization. If living outside of Apple's 'walled garden' is more important to you than your privacy then by all means use Google's services and devices running their OS. Alternatively you could use products from a third party although that is, admittedly, not easy in the growing Android monoculture we find ourselves increasingly stuck with. In the mean time perhaps we should all consider not going for click-bait like this story.

Re:It's true.

[GauteL]

"For the sake of argument all of the $4.26B was iTunes sales. That means Apple gets $1.26B after they give their 70% cut to the copyright/developer. But that's revenue not profit. Well $1.26B is a lot of revenue and again let's assume it's 100% profit (it's not). However, they make almost 6x as much revenue on the iPhone and 18x much on the iPad. In other words, their software sales is a pittance compared to hardware."

A very unfair comparison. You have deducted the major expense from the iTunes sales, but not from the hardware sales. They do have to pay the manufacturers of their hardware you know, just as they have to pay the copyright holders of the songs they sell. They also have to advertise their hardware products heavily, while for iTunes the advertisement is mostly done by others.

I'd be surprised if their margins on hardware is much bigger than their margins on iTunes, so it'd be far more fair to compare revenue directly.

Re:It's true.

[minus9]

"Put the cash on the table for an iPhone or iPad: your deal is done."

You forget the "Create ITunes account" bit.

Re:It's true.

[TheRaven64]

Would you... feel better if we privatized the NSA and called it Facebook 2.0? Heh. Hehehe. hehehehehehheeeeee.... idiots.

Well, the CIA would be disappointed. The fun thing about the Google vs Facebook competition is the undertones of interservice rivalry. On the one hand, you have Google that employs a lot of ex-NSA people (and the NSA, that employs a lot of ex-Google people - for a while, they were the only two big employers of data mining specialists in the USA) and on the other hand you have Facebook that got a lot of its initial funding from the CIA. I bet the CIA is now really upset to learn that the NSA has had better access to Facebook data than them...

Re:It's true.

[jo_ham]

This used to be the case.

The recent financial report from Apple has demonstrated that they now make a sizeable portion of their gross revenue from the iTunes/App store. This is a change from just a few years ago where it was a tiny sliver.

The store has been wildly successful for them and third party developers.

Re:It's true.

[UnknowingFool]

A very unfair comparison. You have deducted the major expense from the iTunes sales, but not from the hardware sales.

It's not an unfair comparison if it's true. On the hardware side, they don't have to deduct 70% of the sale immediately to give to Intel, Sharp, etc. We know that 70% of the revenue immediately goes to the copyright holder/developer. That means Apple gets 30% of the revenue to cover their costs and profit. So logically they make much less than 30% profit.

They do have to pay the manufacturers of their hardware you know, just as they have to pay the copyright holders of the songs they sell.

We don't exactly how much Apple must pay to manufacturers but we know Apple makes more than 30% profit on hardware.

They also have to advertise their hardware products heavily, while for iTunes the advertisement is mostly done by others.

Er what? So Apple never has to advertise for iTunes? And only Apple ever advertises their hardware? But let's look at the numbers again. Before costs, Apple made at most $1.26B revenue on iTunes. Comparatively, Apple made nearly $32B in revenue and conservatively $9.6B in profit on hardware. Again, Apple makes a pittance on iTune sales compared to hardware sales.

I'd be surprised if their margins on hardware is much bigger than their margins on iTunes, so it'd be far more fair to compare revenue directly.

You keep forgetting that 70% off the top goes to someone else immediately in iTunes. That means that they only have 30% to pay for their costs while they make more than 30% profit on hardware. While $1.26B seems like a lot, they have to maintain an infrastructure that has millions of songs, thousands of movies, hundreds of thousands of apps to service their hundreds of millions of customers. Also Apple has to maintain the payment systems on both sides to handle their customer's money as well as pay their copyright holders/developers.

Re:It's true.

[Anonymous Coward]

A big reason that Apple's OS isn't open is to keep the clean user experience.

Have you ever had to go clean crapware off a relative's iOS device? Of course not, because that doesn't happen. iOS is very carefully designed to restrict the ability of one app from interfering with the overall usage of the device. This shows up in a myriad of ways through both technical restrictions and limits on what apps are allowed to do that are enforced through the review process. Often these limitations nothing to do with preserving Apple's walled garden, and are just designed to keep apps from doing things to make using the device worse.

So yeah this means you can't install a custom keyboard. But it also means a custom keyboard can't data-mine what you're typing into every app across the system. Tradeoffs.

Re:It's true.

[smash]

It doesn't always work when you turn it on. Your system is in the minority amongst modern hardware. The number of 100% supported laptops for example (out of the box, or given 72 hours to play to try and make work) is exceedingly small.

Re:It's true.

[LifesABeach]

What is the difference between keeping all manor of information on a person, and Stalking?

Re:It's true.

[drinkypoo]

I have a Nexus 4 and "tries really hard to steer me into using some Google stuff" translates as "prompt you for a google account every time you try to use something which requires one". But if you simply skip entering google account details (there is a convenient arrow) and then drag the google folder off your homescreen into the trash and never open a google app again, you'll never see a google account prompt again. Yes, all the google apps are in one drawer, so you don't even have to drag a million icons off your launcher.

You're full of beans.

Re:It's true.

[alex67500]

For the sake of argument all of the $4.26B was iTunes sales. That means Apple gets $1.26B after they give their 70% cut to the copyright/developer. But that's revenue not profit. Well $1.26B is a lot of revenue and again let's assume it's 100% profit (it's not). However, they make almost 6x as much revenue on the iPhone and 18x much on the iPad. In other words, their software sales is a pittance compared to hardware.

If Apple tell you in their results that they made $4.26B, it's probably how much they cashed in, developers' share taken out...

Re:It's true.

[UnknowingFool]

Not according to what I know about accounting rules. If it is reported as "revenue" it is before any deductions. It would have been different it the collection was done by another party but since Apple is collecting the money, they have report it all. For example, a company on eBay can report sales as what eBay gives them after eBay takes their cut as eBay acts as a middleman.

Re:It's true.

[Goglu]

Of course, the iPad and iPod users' privacy is protected should they use "free" Facebook, Google, etc., right? Or do Apple clients not only pay up-front, but also get their privacy violated like everyone else?

Re:It's true.

[Anonymous Coward]

for all intensive purposes.

FYI, it's "for all intents and purposes." Figured someone should let you know at some point.

Re:It's true.

[fulldecent]

Odd, I though the cloud was the endgame from their 1984 commercial.

1984 commercial alternate ending -- the cloud

Re: It's true.

[grub]

Sorry, man. Google Translate can't parse Tard.

Re:It's true.

[fluffythedestroyer]

when I read this page, it seems Apple is collecting data and can share it with its partners so don't blame Google and Facebook alone. it's a good idea to point fingers at Google but they're not the only one doing it. You might pay for the device (Samsung or Apple) but the OS is free in both. It's when you start signing up for their service that you agree to share your personal info ...like it or not they will do it.

for example, this is one if the text: "We may also use personal information for internal purposes such as auditing, data analysis, and research to improve Apple’s products, services, and customer communications". Thats how they make their money too. please don't blame only 1 company only with others do the same. it's insulting and pathetic if you ask me.

On my part, i only use personal info if I really have too

Re: It's true.

