The only way that Apple has managed to seem even sort of focused on customer privacy is that Microsoft is my now so god-awful and free software desktops are so marginal that most people no longer trulyv remember what it's like to even set up a system whose mission is not to monetize the user by plugging them into a ton of services that collect data about them.

The only companies not tempted to do this are (some of) the ones that don't collect data like this in the first place.

This is a needlessly binary take. When most people hear privacy, they really just want to stop seeing creepy personalized ads courtesy of Google, Facebook, and Amazon. The "Apple" solution is not one of 'complete' privacy, but one where the user knows exactly who and what is using their data, assuming you completely buy into their ecosystem (including iCloud+).

In rough Apple parlance, the base level of privacy means understanding where your personal information is going and being able to consent or reject access and sharing of personal information.

If Apple built an advertising platform that made entirely local decisions on what ads to show, anonymized information on ad display and anonymized attribution, that consent prompt would be to either have advertisements chosen locally based on device-held information, or have advertisements chosen solely based on context.

I'm guessing it will be a more privacy focused platform.

Putting users first by removing headphone jacks?

Putting users first by crippling competing web browsers on iOS?

Apple has traditionally removed things before other companies did (both the floppy and optical drive). This angers some people, which is understandable, but others don't mind and again, it is a trade of for a thinner laptop.

Removing the headphone jack is also a trade of: recent iPhones have survived extended stays in water, which is just not possible if there is a headphone jack.

Your preferences may be different, in which case their products aren't for you.

As for crippling competing web browsers on IOS, you can download chrome and firefox from their app store. They aren't crippled in any way except that they have to use the same browser engine apple uses. Which has two effects: random websites don't get to ask me if they want to send me notifications and it prevents Chrome from completely taking over the internet.

b) Headphone jacks are simply not useful for most people with the popularity of Bluetooth. And those that need them can use Apple's class leading USB DAC dongles.

c) Web browsers are such a significant security vector that I am fully in favour of heavily sandboxing them and restricting what they can do. I like my web sites to be different from my apps.

I can happily re-enable the privacy-destroying qualities of web browsing by using Chrome on iOS, thank you very much.

They won't play because all browsers on iOS use webkit, and webkit doesn't support WebM. Whereas chrome and firefox on android both support it.

I use iTunes match for my music but for 6 months last year once a month opening their music app it would force me to dismiss an Apple Music trail before I could play MY files.

App Store already has a pile of ads and paid placements before you get to the exact name match.

End of the day they don't have a product visionary at the helm they have a bean counter.

Oh, you can disable that crap for non apple apps. But Apple doesn't let you do it for theirs.

You don't represent the opinions of the masses.

The fact that Apple iPhone sales continue unabated factually and objectively indicates that Headphone jacks and TouchID are not significant issues to warrant customers switching platforms.

You also act as if iPhones only work with AirPods and not any cheap Bluetooth headset you can pick up from anywhere.

Even Apple sells low end Beats Flex headphones for $50 that have the W1 chip with the special Apple sauce.

I have a pair for traveling that I don’t have to worry about falling out.

Yes, I do.

But at the same time when it comes to advertising, it's clear that Apple has the same sense of self-serving "we mean private between you and us, not private to you. Total coincidence that that means we can build a walled garden around our ad platform" that is an industry norm in the US.

I recently unlocked my iPad mini while staying in downtown Boston. Right there on the Home Screen was a geo-based app suggestion for Dunkin' Donuts. It felt very wrong, like when a Smart TV tries to give you a suggestion. I don't want my iPad spying on me. I've never used the Dunkin' Donuts app and had no interest. Apple had clearly used my location to target me with a suggestion. That told me everything I need to know about how far they are willing to push privacy.

I doubt that. He will use his billions to get privacy for himself while the users will be used for profits.

Privacy is not a luxury that can be offered by a US-based company, especially not at that scale.

That or the App Store widget (which is essentially a banner ad widget) are the only reasons I can imagine where:

1. You don't have the Dunkin' Donuts app installed

2. You saw the Dunkin' Donuts app icon on your homescreen

---

If it's an App Clip suggestion in your Siri App Suggestions widget, you can disable this behavior in a couple of places (depending on what you care about):

* Settings > Siri & Search > App Clips > Suggest App Clips

* Settings > Privacy & Security > Location Services > System Services > Location-Based Suggestions

---

I don't mean to suggest that Apple is free and clear of guilt. They often add new options with their preferred value as the default – rather than a user-focused default.

