It's a common misconception that corporations are amoral incentive-driven machines impervious to ethics, morals or mission.
Corporations are run by leaders.
Many leaders choose to pursue unethical and immoral activities to maximize profit. They justify their actions by saying "it's just business", or "we have a fiduciary duty to the stockholders to maximize earnings per share by whatever means necessary".
Other leaders realize that an ethical purpose can often deliver outsized profits over the long term. Leaders with a moral mission make decisions that sometimes sacrifice short-term profits with the intent to build an organization and a brand for long term.
Not really, those leaders are pretty quick to hide behind the corporate veil when it's convenient for dodging questions of moral (or even legal) responsibility.
The whole point of corporate legal structure is to create an entity that is _separate_ from the humans that occupy offices. That entity is not a person.
I also largely agree that the Apple meme of privacy being trotted out lately doesn't quite jive with this news, but at the same time surely there are people who care about it at Apple, and maybe as a whole they even prioritize it more than others.
But I also don't know how much I really disagree with the FBI's position. In general I have seen this kind of access to be used in the right situations (IE collecting communications of criminals). I understand this can be a slippery slope, but should we trade that for leaving clear evidence against criminals unturned in the name of "privacy"?
From the information I have, the majority of Apple employees do care about values such as privacy and ethical business practices, as well as product quality and usability, but those values can sometimes be undermined by executive decisions based on business and monetary motives.
the (current) supreme court doesn't agree, and their opinion carries a tad more weight. corporations are basically super-persons in the eyes of the court, since corporations intrinsically funnel the resources of its many consituents, unlike individuals.
instead, any entity exerting outsized power, like corporations, should be held to higher standards of duty and transparency. that's an inherent value embedded in the US constitution that is absolutely being trampled over by power-seekers (commercial, political, or otherwise).
that we also rationalize the actions of a corporation (to understand them) doesn't necessarily imply complicity. lacking more evenly distributed power, we should want apple to be pitted against google, the fbi, and the chinese government to funnel apple towards a privacy-oriented stance that it might not otherwise have.
incidentally, (many) americans vehemently support 2nd amendment rights as a way to have some semblance of power in an otherwise overwhelming power structure.
Shortly before being dragged off the stage by the stockholders. Careers have been ruined over not over-performing enough, let alone leading multi-million dollar enterprises off into the desert.
It's entirely possible to do immoral things for the sake of profit while still being prudent about your company's future.
As for sacrificing profits to a moral end: private companies may do this occasionally. Not often, but sometimes. But the CEO of a publicly-traded company expressly does not have the option of sacrificing profits for any higher purpose, unless that directive comes from his shareholders. And in today's world, the shareholders of most major companies are of such a large number and have so many layers of detachment between themselves and the actual company (I don't even know what companies Betterment has me invested in; they can change every day) that the only common goal they can agree on is almost always profits.
An interesting exception to the norm is Facebook: despite being publicly-traded, Zuckerberg maintains both a majority holding and the position of CEO, and is therefore free to go on his crusade of "connecting the world", mostly ignoring what the other shareholders might want.
This is not true AFAICT. In practice it might be.
baords are largely controlled by the various (professional) shareholders, and most, if not all, of them explicity seek profits above all else. that's one way markets get dominated by profit-seeking companies.
the other common argument is that in capital-oriented markets, not-primarily-profit-seeking corporations are at a competitive disadvantage over time, as the extra profits of greedy corporations can push them faster/further along the technology adoption/innovation curve (or economies of scale/scope).
so it's hard for such companies to survive. i don't think in practice that this is a dominant factor in competitive markets, but it's an argument often made (in business schools, for example).
Agreed, and I am likely going away from Android and into iOS for my next phone. It's still a setting you can change so it's not forced into their cloud thankfully.
I wish Microsoft hadn't backed out. A Surface Phone would be kind of cool. I guess too much stigma about Microsoft has held them back from being competitive. I think they shoulda waited for their Microsoft Store to grow much more organically, then release the Windows Mobile phones.
The other issue is Google's agreements.
A Surface-branded Android phone wouldn't be out of the question, but my gut tells me it would die a quiet death from thin margins and differentiators that aren't big enough for people to get excited.
This. I had some Windows Phones besides my iPhones, because I liked very much what they were doing. Windows Phone 7, despite being technically weak (it was based on Windows CE), had an awesome UI. Nokia had some really affordable phones that were really well-built for the price and Windows Phone was getting traction. Quite a few friends/colleagues bought a Windows Phone, because it was the hip thing after the iPhone. The development story was also great, they used .NET and XAML (IIRC), which also made it possible to demo applications on web pages through Silverlight.
Then they screwed over all the early adopters by completely deprecating Windows Phone 7, doing one final release (7.8). None of the Windows Phone 7 devices were upgraded to Windows Phone 8. Most of the traction they had up till that point was lost and they were basically starting over with Windows Phone 8. Windows Phone 7 was already late to the market, the hard WP8 cut set them back even more years. And then it was simply too late.
There were technical reasons for WP7 -> WP8 (such as moving to the NT kernel, adding multi-processing support). But the hard cut was a catastrophical mistake. Either they should have started with the NT kernel in the first release or they should have had a gradual migration route from WP7 to WP8.
There was this spark of energy around Zune, and then Kin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Kin), and then Windows Phone that was just completely orthogonal to the stagnant money-printing strategy that Microsoft followed before Nadella. It was this little glimpse of an Apple-like spirit somewhere deep in the behemoth. It was exciting. But it was always treated as a side thing instead of being placed front-and-center. It's now been diffused into Microsoft's various consumer products, most obviously the Surface, but Windows Phone was already dead by the time things started to change.