[toppavak]

Not in the slightest. I'm one of (seemingly many) people who seem to believe that the payment Google offers in exchange for access to my personal information is quite fair. Just because you don't doesn't mean that other people are somehow ignorant for not having realized what "the game" is, it just means that they have slightly different ideas of what different types of privacy mean to them, which aspects of their privacy they are willing to put a price on and what that price might be.

Re:It's true.

[gsslay]

If you do not enter a google account you cannot download anything (even the free stuff) from Google Play.

That's fine if you never have any need for anything that isn't installed by default, but most people want to add to that. Or you want to get updates on the apps you do have. Once that Google Account is in there, even if it is for that one purpose, you'll find it a constant fight to keep things from being synced to it. Because it is the default action for practically everything, and is often a hidden default, you have to search it out on the settings somewhere, So it's not uncommon to find something has started uploaded your personal info within seconds of it being installed, before you even get the chance to stop it.

Course Google isn't alone with this. Many other apps that require accounts are equally eager to con you into allowing them to plunder your data. Some keep coming back to nag you about it, no matter how often you say no.

Re:It's true.

[morgauxo]

Can / does the NSA force companies to keep information? Could deleting the information in some sort of twisted police state logic be construed as destroying evidence or something similar to that? If this kind of thing happens then no doubt there are gag orders so we don't ever hear about it.

Re:It's true.

[organgtool]

I see this argument all the time and I find it hard to believe that the people making these claims don't have a Facebook account.

Re:It's true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or your pay upfront and pay with adevertising (Comcast)

Re:It's true.

[Runaway1956]

Stalking is personal. The data mining is impersonal.

If I were to keep dossiers on the two, or ten, or thirty hottest women I could find, that would be stalking. If, on the other hand, I'm keeping dossiers on everyone in my county, it isn't stalking.

Re:It's true.

[ILongForDarkness]

It's not destroying evidence unless they can prove a crime has been committed. They can't prove a crime as been committed without evidence. So they should be fine. You can't sue someone for not having something. The whole deal with the government being able to get records from companies hinges on the argument that the companies own the records not the customers. If the company owns them they have the right to do with them as they wish. That is until they make some sort of data retention laws for everyone not just people in sensitive industries (banking, healthcare etc).

Re:It's true.

[morgauxo]

I don't think that is a very good reason to chose an iOS device. Maybe Apple is better about privacy than Google. Or.. maybe they are just better at lying about it. I don't know but here is the more important difference to me... Google gives me a choice. I can remove all the Google services from my Android phone any time I want to. Yes, that includes the Play store. You don't have to use Google's 'marketplace' to install apps on an Android device. I can then chose from a number of alternatives that have nothing to do with Google. I can even roll my own solutions if I am truly paranoid. Unless you jailbreak Apple devices allow none of that. (My iPad is still on iOS 5 because I am awaiting an iOS 7 jailbreak grr!!!)

Really this isn't just about privacy. Apple is way too restrictive. I just got a lapdock for my Android phone. I plug my phone in and it basically works like a laptop. It's awesome! It even has a trackpad and better yet, it even allows me to plug in a mouse. It has USB ports!! I use it to do web development. That includes graphic editing that there is no way I would attempt without a real mouse.

Apple wants to TELL US what we need, and that a mouse is not it. iOS will never support a mouse.

I am also using it to do 'Arduino' development. It actually recognized my usb to ttl adapter so I can do the programming through it! I'm hoping to add the other common hobbyist micros, PIC, Propeller and MSP430 soon. I just need to figure out how to cross-compile the toolchains.

Yeah, I know, that's quite a geeky niche. It's about as far from the common hipster that both Apple and Google target as could be. And yet, Google products are flexible enough to accomidate my wishes. I thought I was going to have to buy a laptop or a netbook soon. Now it looks like my phone might be all I need. Thank you Google!

My needs are probably nothing like yours but aren't we all different in one way or another? I bet most of us have things a less locked-down device could do, we just might not all realize it because we don't all imagine that way. I don't want anyone to be forced into Apple's little person-mold. Apple can suck it!

Oh, one other thing, about your privacy... You have none! By necesity cell towers are limited in range. If there weren't we wouldn't be able to fit all of today's cellular traffic in the range of available radio frequencies. There isn't enough room, nature itself doesn't allow for it. So... the cellphone company has to have at least a rough idea of where you are to route calls to the correct tower to reach you. Also... all your data routes through them. Connect to the internet any other way... all your data is still routing through somebody. And you do NOT have any control over what happens from there. You can bet your life that whoever that is, they do record information and they do share with the NSA and marketing corps as well. There is too much money in it for then not to! It doesn't matter who wrote the OS on your phone! So... you want privacy? Turn off. It's is THE ONLY WAY!

Re:It's true.

[Nerdfest]

... and what's the number of OSX supported laptops? You buy hardware that runs the OS of your choice.

Re:It's true.

[Nerdfest]

Yes, in OSX you currently have a choice. I'm betting in the future that choice will be removed, and you will have to pay for the 'privilege'.

Re:It's true.

[smash]

As I said - With Linux, it is up to you to figure that out and run the gauntlet with regards to OEMs that SAY they support linux, but don't mention on the box that they released one driver for 2.6 back in 2012 and haven't put anything out since (oh hi ASUS!).

Pretty much everything supports Windows, and if you want a Mac OS X just works on it properly out of the box.

Re:It's true.

[smash]

That is entirely speculation on your part, about some future possible scenario. In the mean-time, I'll use what works thanks.

Re:It's true.

[bennomatic]

Under current law, my understanding is that this is not possible. Occasionally, some enterprising congress critter suggests a new law requiring providers of services to maintain all sorts of logs, but the folks on the left typically attack it as being an unacceptable privacy invasion, and the folks on the right attack it as being an unsustainable burden on business.

But it's possible that some day, a law will pass requiring all companies to keep exhaustive, indexed laws of all electronic communication, both by internal parties and clients. It's not likely, and it'd be expensive to implement and difficult to enforce, but it's not impossible.

Re:It's true.

[disposable60]

Exactly. Keep the absolute minimum of logs, and delete those logs routinely when they are no longer needed. Don't ask for personally identifying data, and if your business actually requires any type of such data - delete it as soon as practicable. Sixty or ninety days after payment for a purchase has cleared - you certainly don't need the identifying information any longer. Just delete it. There is no justification for selling that information to marketers. None. There is certainly no justification for keeping it around just in case Uncle Sam should ask for it. Tell Uncle to pay for his own investigations.

When the law says 'keep that data for -n- years, that's how long it's needed.

Re:It's true.

[ceoyoyo]

Then you keep what's required and you write what it is in a big font and plain language when people sign up, and somewhere obvious (like the Privacy link) whenever they want to refresh their memories.

Most companies keep MUCH more than is required by law, and are very evasive about what it is they're keeping and what it is they're using it for.

Re:It's true.

[ceoyoyo]

You can install anything you want on a Mac. On an iOS device you can use whatever e-mail account you want (including Google) with the built in e-mail client, or install any of dozens of others you like, including the Google mail app.

Re:It's true.

[ceoyoyo]

The last three lines are a nice summary, actually I'll have to remember that.

(PS: all intents and purposes)

Re:It's true.

[ceoyoyo]

Actually, it's a pretty fundamental economic truth, famously abbreviated TANSTAAFL by some famous science fiction writers. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. In order to create things of value, somebody has to do some work and/or spend some resources. With the traditional commercial pay-up-front model you pay money and get things. With the web 2.0 model you pay with your information, which the seller then sells to others who have a use for it. With freeware, open source, etc. you pay with your time, contributing to the project, or you pay with your time making the product work for you. If you get lucky and your needs happen to align with those of the project then your payment is minimal (you're a leech and the project contributors are paying for you) but that's unlikely to be the situation all the time.

