>You could argue that they are nibbling around the edges, and "most stuff you want" is in the App Store. But I still see it as a huge amount of control.

Apple has control, sure, like Microsoft did in the '90s. More, really, because it was harder for Microsoft to lock competing application developers out than it is for apple. And yeah, the perception I had was that Microsoft was all about control... but it was about control over your desktop, like Apple has over your phone, not about control over personal data that it can use to better sell stuff. Microsoft used that control to make programs that you didn't pay them for work less well (and Apple does the same) - You can make a good argument that it's a bad and maybe even scary thing, but it's straightforward and very different from someone who wants control in exchange for your personal data.

I would very much compare apple to microsoft in the '90s, only with less market share (and I think it's really interesting that Apple asserts control in ways that Microsoft would have loved to in the '90s, and Apple does it without anything close to a monopoly)

>They also seem to auto-complete what's typed into the Safari address bar, which heavily influences the sites you visit. And they choose the default search provider. Defaults matter.

This is an example of how that sort of power could get scary, and raising concerns about this makes a lot of sense.

But that really has nothing to do with my point.

But my point was just that apple presents a counterargument to this idea that information will be the new oil. The Apple counterargument is that it's possible that collecting a bunch of data on users in order to sell advertising is... less valuable than we think. Less valuable than simply charging people for premium (both in quality and margin) goods and services. I mean, sure, personal data for targeted advertising is clearly worth something - but right now, we seem to think that it's worth more than the rest of the advertising-supported media industry put together, and... it's possible that we are wrong, and that using user data to sell advertising just isn't as huge of a deal as we think it is. Maybe instead of the new oil, that sort of information is the new, say, wood pulp. That sounds a lot more reasonable to me.

The idea is that Apple, like Microsoft in the '90s, sure, could use their power over your desktop for evil... but gaining power over your desktop isn't why they write programs. Companies that release free softare in exchange for user tracking have a very different model; their goal is to collect user data, in part because they really do think that 'information is the new oil' - which, like, I said, may very well turn out to be the case, but is not a settled thing yet, not by a long shot.

For you to understand my point, you also need to understand that I was also assuming that by "information" you meant "personal data" in the sense of personal data that is used to convince advertisers that they should pay more for ads because they are better targeted - which may or may not be what you meant, but it was what I was responding to. If you meant something different by 'information' of course, none of what I wrote makes any sense.

I didn't necessarily mean personal data, although it's worth thinking about the distinction between personal data and information in general, and how that relates to exchanging power. There is some amount of power that flows from just making tons of money, as Apple/Facebook/Google all do, and some amount of power that flows from having information and exploiting it (above the money that you made from that information).

A good example of the latter is using social graphs for very targeted campaigns to sway voters, which only appeared in the 2008 and 2012 elections. [1]

Apple does have all that personal data too -- your device usage patterns, location, app installs, browsing habits, e-mail, calendar, etc. It just seems like they use it less (for the time being). They have the potential to capitalize on that, but haven't done it to a great extent.

Your point is taken -- Apple has a more lucrative business in selling devices than Google or Facebook have in pure information. Although, I don't necessarily think this is fundamental, and it could easily change in the next 5-10 years. I expect information to continue to become more important and more lucrative.

I don't think the fact that Apple makes more money from devices necessarily refutes the idea that information is the new oil. I guess you could say that computer hardware is fundamental too, in that basically everybody needs it, but I don't really think it is as fundamental as information or oil.

I guess what happened with both information and oil is that a small group of companies monopolized them. If you choose not to use Facebook, there is not a great alternative, because your friends aren't there. Similarly, there are few alternatives to many of Google's services. In the case of oil, control was through mechanisms like OPEC and Western military power.

Apple has had tremendous success with computer hardware, but they don't have a monopoly. I don't think the computer hardware business is as prone to monopolies as software and information.

[1] Not sure if these are the best articles, but voter targeting as a new and advancing technology is pretty well documented:

http://bigthink.com/age-of-engagement/obama-2012-the-most-mi...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-obama-campai...

Also see : http://www.dailydot.com/politics/search-engine-manipulation-...

the fundamental disagreement here is:

>I expect information to continue to become more important and more lucrative.

whereas I am arguing for the opposite. I certainly don't know that I'm right or not, but I do think that the valuations of the companies that give away services in exchange for personal data are betting that you are right and I am wrong. Apple... I believe apple is betting my way. I believe (and certainly don't know for sure) that apple is being much more cautious about user's data because they know that, well, this is part of why they are getting my money, and I assume the same can be said for a fairly large group of consumers.

>Apple has had tremendous success with computer hardware, but they don't have a monopoly. I don't think the computer hardware business is as prone to monopolies as software and information.

I believe that apple is best thought of as a software company, like Microsoft. Apple gets involved in hardware because by controlling the hardware, they can make their software better, and charge more for it.

Modern Apple hardware isn't particularly amazing or innovative compared to the competition. I mean, it's not terrible (except the keyboards, but that's just a matter of taste.) - it's not behind the curve in terms of hardware, but it's not really ahead of the curve, either, unless we're talking about fashion (and personally, I think it goes both ways. You'd be embarrassed to use an apple in the '90s because they were kind of terrible. it's possible that they are cool now because they actually work pretty well. It's a "smart" thing to use - It's possible that fashion is following function here.)

It's interesting, because before last year, I had not owned or even seriously used an apple device in the 30+ years I've used computers. I really want to control my own software. I had a n900 for a long time, then one of the keyboarded android phones... and I worked so hard to install my own android build and control my own software for so long, but because the phone hardware market is so fractured, doing so on a phone is way harder than doing so on a laptop, so while I run linux or bsd on all my servers, desktops and laptops (aside from the one game machine) - I have an apple phone, because I have decided that I don't have the time to sysadmin my phone, and apple sysadmins my phone in ways that aren't annoying and offensive.

But yeah... things haven't settled out yet, so it's possible apple will go the 'mine user data route' - but the thing is, I don't think they can do that without significantly hurting the customer experience that their products provide.