Incentive.

When devs announce how their software handles privacy concerns, they have an incentive to be honest because all it takes is one discovery of conflicting code and their trust is lost. But if the code is closed source, that incentive for honesty is removed. Of course the media can still seek circumstantial evidence and make accusations, but that’s a far cry from version control.

Separately, closed source code invites new incentives to disrespect user privacy for profit.

So, there are these two major categories involved, both of which are mitigated by opening the source code.

Apple remains liable for both of them.

All that Apple has is an observation that they sell hardware too. I guess we are just assuming they already make enough money from advertising as it is and don’t really want more.

I think there is a significant difference.

Companies get hit with multi-million dollar fines for violating their privacy policies. So there's your incentive.

I just don't see open source as better protecting privacy. See for example the telemetry in .NET Core or VS Code [1]. Users discover this stuff by watching network traffic, not through code audits.

1: https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/16131

Is a multi-million dollar fine enough to matter?

Let’s assume Apple violated their privacy policy and was fined $999 million, the highest “multi-million dollar” fine they could be assessed. That’s just barely more than 1% of their market cap.

Fines are definitely incentive to do right but the fine must be felt. I’m not aware of any cases where the tech giants have been levied a fine that really hits them hard.

The fine you're proposing would cause a much larger hit to market cap than you're suggesting. Consider, Apple made ~20 billion in profit last quarter, your hypothetical fine would be a precipitous hit to profit margin which, when reported on the quarterly earnings call, would cause an abrupt downturn in share price. Consider the 13% hair cut earlier this year when the market thought Apple was going to miss. Then there's the existential panic of "does this mean Apple is in for more such fines?".

I guess jail time will have to do.

Fines are accounted as overhead.

Watching network traffic is limited to circumstantial evidence, and not even that without a circumstantially isolated environment. Those are a couple of scenarios where these accusations can be made.

Let's consider the incentives in each case and how they enable you to distribute your trust. Apple is a for-profit, publicly traded corporation. Their purpose is to make money, and they will likely do whatever they can to achieve that. More importantly, only they can see their code, not you and not other users. All you can possibly have is their word, and they will say whatever it takes to sell you their product. If they lie or exaggerate, there's no way you or anyone else could know.

On the other hand, open source projects come in all shapes and sizes. Generally, they have a strong community of both developers and users around them. If you don't feel like looking at the code, you don't even have to trust the project itself. You can look to the community and its abundance of users, at least a few of which have audited the code and share your use case. And these users aren't just neutral third parties. Nay, they're better than that. They, too, value their own privacy, and are therefore motivated to protect it.

This is silly. Apple publishes their privacy policy. If they were found to be violating it, they would lose business and be liable for expensive lawsuits. And security researchers are extremely good at finding these things. So yes, Apple has a very powerful incentive to tell the truth.

As for the theory of "open source community," see the MyBTGWallet scam. This open source project, recommended by the Bitcoin Gold team, stole $5 million via a single line of code. Being open source isn't much protection really.

He's telling you about the fact that there's conflict of interest between you and crapple and you tell him an anecdote where some scum of this earth stole money and open source software was involved. Does this really sound like a compelling argument?

Yes. There are bad and good actors on all sides.

Just because something is closed source doesn’t make it bad. And just because something is open doesn’t automatically make it good.

It does however increase the chance that it will be bad, because the average snake that produces closed source software is likely to be motivated by greed, so it has the incentive to milk you as hard as it can without turning you away from products (using lies of course, you can't check anything after all, it's closed shit).

But seeing sibling explanation being downvoted into oblivion makes me think no one is interested in discussing this anyway so why waste breath.