With the traditional model the price is clear and you are free to take it or leave it. With the open source model the price is not always clear but you are still free to take it or leave it, or quit halfway through the transaction (I can't get it to work, I give up). If you're nice you might even get some altruistic help. The web model, to me, is by far the worst. The price is not clear (generally the seller, including big names like Google, is very evasive or downright lies about it) and is completely out of your control: Google may decide to use your information in one way, or sell it to a specific entity, today, but in completely new ways and sell it to new people tomorrow, completely without your permission, knowledge or veto. Sometimes you don't even have the take it or leave it choice because the information is collected without your knowledge, with web tracking for example. In some cases it's even collected against your explicit expressed wishes, as with the Google-Safari thing.

Re:It's true.

[ceoyoyo]

People who hate Apple and can't come up with any better arguments have been saying that for decades. It hasn't come true and there's no real indication it ever will. If it did anyone who cared would just switch to something else.

Re:It's true.

[ceoyoyo]

Apple isn't a marketing company. They hire marketing companies (you're correct, the ones they hire are the best in the business). Google is a marketing company (probably the largest and most powerful one).

Re:It's true.

[ceoyoyo]

You know, you'd be more believable with some basic fact checking. I should be working so I'm not going to address your last three points, but the first ones are easy enough:

Want music? Install whatever DRM free music you want. Apple once took a lot of flak for including encouragements to rip CDs as part of their marketing.

Upgrade hard drive? The notebook I'm typing this on is a mac and not only has an upgraded hard drive but has the CD drive replaced by an SSD. More recent macs don't have hard drives, but you can still buy one that does if that's important to you.

Ebook from Amazon? The Amazon ebook app on my iPad disagrees vehemently with your assertion.

Boobies? Type "breast fetish" into Safari's address bar, or the search box of the browser of your choice, on any Apple product that runs web browsers. You're welcome.

Re:It's true.

[exomondo]

And then the Year of the Linux Desktop will finally arrive?

Re:It's true.

[Runaway1956]

I'll echo what ceoyoyo said, and add that companies should be actively protesting any unreasonable laws that require them to save data. Data storage may not be a huge cost, but it is a cost. Government shouldn't require any business to store data without clear, convincing justification. And, I mean clear, convincing justification that a reasonable person can agree with - not justification that only a spook or a lawyer can understand.

Re:It's true.

[LifesABeach]

Then "directed" ads are?

Re:It's true.

[smash]

Yup, the web model is the most insidious because few read the fine print, expect something for free and then get outraged when they find out what they've been paying for the product with. the other problem is that once you have given a third party your information, There's no getting it back. With traditional payment models, or open source/free software - if find the deal is not to your liking you can cancel at any time and stop paying. Once company X has your personal information, there's nothing you can do about it.

Re:It's true.

[smash]

Possibly. Given that I've been waiting for the year of the Linux desktop since 1996 and keep seeing the same mistakes being made to hinder adoption and generally prevent the platform from gaining traction, I wouldn't hold my breath. After a decade and a bit with Linux, I gave up waiting, bought a Mac running OS X, liked it and have been pretty happy ever since. I still have a Linux install on my PC to keep up with developments, but to be honest I haven't really seen any real, meaningful progress on the desktop front since KDE 2.0.

Re:It's true.

[Runaway1956]

No, it's still impersonal, in that no individual has targeted you as an individual for his own personal attentions. A corporation very impersonally scoops up all the data they can find on you, crunches numbers, and the computer decides on the proper advertisements. The guy sitting at the computer doesn't give one small damn about me, he isn't saving photos of me to his own personal flash drive, he isn't actually salivating over my choice of underwear, or socks, or anything like that. To him, I'm just some odd numbers within a stream of data.

The moment that he peeks within those number streams, and spots something that turns him on (or off, as the case may be), and he intervenes in some person's life, THEN it becomes stalking.

Re:It's true.

[ceoyoyo]

Even reading the fine print is pretty much useless. Most of it amounts to essentially "all rights reserved, including the right to change this agreement at any time." I doubt Google's agreement says they're going to read your e-mail, just that they may use anything you send them, however they want. Apple's probably says essentially the same thing.

Re:It's true.

[smash]

According to the apple privacy policy, information is not disclosed to third parties for marketing purposes. it is mentioned explicitly in the policy under "disclosure to third parties".

Disclosure to Third Parties

At times Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers. For example, when you purchase and activate your iPhone, you authorize Apple and its carrier to exchange the information you provide during the activation process to carry out service. If you are approved for service, your account will be governed by Apple and its carrier’s respective privacy policies. Personal information will only be shared by Apple to provide or improve our products, services and advertising; it will not be shared with third parties for their marketing purposes.

I.e., it is used by apple so their contractors can ship to you, for credit services, etc. and used by apple for their own marketing. No one else's marketing.

Re:It's true.

[ceoyoyo]

I do think Apple has more of an interest in protecting customers' privacy than other technology companies because their customers pay them. Having a plain language privacy policy is impressive. I'd still add the word "ever" into that last sentence, though.

Re:It's true.

[smash]

Exactly. Its why I am reasonably happy to pay them. As they say, if a service is free, you are the product.

Re:It's true.

[doccus]

He seems like a very *sincere* shill, I mean, maybe he really thinks he's helping against "big brother", but he's still a liar, and a really irresponsible one at that. Just like American preachers haven't yet discovered you can't save souls by lying and exaggerating , which they all defend saying it';s all for the "greater good", Alex hasn't discovered that making up wild eyed conspiracies on the spot, does not keep anyone "safe". I mean, have a listen sometime to his turn of the millenium broadcast. It's insane! And i don't know how well meaning his repeated attempts to disrupt legitimate protests (especially in Texas) couild ever have possibly been. I would respect Jesse Ventura a lot more if he dropped that shill as a contact, now he's planning a Presidential bid...

Re:It's true.

[Em Adespoton]

What about iCloud integration? Apple has now made iCloud mandatory for address book and calendar syncing. I'd rather keep this info to myself thank you, based on how it can be even inadvertently abused.

Re:It's true.

[TrollstonButterbeans]

"intents and purposes" ... ah good catch!!!!

Re:It's true.

[chopthechops]

Windows isn't designed to work on different hardware without a reinstall, that's not anecdotal.

I have done many, many PC motherboard replacements over the years using both Windows and Linux based machines and the circumstances where Windows DOESN'T need a reinstall of the OS and drivers plus all updates and service packs (and sometimes applications) are rare. On the other hand linux in general (though not always) doesn't require any reinstallation or reconfiguration when switching main boards. The Windows reinstall process usually takes many hours.

Re:It's true.

[smash]

Given that Windows licenses are not generally transferrable to new hardware anyway, this isn't such a surprise.

Buzzword bingo!

[Joining Yet Again]

...in the emerging post-NSA new world order, the unwritten privacy-for-cool services agreement that drives the internet ecosystem is making netizens increasingly uneasy...

"emerging"
"post-"
"NSA"
"new world order"
"unwritten agreement"
"services"
"privacy"
"meaningless-hyphenation"
"drive"
"internet ecosystem"
"netizens"

Re:Buzzword bingo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Could Daniel_Stuckey actually be Jon Katz? I'm having a Finkle and Einhorn moment...

bull. shit.

