It depends on what you'd consider "untrustworthy", but some (myself included) feel it's hypocritical for Apple to position itself as a privacy conscious choice, and use its marketing / PR machine to give the impression it only makes money on devices/subscriptions, when they're silently managing an ads-funded cash cow, with billions of dollars that go directly to the bottom line, as pure profit.

Here's a few pointers, to get you up to speed [1-5]. Of course there's nothing wrong with monetizing their own user base and selling ads based on their 1PD (or, in the case of Safari, monetizing the search engine placement). But I find it ironic that they make a ton of money by selling ads based on the exact same practices they demonize others for -- user behavior, contextual, location, profile.

[1] https://searchads.apple.com/

[2] Apple’s expanding ad ambitions: A closer look at its journey toward a comprehensive ad tech stack - https://digiday.com/media-buying/apples-expanding-ad-ambitio...

[3] Apple’s Ad Network Is The Biggest Beneficiary Of Apple’s New Marketing Rules: Report -- https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2021/10/19/apples-...

[4] Apple Privacy Suits Claim App Changes Were Guise to Boost Ad Revenue - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/app...

[5] Apple is becoming an ad company despite privacy claims - https://proton.me/blog/apple-ad-company

> they're silently managing an ads-funded cash cow, with billions of dollars that go directly to the bottom line, as pure profit

Advertising isn't anti-privacy. Apple's fight was with tracking by third parties without user knowledge or consent. That is independent of, but often used for, advertising purposes.

This is different from say Google determining ads on Youtube based on what you are watching on Youtube.com, and from Amazon or Apple promoting products based on your product searches solely within their respective stores.

> Advertising isn't anti-privacy.

Advertising works much better when there is no privacy.

Your truism doesn’t refute their point.

Tracking-based Ad targeting is blip in the history of advertising and goes against previous decades of "common sense" in advertising that the best ads cast the widest net and catch the eye of people you (and they) don't even know are potential targets.

I hope this current fad dies and people return to that older marketing "common sense". Over-targeting is bad for consumers and bad for advertisers, the only people truly benefiting seem to be Google and Meta.

The fact that Advanced Data Protection on iCloud wasn't forced is sus.

Not when you understand the tradeoffs being made. If you enable Advanced Data Protection and lose or forget your password, Apple cannot help you recover it. It makes sense that it's opt-in and users make a conscious choice to make that trade-off.

As someone who has to help my father with his personal tech as his mental health deteriorates (several brain tumors), I'm thrilled every time I find something that ISN'T locked down behind pin codes, passwords or other authentication methods that he no longer remembers or can communicate.

His current state really has made me think about my own tech, about what should be locked down and what really should not be - things that we lock down out of habit (or by force) rather than out of necessity.

Given the rate at which the elderly find themselves swindled out of money due to scams, hacks or any other method of invasion, I really don’t think loosening controls makes the most sense.

Might be interesting if companies offered the ability for someone to be a “steward” over another when it came to sensitive choices (like allowing new logins, sending money, etc). Of course that itself is a minefield of issues with family members themselves taking advantage of their elderly members. But maybe power of attorney would have to be granted?

What I hinted at was more granularity in how we treat different types of data, or other accesses, in response to the idea of being forced to turn on "Advanced Data Protection on iCloud".

Rather than putting all of our personal data and accesses under a thick virtual fire blanket, perhaps it is perfectly fine if some of it isn't protected at all, or is protected in ways that could be easily circumvented with just a tiny bit of finagling.

This is now how I'm approaching my own digital foot print, that some not secret things are nowadays wide open, unencrypted and you just need to know where to look to access all of it.

Relatedly, I think a lot of us under-estimate/under-appreciate physical security in our threat models. A desktop tower that never leaves my house and would be a pain for anyone but a dedicated burglar to steal maybe doesn't need the same sort of security/encryption/authentication requirements for physical access in person that a phone or laptop might need. Certainly there are plenty of fears of people targeting me specifically and getting physical access to my house, but there are also more legal protections from some of those. Threat models are all about trade-offs and physical security/physical access restrictions trade-offs can be under-appreciated as places to make choices that can be in your favor.

I understand what you mean but I think maybe your example wasn’t terrific given I think the elderly are actually frequent and vulnerable targets for crims. I’ve actually had scenarios where my parents were unable to log into an account and when I asked why they needed to, it was to give some “support specialist” information they were asking for. Is it a pain in the ass to help your parents install a mobile app sometimes? Yeah I guess. I’m just glad someone didn’t drain their bank account on them.

There is sometimes a point to inconvenience in that it requires time and assessment.

Yeah, the thing about "security" is that there is a lot more chance that it will come to bite you in the ass later down the road than being successful (actually prevent an issue). I have some funny stories about unrecoverable drives because of forgotten encryption keys.

For most people the only security they need is actually access to their money, everything else is mostly irrelevant, nobody really cares about weird habits or whatever.

Have you ever done tech support?