I reluctantly agree. Apple has a bunch of dirty practices that makes me thing twice about buying their products, but their market position does incentivize them to protect my privacy. In contrast, Google is incentivized to provide a thick pipe between the highest bidder and the screen in my hand.

Honestly, I feel like this is an argument for watching HBO vs NBC, say. HBO makes a "honest" product and charges for it, while NBC uses the platform to sell advertising.

NBC must therefore be "dishonest" because they're showing you 30 second ads. Despite the fact the business model of serving content for with ads has been a successful (and accepted) business model for decades.

Google's privacy policy is open. No one is forcing you to use it, just as no one is forcing you to watch NBC.

https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/

It is a similar argument, but I think there is an important qualitative difference between TVs and smartphones. One is inherently passive, I interact with it on my own terms. The worst case is they show too many ads and I get pissed and cancel my service. I have some power in the relationship, they need my money month to month.

The other is an integral part of my daily life and knows virtually everything about me, who I communicate with, where I go, and is almost mandatory in modern society. I have no control over the software that runs on it, and the organization that does control it already has my money. If I want to exit the relationship, there are maybe one or two serious competitors (depending on if you include non-google android).

> One is inherently passive, I interact with it on my own terms.

No one is forcing you to interact with Google. You choose to interact with them because they have the content that you want, or they provide a service that you like.

And more importantly, you've accepted their privacy terms by using their service. In other words, you have interacted with them on your terms.

Legally, possibly, but ethically and from the position of most consumers? No. Google (and many other web services) do all sorts of tracking, even if you aren't using their services directly, particularly with Web ads, tracking via social integration buttons, etc, which I would argue is much less than consensual. This can even happen without their having to agree to having a Google account, let alone reading (and understanding the legalese in) their privacy policy (and all of its implications for what they can do with their data). I highly doubt the vast majority of Internet users know how much information and value is being extracted by private companies from their just being on the web.

> but ethically and from the position of most consumers? No.

I once had a friend frequent this record store, because every time he walked in the store, the owner would tell him, "You need to listen to this." And my friend would walk out of the store with a fresh vinyl pressed record with songs that he would spend hours listening to.

Was my friend be tracked? Yes. Did he experience targeted advertising? Yes. Was he subjected to unethical or immoral behavior? I don't know, but he kept coming back.

If you are the one opening up the browser and going to websites that do such unsavory things, such as trying to understand their customers to provide better content, then isn't the onus on you to not visit those sites?

I love how this ended up with a down vote. Sometimes speaking a painful truth is painful.

> then isn't the onus on you to not visit those sites?

Not what the discussion was about. The question was which business model was more 'honest'. And I'm not sure you can fairly say that bulk data collection across most parts of the Web which most people are unaware of, is an honest way of conducting business (Not to mention shit like [1] and [2]).

[1] https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/09/yes-google-uses-its-power...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-...

And my argument is that content and advertising and consumer tracking has been accepted behavior by corporations for a long time now. You may not like it, may think it's kind of "Nazi"-ish. But it's been a valid business model for decades.

But if you feel Apple's business model is truly more honest, here's a wikipedia page you should go read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.

I don't really see why you're comparing them both, they are both in essential 2 big companies that wants to control their customers in certain ways, sell them products and keep them in their ecosystem.

If Apple could actually take advantage of the potential customer information they have access to in the same way I'm pretty sure they would.

It was OP who compared them by calling out Apple, I just highlighted the absurdity of it. And no, Apple specifically highlights at every event that they have no interest in collecting such customer data and it’s a differentiating factor of their products. That has been a key point of theirs for the past few years.

> Between Apple and Google, you think APPLE'S business model is the harmful one?!

Google provides services to everyone in the world. Apple provides services to the social elite, and only them. A person of moderate means living in Ghana? Apple doesn't care about you; you may as well be invisible.

> I'm actually not sure I can even name a tech company with a business model as simple and honest as Apple's.

Because sending in the swat team when you think a journalist has a preview model of your doohickey is "simple" and "honest"? Apple does the same sort of shady stuff as any other BigCorp, they're just better at making things look fashionable, so people tend to give them a pass on it. After all, this is the same corp that patented the black oblong with rounded corners. There is nothing 'simple' about Apple's business model.

Is Apple obliged to sell a product that a Ghanaian of moderate income is able to buy? I don't think they are, if you extend that argument to other products categories you end up criticizing BMW / Audi / Mercedes for producing cars that are out of the reach of others, when other cars are available at lower costs.

I think the best evidence of Apple having an honest business model was the FBI V Apple encryption case. Have you seen any cases where Google has done this? I haven't. Either Android is not as secure and the FBI can get into any Android phone they want or Google has complied with a similar order...

On top of that, premium brands are the opposite of harmful. They push non-premium brands to iterate. The features that were in BMW/Audi/Mercedes in 90s are now in affordable cars. If nobody made premium cars back then, most that technology would have never made it to market. Same about Apple and cheap laptops. Cheap laptops nowadays are times better than what was available a decade ago. If there were no Macbooks to look up to, why abandon flimsy plastic laptops?

I didn't say Apple was obliged. I said Apple didn't care about that user.

> Have you seen any cases where Google has done this?