[nimbius]

http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/153/apple-phones-home-too
https://www.apple.com/privacy/
When you share your content with family and friends using Apple products, send gift certificates and products, or invite others to join you on Apple forums, Apple may collect the information you provide about those people such as name, mailing address, email address, and phone number.

When you create an Apple ID, register your products, apply for commercial credit, purchase a product, download a software update, register for a class at an Apple Retail Store, or participate in an online survey, we may collect a variety of information, including your name, mailing address, phone number, email address, contact preferences, and credit card information.

Re:bull. shit.

[Petersko]

You could read that as, "We're evil and we're collecting your information for nefarious purposes", or you could read it as, "We don't want to pull a 'google-wifi', so we'll cover our asses with a 'we may'".

Re:bull. shit.

[ILongForDarkness]

Talking to a coward I realize but the thing is Apple by virtue of the Apple id has much more specific user info than probably anyone but Facebook. They make you login to get free apps and such so it isn't just your purchases it is every interaction in their store, what you chose to download onto your device etc. all tied to a real person. Facebook is potentially worse because they know more about you than what flavor of condoms you prefer (your friends, your conversations, friends of friends etc).

Re:bull. shit.

[R3d M3rcury]

Don't forget their history of things that you buy via iTunes. And don't forget that Apple "sells" that information by way of iAds.

So, no, Apple's business doesn't depend on getting personal information for marketing purposes. It's just a happy side benefit.

Re:bull. shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Collecting name and contact information

compared to...

Making database of email contents, web browsing habits, search strings, chats, voice calls, social network, photos, etc, including "dark profiles" of non-"customers"

Yeah, totally the same thing.

Re:bull. shit.

[Brulath]

When you share your content with family and friends using Apple products, send gift certificates and products, or invite others to join you on Apple forums, Apple may collect the information you provide about those people such as name, mailing address, email address, and phone number.

So when you send a product they may collect the address to send it to? Or if you invite someone to join a forum it may collect the email address with which to contact them? Absurd.

When you create an Apple ID, register your products, apply for commercial credit, purchase a product, download a software update, register for a class at an Apple Retail Store, or participate in an online survey, we may collect a variety of information, including your name, mailing address, phone number, email address, contact preferences, and credit card information.

So when you purchase something using a credit card, or add a credit card to an account, they might collect other information which credit card companies require in order to prove your identity (and make charge-backs less likely)? Inconceivable.

Clearly this information collection is not for the same reasons or in the same league as Google or Facebook's data trawling.

Re:bull. shit.

[Guy Harris]

When you share your content with family and friends using Apple products, send gift certificates and products, or invite others to join you on Apple forums, Apple may collect the information you provide about those people such as name, mailing address, email address, and phone number.

One might reasonably expect that if you're having Apple send an e-mail message to somebody else (such as "here's a URL", "here's a picture", "join me on this forum", etc.), they would need to collect that person's e-mail address at minimum (and a name so that the From: line doesn't look quite so cheesy), and that if they're going to send someone a physical product, they would need to collect that person's name and mailing address at minimum. I don't know about the phone number, unless that might be used if you "send" them a product to be delivered to an Apple store rather than to their home and you specify that they should be sent a text message when the product arrives (which is an option they offer).

When you create an Apple ID, register your products, apply for commercial credit, purchase a product, download a software update, register for a class at an Apple Retail Store, or participate in an online survey, we may collect a variety of information, including your name, mailing address, phone number, email address, contact preferences, and credit card information.

At least when purchasing things, they'd need credit card information if you're purchasing stuff online. Most if not all sites where I've used my credit card want my mailing address (perhaps to make sure that credit card really belongs to the person at 111 Penny Lane, Anytown, USA), my name (perhaps to make sure that the credit card really belongs to Jane Doe), and some want the phone number (perhaps to call me if there's a problem).

So, yes, in some sense, their business, like many other businesses, requires that you provide them with some amount of personal data so that they can send you messages, bill your credit card, etc.. Apple's claim, for what it's worth, appears to be "the personal data is not of value to us for other purposes", e.g. "Safari doesn't keep track of where you go online so that we can send you e-mail about Apple products that our analysis of that data suggests you might like".

Re:bull. shit.

[Guy Harris]

Talking to a coward I realize but the thing is Apple by virtue of the Apple id has much more specific user info than probably anyone but Facebook. They make you login to get free apps and such so it isn't just your purchases it is every interaction in their store, what you chose to download onto your device etc. all tied to a real person.

Whereas Google has, if you have a Google account, a bunch of information about what Web searches you do, for example. Apple does have a bunch of information about your interaction with them; whether they have more such information than, say, Google is another matter.

Re:bull. shit.

[Anubis IV]

Yeah, and? Unless they have actual magic at their disposal (as opposed to the way that they refer to some of their products as "magical"), I don't see how they can possibly deliver something to a recipient unless they collect at least some contact information, do you? If you sign into iTunes and send someone a gift certificate, Apple needs to know who you're sending it to and how they can be reached. Is this really a surprise? Is this really unexpected behavior or in any way deleterious to the privacy of the individuals involved?

And with that last paragraph, the information they're collecting seems to be minimal and directly applicable. How else are you supposed to purchase products online if not with a credit card? How are you supposed to register your product without providing some form of contact information? How are you supposed to create an online account without giving them your e-mail address? Note what they're not collecting: your social graph, how you use those purchases after you buy them, your, your browser signature, etc..

There's a big difference between collecting basic contact information and collecting deep social connections, usage histories, etc..

Re: bull. shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't use, or store, anything in icloud. It's not a requirement.

SMS goes through your carrier. iMessage goes though apple.

Re:bull. shit.

[feral-troll]

Talking to a coward I realize but the thing is Apple by virtue of the Apple id has much more specific user info than probably anyone but Facebook. They make you login to get free apps and such so it isn't just your purchases it is every interaction in their store, what you chose to download onto your device etc. all tied to a real person. Facebook is potentially worse because they know more about you than what flavor of condoms you prefer (your friends, your conversations, friends of friends etc).

If you are worried about Apple finding out where you live when you signing up for an Apple ID, keep in mind that when you sign up for G-mail Google is parsing your personal correspondence. Google is also archiving your search history, you can disable search history in your account but they probably keep tracking it nevertheless. If you start using Google Docs they may also be parsing that data. I'm not sure what their policy is on photographs that you upload to Google+/Picasa Web Albums but you are probably not going to like that either if you are worried about Apple knowing your name, mailing address, email address, and phone number. Also, why would you be more worried about Apple finding out your: name, mailing address, email address, and phone number than you are about Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Ebay finding out the same data?

Re:bull. shit.

[AmiMoJo]

One might reasonably expect that if you're having Apple send an e-mail message to somebody else (such as "here's a URL", "here's a picture", "join me on this forum", etc.), they would need to collect that person's e-mail address

Why on earth would that be? They generate a URL/code and you can email it to whoever you want using your own email client. HTML supports generating mailto links with the subject and body filled out for you, so why not just use that? At least if you send the email there is less chance of it accidentally being marked as bulk spam from a server that spews thousands of near identical messages every day.

If Apple really cared about privacy they could easily provide all this functionality in a way that doesn't require them to collect and store other people's personal information. When I share a link on Andorid it generates an email or SMS or tweet or whatever using the app I specify, and if the message never touches Google's servers then they don't get any of that information.