Aside: despite all the jokes about it, the Zune (2nd gen and forward) was awesome. It was a little late to the game - it really nailed the traditional mp3/video player right when the iPod touch had just come out - but I think it may've been the peak of that category. Everything from the UX to the hardware buttons was so meticulously considered, the screen was much bigger than an iPod Video, it had momentum scrolling that worked really well despite lacking a touch screen, etc. It did not at all feel like a Microsoft product of the time. It was even one of the first services to offer all-you-can-download, subscription-based music. And you could download songs over WiFi.
I would love to see how Windows Phone would’ve matured.
To this day I still think about that little touch/d-pad, and wish something similar had caught on with more devices...
- Doesn't have the hard directional buttons underneath
- Isn't really helpful because you aren't scrolling through hundreds of items like you do in a music library
They botched subsequent pushes on it because the bootstrapping problem around apps had grown too deep.
It's that chicken-and-egg problem where people don't want to use it because it doesn't have the apps they need, and developers don't want to make apps for it because it doesn't have enough users. Microsoft tried to throw money at the problem to middling success. But I think it was too little too late.
I would guess that they aren't the only ones. Do you think LG/Sony/Samsung/roku/apple tv/firestic/etc all got the netflix app ported for free? Maybe. Plex probably isn't getting paid, and they do it too..
But MS was a special case, it seems to me that every time I looked at CE/Mobile/etc they were tossing existing app compatibility aside for the latest and greatest toolkit that went with some not particularly good set of phones.
Their (forward) app compatibility was actually very good. I wrote a WP7 Silverlight app in 2011 that still works on the last release of Windows Mobile 10.
It was just monopoly abusing its walled garden and being anticompetitive, nothing else. Not that Microsoft would behave any differently, if the positions were switched.
It's coming.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/3/20895268/microsoft-surfac...
It's supposed to come out later this year.
There's definitely a differentiator, at least. Apparently they've forgotten what happened to the many previous attempts at dual-screen phones and tablets.
It could run chromium based Edge right away logically.
This is not accessible for average Joe, but I'm pretty certain the majority of readers here can use the tools to load an alternative ROM. That you can enable and use F-droid just fine. And are knowledgeable enough to know what apps to avoid.
eg GrapheneOS currently only supports Pixel 2, 3 and 3a:
They've announced that they'll release a Surface phone this year. But it'll run Android.
Personification is a useful concept. Companies do have some mechanisms that lead to consistently different decisions compared to other companies in similar situation.
You're like the thousandth person objecting to the concept of HN, with always the same air of revelatory smartitude. But it's not contrarian insider knowledge. It's simply the inability/unwillingness to understand basic symbolic speech.
If there is a more secure alternative available then I’ll go with that. Also iCloud backup is now turned off, no need to enable the surveillance state.
You're splitting hairs over the definition of 'cares'. I think we all understand what that word means in this context.
No, we don't, and that's exactly the point.
We tend to anthropomorphize companies. "Good Guy Google" has become "Evil Google". "Micro$oft" has become "Altruistic, OSS Microsoft". Apple has become "Defender Of Privacy". But all of these are illusions created by marketing departments; there is no real sentiment behind any of them that can be used to predict future behavior. And it takes constant vigilance to remind yourself that those narratives are empty.
If it is useful to model such organizations as non-person agents, then while they of course would not “care”, in the sense of emotions, about things, it would be coherent to say that such an organization e.g. “has protecting privacy as a goal”.
Err, I guess I’m eliding the distinction between “being useful to model as an agent” and “being an agent”, which may be a mistake. I suppose what I should say is “if it is useful to model as an agent, it is useful to treat as coherent the claim that it has goals of e.g. privacy stuff.” .
With all of the carefully crafted marketing aimed at bypassing the forebrain and making people feel as though corporations care, it doesn't hurt to keep the fact that they don't at the forefront of the conversation.
No, it's because they can't effectively leverage your data to sell you stuff, they don't need it.
Thus follows the privacy marketing.
If Apple did find your data useful, they wouldn't be able to leverage that marketing angle.
Companies are made up of people, who care about people, and also, corporate objectives are not evil, generally. Working with the FBI might raise your eyebrow, but it may not for others, and it's an ambiguous question to most.
In the end, the balance of power has not fundamentally shifted. Most people have little to worry about, some criminals may have more to worry about. Of course the problem arises when innocents are needlessly entangled - hopefully this can be minimised. It's not like the FBI has instant and easy access to your phone, thankfully.
Also, privacy != security. iOS is absolutely in a better position on privacy, even after this new development.
Last Android phone I have bought was Galaxy S8+, just a few months after the release. Had to wait about half a year (if not more) for the next major Android update after it had already dropped for Pixel devices.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/if-corp...
No company cares about anything. A company is not a person.
Apple, because of its privacy-marketing, is incentivized to be the privacy player in the market. But only so far as consumers keep them honest about it.
They got away with this loophole because it stayed under the radar; if it gets enough attention and enough customers show that it matters to them, it could change.
On the other hand, it's possible that because we have a smartphones duopoly, Apple only needs to maintain a position where people will say "well at least it's not as bad as Google". I'm upset about this personally, but I'm not ditching my iPhone. Of course, this does cement my decision to never pay for iCloud, for what that's worth (much less, but not nothing).