I haven't seen any case where Google has sent in the police to raid someone's house and confiscate their stuff. I haven't seen any case where Google has manipulated the legal system to claim rights over "black oblong with curved corners". Google doesn't have a history of taking things other people have done and then claiming that they were first to market. I haven't heard people complaining of Google designing planned obsolescence to drive future sales. I haven't heard of a case where Google designed their antenna incorrectly, and then blamed the users for "holding it wrong".

Apple is a very successful company and has broken a lot of ground, but calling them "honest" is horseshit. Don't mistake "a greater focus on user privacy" for "an honest business model". They're orthogonal things.

Honest in the sense that they are upfront about how they make the majority of their money - through phone/computer sales, and not through the sale of your personal data to 3rd parties, or targeting adverts at you.

Having a greater focus on user privacy adds to their honesty in this regard in my opinion, as they are protecting our personal data and not selling it, and even defending access to it.

When has google misled about how it makes its money? It's been pretty upfront about the tradeoffs and how googlestuff is paid for.

This kind of argument has been going on for well over a decade at this point - to suggest that google isn't honest and open about its business model at this point is simply choosing to be willfully ignorant.

I've given you plenty of well-known examples of Apple behaving badly. This isn't to say "Apple is the Devil", but that they're not this shining knight that some people paint them as. They behave dishonestly when it suits them as well.

Here's another example: tax evasion. Apple is the doyen of tax evasion. Is it legal? Yes, but stretched to the limit. Is it honest? Nope; it requires fiscal shennanigans, and they're not afraid to throw their weight around to keep things cosy for themselves. If they truly were honest, they'd pay their taxes, like the general public expects of good citizens.

I do not agree that google are upfront with the users of their services that they collect their data and use it to target ads at them.

How many regular consumers are aware that their android phone tracks their location and stores this data on googles servers nearly continuously? And that every single google assistant query is recorded and saved on googles servers? And that all this data is used to target ads and refine google services?

I don't disagree that Apple has unpalatable aspects to their business, as do all business of that size, but in my opinion they are more honest and upfront about how they make their money when they are compared to Google.

> Google provides services to everyone in the world. Apple provides services to the social elite, and only them. A person of moderate means living in Ghana? Apple doesn't care about you; you may as well be invisible.

If Google wasn't dumping prices, there would be a local cheaper alternative. Now it's impossible to compete with them. Ad-supported will always be cheaper than pro-privacy and there is no enough people to pay little premium to have cheap-but-pro-privacy device/service. The only way to stay afloat is to sell with hefty premium like Apple does. But then it's not really affordable to poor people.

Apple doesn't care about "elite". They charge price they see fair and provide their services to anyone who can pay that price.

> If Google wasn't dumping prices, there would be a local cheaper alternative

Apple's not dumping prices. Where is Ghana's local cheaper alternative to Apple?

> The only way to stay afloat is to sell with hefty premium like Apple does

There are plenty of other companies that are surviving without the hefty premium Apple charges. Apple managed to reach $200B in liquid cash assets; clearly their path is not "the only way".

> Apple doesn't care about "elite". They charge price they see fair and provide their services to anyone who can pay that price.

... how do you think elitism works?

s/Apple/High-priced lawyers/, to see how empty that argument is against elitism.

> Apple's not dumping prices. Where is Ghana's local cheaper alternative to Apple?

Google is the cheaper alternative.

> There are plenty of other companies that are surviving without the hefty premium Apple charges. Apple managed to reach $200B in liquid cash assets; clearly their path is not "the only way".

Of course Apple could go a wee lower. But they won't be able to compete with $50 Android anyway. Very few people will pay even little extra for Apple's privacy-oriented devices if they didn't have premium style&hardware. Once they produce that style&hardware, they get to today's price. $50 or even $100 won't change much in terms of reachability.

> ... how do you think elitism works?

And how do you think elitism works? Elitism is working with select clientele based on some subjective criteria.

High-priced lawyer who charges premium is not elitist. Lawyer who works only for celebrities is elitist.

> Google is the cheaper alternative.

Google and Apple charge the same amount for maps, music, apps, mail, and operating systems. Google isn't seriously in the hardware game - it had a couple of smartphone handsets, but mostly left it to other manufacturers. Google does not make miniservers, desktops, general-purpose laptops, all-in-ones and so forth. Other companies do, and google does not set their prices. Google does not dictate that a smartphone must sell for $X.

So no, Google is not the "cheaper alternative". Their software sells for the same price, and for the most part other companies sell the hardware.

So, where is Ghana's local cheaper alternative to Apple? Come on, you started this free-market claptrap that every locale has the ability to make a Silicon-Valley-quality giant, so where is Ghana's?

> Very few people will pay even little extra for Apple's privacy-oriented devices

This whole 'privacy' angle is a very recent development in Apple's history. It wasn't much of a notable issue before.

Huh? We were talking phones. Modern phone is a bundle of hardware and software. Apple charges very specific fee for their bundle. Google is pouring a shit ton of resources into their bundle as well, which they basically re-sell as franchise to hardware makers.

I could start listing all the super cheap Android phones as Apple competitors. But that'd be very simplified story, because they'd be nothing without Google's software and promotion. And if Google charged for the software as well Android brand, those phones wouldn't be as cheap. Now end users pay that fee with their eyeballs.

I never said that every locale has ability to make a quality giant or whatever. I said that Google dumping prices make someone else hard to enter. Especially at the cheap end of the market.

Apple's 'privacy' angle was very clear for at least a decade. They didn't pay as much lip service to it, but they products are clearly very different from Google. And been that way for a looooooong time.