However, if we ever need that data

[Rinikusu]

We'll just purchase it from Google/Facebook since everyone's so keen on posting up everything they do in their lives everywhere.

Re: However, if we ever need that data

[Anonymous Coward]

I like that this is submitted anonymously.

Apple Says Something Uninteresting

[hercludes]

Paraphrased from within the link, "We have a lot of privacy information, we just don't connect it together." How flattering Apple, you know, this reminds me of (insert country here) that is collecting a ton of (insert commodity here). They don't plan to use it of course. They just like collecting it, and doing nothing interesting with it. No, nothing special all. Isn't that right, Apple? Or, should I say, Big BrApple?!?! (Terrible joke, I know)

Re:Apple Says Something Uninteresting

[Guy Harris]

Paraphrased from within the link, "We have a lot of privacy information, we just don't connect it together." How flattering Apple, you know, this reminds me of (insert country here) that is collecting a ton of (insert commodity here). They don't plan to use it of course. They just like collecting it, and doing nothing interesting with it. No, nothing special all. Isn't that right, Apple?

No, it's not. They do things with it, such as:

• using your credit card information to charge you when you make a purchase;
• using your name and address to, I suspect, check whether it really is your credit card;
• using your e-mail address to send you whatever messages you ask them to send;
• using your friends' e-mail addresses and names to send them messages when you share pictures/URLs/etc. with them or ask them to join you on a forum;
• using your friends' mailing addresses if you buy a gift for them and ask Apple to deliver it to them;

etc..

No, this doesn't say that they would never use it for other purposes, but, in the case of the stuff they're talking about, it's pretty much all stuff that they need in order to do something you ask them to do. They're basically saying "yes, some stuff our software and Web sites do require you to supply information, so we're telling that just in case you didn't realize that".

Re:Apple Says Something Uninteresting

[hercludes]

Yeah, of course. It's still fun for me to poke fun at though, mostly because they take like to say, "No, no, we're not like the other guys. We do the same as the other people, but we're not like them." etc etc.

Re:iads?

[grub]

On an iOS device go to Settings->Privacy->Advertising and there is a setting labelled "Limit Ad Tracking" which you can enable or disable.

I don't think Facebook or Google offer that.

Even if Apple doesn't connect the dots, so what?

[pathological liar]

Things get more interesting with the second category: "non-personal" information, which is any user data that isn't associated with a specific individual. We're talking about details like customers' jobs, real-time location, habits, and the like. That data, the company says, is collected anonymously. Apple has free reign to share, sell, or store it however it damn pleases.

Just because Apple hasn't explicitly tied a name to the information doesn't mean it's anonymous. Even a fragment of the location data is enough to identify most people.

The point is no longer "What $COMPANY does with the data it collects", though that might be unsettling on its own, it's what the NSA (or any other data aggregator) can do with it.

Re:iads?

[ILongForDarkness]

I hear you get that from unprotected interactions with strange connectors.

Apple Account

[gimmeataco]

Why do I need a Apple account to download free apps?

Re:Apple Account

[AHuxley]

Mostly for a security setting to only run trusted apps, easy updating globally, reviews. You might spend $5 or $200 over time after finding 'free' useful and well coded.
You can still get/run software from anywhere on the net: open source, shareware, rental, retail.

Re:Apple Account

[EvilSS]

Because that's the way they decided to build it. Get over it.

Re:iads?

[Nerdfest]

Actually, Google does have that with their accounts. FaceBook, no, I don't think so.

Re:Hmm

[singularity]

Where is the '-1, Factually Incorrect' mod when you need it?

1) Yes, all Apple devices now prompt for an AppleID when you first turn them on. There is a 'Skip' button that you apparently completely missed, though. It is not a hidden button.

2) Apparently you were unable to do a simple Google search to figure out how to create an iTunes Store account without a credit card. Apple has posted directions.

Or does reality not fit with the bad image you want to have of Apple?

Think of the Upside

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm completely OK with invasive privacy violations as long as we use that power to hunt down and imprison anyone who uses the term 'netizens'.

Re:Think of the Upside

[Macgrrl]

Friends of mine used to have a start up called Netizen back in the late '90s. It did UNIXy/Web development and training.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

You could not find the "Skip" button on this screen?
http://cdn.tutsplus.com/mac.tutsplus.com/authors/john-winter/appleID-Mac.jpg

So no "Profitability"?

[Bananenrepublik]

Yeah, like Apple would forgo an opportunity to earn money, simply because they also earn money elsewhere. They may not be desperate to make money from the data they collect, but they would be stupid (in the "maximum shareholder value" frame of reference) not to benefit from it as much as possible.

Re:So no "Profitability"?

[jcr]

Yeah, like Apple would forgo an opportunity to earn money, simply because they also earn money elsewhere.

They've done exactly that, many times. Not all profitable activities are profitable enough to be worth Apple's time and attention. That's why they gave up making the Xserve and Xserve RAID products, for example.

-jcr

Re:So no "Profitability"?

[pushing-robot]

True, but that's only part of the equation. If privacy is valuable to their customers, Apple will gain customers (and money) by not harvesting their data.

Besides, Google is far more experienced at data mining than Apple is likely to ever be, so rather than try to beat Google at their own game, it's probably wiser for Apple to play counterpoint here.

Re:So no "Profitability"?

[SuperKendall]

they would be stupid (in the "maximum shareholder value" frame of reference) not to benefit from it as much as possible.

"Stupidity" would be to ignore there's a very real demographic who values privacy and will pay a premium to companies that respect that.

Long term value is not gained from harming or devaluing customers.

Re:So no "Profitability"?

[jcr]

collecting user data doesn't take any "time and attention", it's basically just pure "profit".

You have no idea what you're talking about. Don't ever attempt to run a business.

-jcr

Re:So no "Profitability"?

[gnasher719]

Yeah, like Apple would forgo an opportunity to earn money, simply because they also earn money elsewhere. They may not be desperate to make money from the data they collect, but they would be stupid (in the "maximum shareholder value" frame of reference) not to benefit from it as much as possible.

They would be stupid. Abusing your data is not part of their business. It would be very hard to turn this into profit, and Google is probably better at it :-) On the other hand, the price they would have to pay in lost hardware sales because of damaged reputation would outweigh any of those profits.

Re:So no "Profitability"?

[ceoyoyo]

Yeah, that's why "big data" is such a hot area, employing lots of people with PhDs and building giant data farms. It's easy, doesn't take any work at all.

Not to mention that collecting information on your customers might very well have negative effects. Some people don't LIKE being tracked. Apple has a competitive advantage against Google by protecting your privacy. They could probably keep and sell information about you, but that would have a negative effect on the rest of their business. Nothing is free.

Re:Even if Apple doesn't connect the dots, so what

[AHuxley]

Thanks to Snowden the world now understands what telcos, OS and hardware makers like to do.
Enjoy your computer games, surfing for sport, celeb news, tech news and music.
They sold you junk encryption so enjoy their junk OS and enjoy feeding back to that powerful tracking everyday.
Any real creativity can be done on other OS, well understood hardware and with quality emerging crypto.
Consume tracked digital culture in a random yet bland way :)
The other interesting aspect is now watching the flood of skilled sock puppets to reinvent their US bosses and US brands pasts.
They did not know in any way, the court "accounts impacts" tally, are so legal and very public too. The companies understand privacy.
The US gov somehow got deep into their infrastructure or just outside it but where never helped by the brands staff.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the '-1, Factually Incorrect' mod when you need it?

