Apple doesn’t do it for the good of mankind. Anyone that expects a public or VC backed company to do that, minus regulations requiring them to do that (as in the case of a non-profit, but even there it’s the exception), is the fool.

Apple does it because they have a business model that incentivizes them to make better products for their users. In addition, all their competitors have a business model that is dependent on getting as much data on their users as possible. Attacking and damaging their competitors’ predatory business model not only makes the Apple product better, and therefore more attractive to users, it also undercuts their competitors, making Apple relatively stronger.

Apple’s greatest strength is that by charging a premium on hardware they are heavily incentivized to deliver a high quality product.

> Apple doesn't do it for the good of mankind

Apple is generally showing a superior attitude towards user privacy, even in situations that don't seem directly tied to their own ad channels, as you say. Maintaining a privacy-focused image is good for business in general, hence their reluctance to cooperate with law enforcement to violate individual user privacy.

>Apple is generally showing a superior attitude towards user privacy

Only where it benefits them. In China, they have gladly given up encryption keys so that govt. can access user's data.

I sincerely doubt it’s “gladly” and Apple has to follow the law or bow out of the market.

In the U.S. the law favors their users’ privacy to some degree. Not in China.

Right. One would expect the company with the "superior attitude towards user privacy" would choose the option not to give them the keys up. This isn't about which country's government favors privacy, the earlier post claimed a company had a superior attitude which is not completely true even when trying to make excuses for them.

If Apple leaves China, beside blowing a massive hole in their growth strategy, how is users’ privacy enhanced?

Privacy is a trust game. When for one country you'll make a very public stance against usurping encryption but for another you will do it and remain mum, your principles are called into question. User privacy depends on consistent application of principles and is harmed by setting the precedent that you willingly break it in inconsistent ways without even being vocally against it.

Apple alway get a bit leeway on HN.

Apple is talking the talk about privacy where it's favourable to them. Is it actually walking the walk when it actually hurts them? That's when you know if a company if serious about privacy or it's just another marketing strategy.

Well, they took a politically- and PR-unfriendly stance when suggestions were made that they should provide an iOS version to the the federal government that allowed a passcode bypass because terrorists.

Again, leaving China would not help their users, but it would be a huge blow to their finances today and in the future. Is martyrdom a good play for a business and its stockholders?

>Again, leaving China would not help their users, but it would be a huge blow to their finances today and in the future. Is martyrdom a good play for a business and its stockholders?

It absolutely will. Apple users will know for sure that Apple respects privacy and will not budge under pressure, no matter what. Point is, Apple talks about being all about user's privacy till it hurts their finances. Thus, it talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

Google famously even walked away from China at one point of time.

you could easily make the argument that in china, the govt is a given that you have to bow to. if apple believes (and i’m certain they do) that users are more protected from third party actors, then you could definitely argue that apple thought users are better off than they were before

it’s hugely grey; you can’t just say that apple only has principals when it suits them. china is a VERY complicated place, morally

tannhaeuser's point is worth considering though: Is Apple truly respecting privacy, or are they just refusing to share because they want to own all of the info? Are they not storing private information- like websites you visit and apps you download and such, and using it to target you in their store?

Apple's incredible success thus far selling higher-end computing devices hasn't required them to engage in "big data" tactics.

The fact that there's now popular pushback against the data-gatherers is certainly to their favor, and they'd be foolish not to trade on the fact that "Hey, you know what? We collect very little, and have no interest in monetizing you as a user, because that's never been our business model."

I think Apple does benefit from some solidly ethical leadership here, but it's also probably wise -- I can see lots more data-protection laws coming down the pike in the years ahead, and they'll endanger the big-data approach. If I were Apple, I'd probably stay away from it for those reasons alone.

> Are they not storing private information- like websites you visit and apps you download and such, and using it to target you in their store?

No? They aren’t doing that, at least not the website tracking stuff - that would be a huge violation of their privacy policy.

> Apple doesn't do it for the good of mankind, but to push their own ad channels

This may be true. However it's also difficult to dispute that Apple has a far stronger and far more consistent stance on privacy than their competitors.

It was a big influence for me switching from Android to iOS a while back.

Google, Facebook, and Windows 10 have been getting ever more data greedy, Apple mostly haven't. To me, that's significant.

Be it as it may, I believe some actions can benefit both users and companies. Maybe taking privacy seriously is going to benefit Apple's business, but it is going to benefit millions of users, too. So I guess it's a clever move by Apple.

The scamminess of basically everything sold through SMS billing is so high it makes Google and Apple look like benevolent liberators from the phone companies.

(Anyone remember the days when if you wanted to set a song as your ring tone you had to buy it again?)

So you're arguing Apple and Google should be gatekeepers of digital content instead, with their own currency and every purchase having your personal details and all?

Many Android apps are just Trojans to send home your address and calling lists, or to otherwise track you.

Telcos aren't saints (in fact they're greedy as sin) but at least have to play by the rules for a regulated market with standardized protocols. Deprecating open protocols not only hits SMS spammers but also limits your freedom as both publisher and consumer.

>Anyone remember the days when if you wanted to set a song as your ring tone you had to buy it again?

That was annoying, but not as sinister as you expect. With garageband, you could make custom ringtones out of your music files. It was cumbersome, but it was possible.

Apple's profits don't come from "their own ad channels" (other than trace-level profits from App Store Search Ads), they come from selling shiny hardware. I'm with you on Google, though.

> Apple's profits don't come from "their own ad channels" (other than trace-level profits from App Store Search Ads),

They have their own ad platform which takes 30 - 50% of the cut on advertisements shown in Apple News.

The parent is correct. While Apple does have its own "Search Ads" program, it's not widely used, and doesn't contribute much towards Apple's profits.

True, though still pretty minuscule compared to the profits from selling iPhones.