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.

[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.

[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]

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

Two words: quality control.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[LifesABeach]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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"

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

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: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.

Apple Account

[gimmeataco]

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

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?

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"?

[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: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

[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 . . . .

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: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: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.