1) Yes, all Apple devices now prompt for an AppleID when you first turn them on. There is a 'Skip' button that you apparently completely missed, though. It is not a hidden button.

When you hit "skip", it gives you a warning that you won't be able to use the App store. So you have to enter your information even to get free apps, even though they have "no interest in amassing personal information about [their] customers"

2) Apparently you were unable to do a simple Google search to figure out how to create an iTunes Store account without a credit card. Apple has posted directions.

True.

Notably, the first step in those directions is signing up for the App store. So you have to enter your information, even though they have "no interest in amassing personal information about [their] customers"

Having a workaround posted online somewhere seems less intuitive than having a simple "Would you like to link your credit card to this account? YES/NO" prompt during setup. It's almost as if they actually do want the private data they have "no interest in".

Or does reality not fit with the bad image you want to have of Apple?

They have "no interest" in the data. Their business doesn't "depend on" the data.
Why do they collect it anyway?

Seems to me they've given the other companies a decent excuse, while saying they themselves -don't- have an excuse.

Re:Hmm

[Guidii]

Note to author: Your link in step 2 requires an AppleID, which you said you didn't need in step 1.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Do a simple Google search? Like I'm going to tell THEM that I want a secret iTunes account.

Re:Hmm

[Macgrrl]

I set up an AppleID for my mum a few months back with no creditcard attached. I used a giftcard to download a few bits of software for her and it all worked fine.

If only there was a way to tell Google to stop asking for a mobile number. I don't want to give it to them, and my parents don't have one at all (at it bugs my dad who then complains to me about it).

Re:Hmm

[Runaway1956]

People are refuting the facts you posted. Fact is, I have never created an Apple account before. Never. Following your link, I found that the directions contained in the link are in fact somewhat outdated. But - using that link, I found the information necessary to create a new account, using fictitious information, and NO CREDIT CARD NUMBER had to be submitted. As a result of testing the validity of your post, I now have an account with which I might download "stuff", without ever paying for anything. Hell - I'm gonna go poke around, and see if they have anything that I'm even interested in. Do they have free music? Guess I'll find out . . . .

I've got a Bridge in Arizona I want to sell you...

[trims]

That statement from Apple doesn't even pass the laugh test, let alone a sniff test.

I live and work in Silicon Valley, and have a substantial number of friends and former co-workers that either are, or have recently, worked for Apple.

They're collecting data on you. Lots of it. And their "opt out" ways are about as effective as Google's at protecting your data.

iTunes play patterns, and purchase history. Apple Maps. Location data around phone usage. Location usage, period. Apple Store purchase patterns. Every time you visit an Apple Store. Purchase data from the on-line Apple App Store. The list goes on and on.\

Some of it anonymized, but most of it really isn't. Even if you "opt out", there's more than enough metadata being collected to identify you.

So, yeah, Apple's just lying through it's teeth.

iChat / iMessage have NSA PRISM attached

[Burz]

They held out longer than some others, but Apple now cooperates in spying on their customers.

Re:iChat / iMessage have NSA PRISM attached

[Burz]

iTunes--- I totally forgot about this! One of the biggest marketing engines in the world supposedly has "no interest" in collecting personal info?

Re:25 years ago

[GrahamCox]

And no fucks were given.

Does apple sell that info?

[mveloso]

Apple may collect that information, but as Apple said, their business does not depend on the sale of that info. Selling access to you is not core to their business, like FB and Google.

They'd be stupid if they didn't collect that information. You're a 5 digit ID - can't you tell the difference between "we don't care about selling your data" and "your data is what we sell?"

Re:Does apple sell that info?

[Shag]

This may sound quaint, but back in the day, retailers and service providers knew their customers. In market segments where you can't just buy everything online, some still do. I'm on first-name basis with lots of people I buy things or services from in my small city. And honestly, I can get better service if they actually keep track of some info.

I have to get my car an annual safety check. If I forget, and the sticker is super out of date, I could get a ticket or something. Fortunately, I have a really great mechanic - so great that when I first started taking cars to him a decade or so ago, he was "just" a mechanic, and he now co-owns the service station. Great guy, seriously, and a good dad too; I run into him and his daughter sometimes around town. So I take the car to his station every year. Similarly, I have a dentist I go to. Years ago, we used to take turns driving each other's kids to school, so I've known his whole family for almost a decade now. Back then I didn't have dental insurance, but when I needed a dentist, he was the one I called, and when I got insurance, I stuck with him. He knows his stuff, and his support staff are all friendly too; his wife works the front office and his daughter that I used to drive to school does X-rays now. Of course, since I go there, my whole family goes there. So... real small-town Americana stuff, ya know?

Every time I see the dentist, we decide when my next appointment will be. Sometimes I have to change it due to work obligations. But about a week ahead of time, I get a postcard in the mail reminding me, and a couple days ahead of time, they give me a call to confirm. They're really good at this, and they apply it across their entire customer base, so they know ahead of time when somebody's cancelling/rescheduling an appointment and freeing up a slot that they can use for somebody who needs urgent work done.

On the other hand, the service station just puts a sticker on the inside of my windshield to remind me what month or mileage my next oil change should be at. They don't give me any kind of reminder about my safety check coming up for renewal - even though I consistently go to them, when I could go almost anywhere to get it done. On the rare occasions that my wife gets the car fueled (she isn't the do-it-herself kind), people at other stations will point out to her that it's coming up for renewal.

Scaling up a bit, you've probably heard the story about how Target knows us better than we know ourselves - guy notices that his regular ads from Target suddenly have a lot of baby-oriented things in them, wonders why, only later discovers that his daughter is preggers. Target knows what I buy and spits out coupons that are at least more relevant than Google ads. Safeway does likewise, and will even give me special offers above and beyond their "club card" prices on things they know I like (or think I might).

So if Apple collects that kind of data - customer records, usage records, behavioral stuff - for the purpose of providing better service to me, please forgive me if I don't immediately pick up a torch and a pitchfork and storm 1 Infinite Loop with the rest of the villagers.

Not to say that Facebook, Google, LinkedIn and the rest never do anything of the kind - right off the top of my head, "People you may know" features are actually fairly helpful - but the fact that Apple actually has a substantial "brick and mortar" retail presence that sells large amounts of physical, kickable things seems to help keep them from completely forgetting what "customer service" is about.

Re:Does apple sell that info?

[drinkypoo]

The problem is that data need never rot and corporations never die. Do you trust the Apple of tomorrow with your data of yesterday?

Re:Does apple sell that info?

[AmiMoJo]

iTunes very much depends on linking up that data. Your preferences are used to select what new goods and services are marketed to you through the iTunes interface. Without it they would make much less money.

They also sell iAds to third parties, just like Google does. Don't kid yourself, they make a packet by abusing your personal data, and you agreed to it through the epic iTunes EULA. Go read the whole thing, it's all right there about how they use your data. Get back to us in a week or two when you are finished.

Re:Does apple sell that info?

[ceoyoyo]

Apple has all sorts of nice little customer service things that do depend on keeping some information about you. When my macbook was stolen a few years ago it was easier for me to just ask Apple for the original invoice for the insurance company rather than try and find it in my files. If you have an account with them they can e-mail you receipts (and also store them for you) rather than give you paper ones.