However, I don't think this is caused by advertisements in the same way that Smart TVs suggest things.

Tim Cook similarly is a career suit who happens to be gay. He's not going to choose advocacy over fiduciary duties.

It's an open secret that Chinese authorities have access to all domestic iCloud data without a warrant, which is often used to profile political dissidents and the Uighur populations that Apple relies on to build their iPhones. This is only possible because Tim Cook agreed to move the nation's iCloud datacenters into Chinese territory. So, when Tim Cook says "Privacy is a human right", what he apparently implies is that not all humans are created equal. It's certainly an ugly hill to die on, but it also makes it incredibly hard to believe that Apple has an ideological attachment to privacy when they bend over backwards for China more than any other FAANG member.

I believe the toggles are fairly visible under Settings > Siri, and then I'd probably search for Privacy and Advertising and do toggles there too.

To be fair, I rarely have location services turned on either. Mostly just cause I enjoy looking at the maps more than I enjoy getting directions as opposed to a big concern about being tracked. I find I learn the areas I'm in better that way.

I have to add that attributing virtue or vice based on nothing but personal demographics in this fashion is overwhelmingly likely to lead you to some bad conclusions.

I get in my car. Candy Crush 2 is suggested to me, because I oftentimes, when being driven around by my wife, play games.

At a surface level, one could argue: Candy Crush did not pay for that impression, its not an ad. On the other hand; Candy Crush does pay Apple 30% of every transaction in the app; and that service fee includes not only access to market on the iOS App Store, but also, critically, access to be installed at all on iOS. Developers pay Apple to be allowed to install Applications on users' phones; any installed application could be given preferential display by iOS in suggested applications, location based suggestions, etc; Apple has a monetary interest (30%) in suggesting applications which would generate revenue for both them & the developer; the algorithms which power these application suggestions are black-boxed and poorly understood by consumers.

Similarly; I drive up to Starbucks, and iOS displays the Starbucks application. The innocuous argument is: arrive at location -> many users open this app at this location -> presenting it is convenient. The "weirder" argument is: arrive at location -> Apple wants to keep Starbucks happy, in the App Store, and using Apple Pay -> presenting it is monetarily beneficial to Apple & Starbucks, Starbucks knew that their app could be presented like this and approved of it, and thus its an Ad. Critically, there's nothing different about these two situations beyond intent, and to some degree that just speaks to the fact that we live in a capitalist society. But I label the situation "weird" for a reason. And "weirdest"? Arrive at location -> There's a starbucks & a panera bread right next to each other -> iOS can only recommend one application, so which does it choose? This is where being explicit about "this is an ad" actually matters; its no longer a matter of convenience or "wow that's cool", its a matter of "a billion devices are now pushing their users to make getting coffee at Starbucks a little bit easier than Panera", and that's not ok even if the intention is totally ethical.

I think there's an argument, maybe not a strong one but extant nonetheless, that any "preferential display" iOS exhibits toward one app over another, anywhere on your phone, is advertising, simply due to how intertwined their megacorporation interests & reach is with how money flows through their platform.

As much as Google apps annoy me (Android user), at least Google Maps still acts like a dump pipe. Silent unless called upon.

So your thing is not an ad, just an unnecessary reminder. I imagine after going the first couple of times, you don't need navigational assistance to get there.

What feels as spying to me is, for example, seeing a specific medical care ad on YouTube after I talked to a friend about a health issue using a completely unrelated chat app or even IRL. There are clearly a lot of moving parts, a bunch of data stored outside of my device, and if it's not already tied to my identity it's likely de-anonymizable.

I would be more concerned about ATT/Verizon/T-Mobile, who have real-time data on where every connected phone is all the time and a FISA court can always serve them with a secret warrant.

Also, what you are describing is not Dunkin paying Apple for an advertisement. If it is, then it would be huge news that Apple is pushing non Apple ads to its devices.

Not really. They know which mast it's connected to and can do signal strength triangulation. Their location info is a lot less good than what the device makers with wifi map data can give you, hence why every so often we get a news story about how Uber knows where you are a lot better than a 911 operator does.