It's sad that you can't think of any reasons a business would want to know a few things about their customers except to sell it to the highest bidder.

Post-NSA

[thegoldenear]

If only we _were_ in a "post-NSA new world order".

Pete Boyd

Re:I've got a Bridge in Arizona I want to sell you

[BlackPignouf]

That.
I installed Mavericks on my Mac Mini last week.
Clean install, no Bluetooth, no personal information given, no smartphone connected and obviously no GPS.
Just localhost login and WiFi password.
I wanted to take a look at Apple Maps and clicked on "Your location" to see if it would get my city right.
Well, the map was zoomed at 20 on my balcony, with the exact address.
It took me a while to understand how they did it.

Re:I've got a Bridge in Arizona I want to sell you

[Enter the Shoggoth]

That.
I installed Mavericks on my Mac Mini last week.
Clean install, no Bluetooth, no personal information given, no smartphone connected and obviously no GPS.
Just localhost login and WiFi password.
I wanted to take a look at Apple Maps and clicked on "Your location" to see if it would get my city right.
Well, the map was zoomed at 20 on my balcony, with the exact address.
It took me a while to understand how they did it.

IP based geolocation? Third party providers gave een doing this for ages... they get the data from telcos.

Google, please allow payed subscriptions

[Anonymous Coward]

I like your search engine, I like youtube, I like gmail and your apps. I don't like that information about me is basically the product you are actually selling however. I would *love* to pay (as long as it's reasonably priced of course) for your services and for you to not have an incentive to collect more information about me than you really need.

Re:Google, please allow payed subscriptions

[heteromonomer]

Dear God! I want mod points. Someone please mod parent up. Millions of people would sign up at this point. Granted they may not be majority. But they will. Just give access to your services, and do not collect any information.

Re:iads?

[gnasher719]

On an iOS device go to Settings->Privacy->Advertising and there is a setting labelled "Limit Ad Tracking" which you can enable or disable.
I don't think Facebook or Google offer that.

Google was actually fined for using two separate hacks, when to get around the user's privacy settings in Internet Explorer, and a different one to get around the settings in Safari.

Re:Even if Apple doesn't connect the dots, so what

[Xest]

Yes you're right, and it's arguably even worse than that. I'm not accusing Apple of this, because I have no evidence but I'm putting it out there because it's still a possibility. It's possible that when companies make such claims they are just weasel words such that to have some degree of certainty that the implied meaning is identical to the exact meaning, you need a far more explicit statement of fact than something general like that.

I know for a fact that "We don't connect the dots" can sometimes simply be shorthand for "We don't connect the dots. We pay someone else to do that for us and give us back the resultant information we ask for" because I've worked before for a company that did exactly this and used that exact disclaimer.

"We don't connect the dots" was technically true, but in practice it made no difference morally or ethically because they were still obtaining the exact same information they would have if they'd just done the analytics in house rather than outsourcing it.

In the UK (and Europe) data protection law even makes explicit provision for this precisely because it's not uncommon. This is why you have the terms "data controller" and "data processor" in the Data Protection Act because although a company can't legally pass over control of personal data they hold on you without your permission, they can pass it on to an outsourcing provider for processing providing the company processing it only processes it and doesn't otherwise disseminate or use it. The company that collects and holds your data is the data controller, but that doesn't mean they're not passing it on, they could well be passing it to a different company that acts as the data processor.

Re:WTF

[UnknowingFool]

You had a list of revenue figures. You worked out the gross profit from one of the sectors, then renamed 'gross profit' to 'revenue' and compared that 'revenue' back with the actual revenue figures in the original list.

If you didn't follow the logic: At best Apple makes $1.26B in revenue from iTunes while they made $32B in revenue on hardware because we know 70% goes immediately to someone else. Even if I didn't take out the 70%, Apple still made 7x on hardware than software. Please use some logic.

You are either a quite talented troll or a complete idiot. Either compare revenue with revenue, or work out the gross profit for each product.

How about someone who actually uses the internet to look things up and can use logic? We don't know exactly how much margin makes on hardware as Apple does not disclose this information. But do know that Apple cannot make more than 30% margin on iTunes. Period. This is a simple fact. We know that Apple makes more than 30% overall. So logically if Apple makes less than 30% on iTunes but more than 30% overall, they must make more than 30% on hardware.

Hint: the margins are high for the hardware compared to the rest of the industry, but not as high as the iTunes 30%.

Apple says you're wrong. Gross Margin 2013: $64.3 (37.6%).

Note also that 'cost of sales' for non iTunes software and services is much lower than 70% of revenue, therefore your assumption that it is all iTunes is somewhat aggressive in reducing the gross profit.

Er what? You really think that making hardware costs less than selling software? That's rather absurd logic.

Re:Advertising versus Consumer Electronics

[Nerdfest]

Google doesn't supply advertisers information about you, they display ads to you for advertisers. They display ads to you based on what they know about you. There is a big difference.

Re:I've got a Bridge in Arizona I want to sell you

[BlackPignouf]

That's what I though too. But I really don't think that would give you an exact location with 5m accuracy.
Apple has a database with WiFi Router MAC Addresses linked to coordinates, thanks to so many people having IPhones in the neighboorhood.

Re:Hmm

[gnasher719]

1) Yes, all Apple devices now prompt for an AppleID when you first turn them on. There is a 'Skip' button that you apparently completely missed, though. It is not a hidden button.

Just saying: And it is a very, very useful feature indeed. You enter your Apple ID, start downloading stuff, and very soon your new device is set up exactly like the previous one, with all the apps that you had, calendar, contacts, email, and so on and so on.

Dead Man's Switch

[EvilSS]

I'm surprised no one brought up the fact that Apple dropped a Patriot Act dead man's switch into their report:

"Apple has never received an order under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. We would expect to challenge such an order if served on us."

Article is misinterpreting

[gnasher719]

For example: Years ago it was found that Apple stored location data unencrypted "on its devices". No, they didn't. Their software stored location data on the user's device. Unaccessible to Apple. (And since the data originally came _from Apple_, all the nutters who claimed that Apple put the data there for some nefarious purpose were just nutters. If Apple wanted to keep track of this data, they would have made a copy on their servers).

You can of course store lots of your data on Apple's servers, but that's not "personal data" where some privacy policy applies, it's "my f***ing data and none of your f***ing business". And then there is the data that any normal business would gather about you, that represents your interaction with the company.

My take...

[GrahamJ]

I don't think Apple's comment meant that they don't collect ANY information, of course they do. Anyone who runs any kind of online service wants to know know its users are and how they use the service, it helps improve and streamline it. I don't have a problem with that; If I sign up there's a certain expectation that the information I enter and the accesses I make will be logged for their own purposes. Some companies, however, have so many services that are so popular that your average internet user is almost certainly going to use them - sometimes whether they realize it or not. Or the services might be tied to a device, like Apple's or Google's. This is the class of service and data collection that is concerning to me. When it comes to those, "connecting the dots" is very much the important part.

When deciding what kind of dot connecting a particular company may be doing, I just follow the money. Does Apple have a reason to determine every little thing about me? Do they want to know if I eat eggs or breakfast? Or drive a Ford? Does having that information help them to make money?

Now ask the same question of Google. Personally I don't want to use an operating system that's written by an ad company because I know they'll do everything they can to connect my dots. I don't believe Apple has as much incentive to do so.

Re:My take...

[ceoyoyo]

The ones with lots of services who connect things are an issue, but there's something far more proximate. When I give some basic information when I sign up for something I expect that information to be kept by whomever I'm giving it to. When I transfer some information to a company by using their service, such as by sending an e-mail through Google or Apple, I expect that they will NOT use that information for their own gain, or sell it to someone else. I don't know if Apple reads e-mails sent through iCloud (probably not, since it's in their interest not to piss of paying customers) but Google definitely does. That's not okay.

I don't know for sure if Apple maps sends my location to Apple, but it probably doesn't, again because it's in Apple's best interests not to piss off paying customers. Google maps nags me constantly to sign in and disables quite a bit of useful functionality because I don't. That's a pretty sure sign that Google IS trying to keep track of my location.

Re:Advertising versus Consumer Electronics

[ceoyoyo]

Actually, there are a significant number of people who buy macs, mostly notebooks, and run Windows on them.

Most companies, particularly large ones, don't just do one thing. Apple is a computer company ("mobile devices" are computers). They make hardware people like, they make software people like, and they sell media that works well on that hardware, with that software. One of the major consistent parts of Apple's business model is that they regard both hardware and the software it runs as important.

Saying Apple is a software company (or a hardware company) is like saying Dow Corning is a breast implant company. Yes, they make those, but they make other things too.

Re:I've got a Bridge in Arizona I want to sell you

[ceoyoyo]

Apple doesn't (or didn't). They buy the data from other companies like Skyhook that go around and get it. They also don't have MAC addresses. They have SSIDs, which are broadcast to the world.

Google went around collecting SSIDs, which is fine, but they managed to get rather a lot of other information (which they kept) in the trawl, which was judged to be not okay.

Re:I've got a Bridge in Arizona I want to sell you

[Enter the Shoggoth]

Apple doesn't (or didn't). They buy the data from other companies like Skyhook that go around and get it. They also don't have MAC addresses. They have SSIDs, which are broadcast to the world.

Google went around collecting SSIDs, which is fine, but they managed to get rather a lot of other information (which they kept) in the trawl, which was judged to be not okay.

This is true but in response to BlackPignouf: If the device you're talking about is using a fixed line (ie. not WiFi or cellular) then the telco's know you're exact address afterall it's their cabling and DHCP/subnet that provides the address.

As for your 5m radius ... depends upon the size of your house I guess :)

Re:I've got a Bridge in Arizona I want to sell you

[ceoyoyo]

If it's a fixed line the telcos better not be giving out your address. I suppose it's possible, but that would be a major privacy violation and would be very illegal here in Canada.

It's most likely the OP had his wifi on (possibly he was even connected via it) and his mac used wifi localization to get his estimated position. The accuracy ("my balcony") was either an exaggeration or a coincidence. Wifi positioning gets my position pretty close (the apartment across the hall) but it puts you there no matter where in the building you are.

Re:I've got a Bridge in Arizona I want to sell you

[Enter the Shoggoth]

If it's a fixed line the telcos better not be giving out your address. I suppose it's possible, but that would be a major privacy violation and would be very illegal here in Canada.

It's most likely the OP had his wifi on (possibly he was even connected via it) and his mac used wifi localization to get his estimated position. The accuracy ("my balcony") was either an exaggeration or a coincidence. Wifi positioning gets my position pretty close (the apartment across the hall) but it puts you there no matter where in the building you are.

Not sure what the deal is in Canada but here in Australia the telco's are theoretically bound by similar rules... doesn't stop the fuckers though.... what's the point of having laws if they're not going to enforce them?

That doesn't make sense in the context of Apple

[The_Revelation]

Hell, just to make my damn phone work I need an iTunes subscription. That ties my phone to my credit card. Then they start spamming me with music suggesting software. They provide software so that police can remotely suck all the data off it. They release back doors so that even if my company remotely bricks it, I can restore my last backup and keep running.

I think its fair to say, Apple's business model very much relies on them being able to collect user data, or to connect users to ways they can share data.

If what they say is true, the iPhone would be an open platform that let me install what I wanted, rather than existing in this walled Apple Only Garden

Re:Advertising versus Consumer Electronics

[sjbe]

Actually, there are a significant number of people who buy macs, mostly notebooks, and run Windows on them.

They run Windows but none of them buy the device without OS X and virtually all of them either dual boot or run VMware or Parallels. They are buying the software and just adding Windows to it. HUGE difference between that and buying a barebones mac with just Windows loaded on it.

Most companies, particularly large ones, don't just do one thing.

However most of them do make their money in a fairly narrowly defined way. Microsoft makes money selling software. Google makes money selling advertising. GM sells cars. Apple sells consumer electronics. Additionally what constitutes the core abilities of the companies is usually something rather narrow. Honda is fundamentally a company that is built around competence in making engines. Dow Corning has an expertise in silicon and silicone based chemicals.

One of the major consistent parts of Apple's business model is that they regard both hardware and the software it runs as important.

Correct. However the ONLY piece of that puzzle that is meaningfully different from their competitors is the software. A Macbook frankly is little different than a laptop from Dell or HP. The actual computing bits are barely different at all. Same with the iPad and iPhone. The differences in hardware between those devices and competing Android devices is minimal. Apple gets their competitive advantage by the software they produce and the fact the software is bundled with a tightly specified piece of hardware. They just put it on some nice hardware and get some economies by not having twenty zillion devices to support. However the hardware in Apple's products is mostly commodity products. It's nice but it mostly isn't anything not available to their competition. iOS and OS X however are not available to anyone but Apple and that is what at the end of the day sets their products apart. Steve Jobs himself even admitted in a recorded interview that Apple at its core is a software company. Whether you like Jobs or not (not a huge fan myself) he very clearly understood what set Apple apart from everyone else.

Saying Apple is a software company (or a hardware company) is like saying Dow Corning is a breast implant company.

Dow Corning is a chemicals company, specifically silicone and silicon based chemicals. Your analogy is rather badly flawed.

Well isn't that ironic...

[DrStoooopid]

...while they claim not to store data on you, they're able to produce data on you when asked by authorities. I call bullshit on their "report"

Re:Advertising versus Consumer Electronics

[ceoyoyo]

"They run Windows but none of them buy the device without OS X and virtually all of them either dual boot or run VMware or Parallels. They are buying the software and just adding Windows to it. HUGE difference between that and buying a barebones mac with just Windows loaded on it."

No. I know a couple of people and I've heard about several more, who buy a MBP because it's a nice notebook, but run Windows on it. Exclusively. I know another who bought an Air and runs Linux on it. Exclusively. That's apparently somewhat common with open source developers.

"Correct. However the ONLY piece of that puzzle that is meaningfully different from their competitors is the software. A Macbook frankly is little different than a laptop from Dell or HP."

Apple makes luxury computers, putting considerable resources into both hardware and software. Johnny Ive got knighted for industrial design of the hardware, not the software. Apple spends money making things like unibody aluminum cases and buying up chip design companies to design A-series processors. Going further back, Apple was a founding member of the PowerPC group and also worked with Acorn to develop ARM.

Mavericks (Mac OS X 10.9) forces iCloud for sync.

[antdude]

http://support.apple.com/kb/PH12117

"... If you use OS X Mavericks v.10.9 or later, your contacts, calendars, and other info are updated on your computers and iOS devices via iCloud..."

Many users are angry at this requirement for privacy, connection, etc. reasons like on https://discussions.apple.com/message/23444199 ...