Aside from the horrible colors (makes me think of Nokia's polycarbonate phones) the Pixel2 may be a very nice phone because of the camera and OLED screen. But will they sell more than a couple million? I doubt it.
Hopefully the iPhone 9 and XI will have bigger sensors.
"Free" photo storage comes with a perpetual, world-wide, royalty-free license for Goople to store and use your data for any purpose, even after you've deleted it and cancelled your account.
*cough* FUD-worthy *cough*
What's yours remains yours....
It remains yours in the sense that Google can't openly distribute it. But how long that account and all its contents live in Google infrastructure is another matter. You can't force Google to remove your data, not can you check if they actually removed all of your data
Why can't you do so the same way you remove your data from Apple and confirm they did so?
Apple does not have ad generated revenue, since they do not sell their customers to advertisers. In other words, Apple have no business model that would require that. Also, as you might remember, Google did not raised problems with FBI sending them request to hand out customer data. Apple did.
Google was just recently threatened with criminal charges (yeah not the typical civil ones) by government agencies for continuing not to cooperate with FBI and other investigative/law enforcement demands for user data, so that part of your post is bunk.
Second part is bunk too as Apple does use "your" data for ad purposes, minimally within the App Store. So while not up to Google levels they do collect user data and monetize it in some limited ways. Anyway, not pertinent to this article to begin with so discussion of this belongs in a different thread if you'd like to pursue it further.
"while not up to Google levels". EXACTLY. So it is not bunk, then?
"not up to Google levels" This should be put in bold text. You deliberately downplayed that important difference and concentrated on "Apple collecting something, and Google collecting too, therefore they are equally bad" type of logical fallacy. Otherwise, if it was not your intent, then why even bother to mention that?
No, Apple does not collect like Google. We touched on that before, and AGAIN you provided the same old and tired fallacy you did several times here. No, Apple does not collect data to the extent Google does. Period! There is no BUT after that. And please stop using WEASEL WORDS in order to make those two cases seemingly closer to each other, than they otherwise are.
It ls also nice that you equated Apple Store targeting (in providing apps which is part of the Apple infrastructure) with Google targeting that helps Google to show you crappy banners of some crappy advertisers with some BS that you had no intention of looking at. Kind of intellectually dishonest, if you ask me, but I guess is was find by you....
Could you provide that link about Google being threatened with criminal charges, btw?
Besides being far from the ONLY reason a person might want to know "who" Apple believes they are and what information they've connected to them it's also not true that Apple has no involvement at all in monetizing user data.
“You are not our product,” Tim Cook during PBS interview, explaining that Apple’s stance on user privacy and company transparency is basically to never become like Google.
That was verbatim, words by words by Tim Cook, a CEO of the biggest tech company in the world, in front of millions of people who was watching it on TV.
Joke of a phone. Remember when Google mocked Apple by emphasizing the headphone jack during the Pixel one keynote? Why doesn't a single one of these fucking companies at least stay committed to their "stance", instead of mocking then turning around and following Apple's lead less than 12 months later, each and every time? If you think removing the headphone jack is insane, is anti-consumer, and is truly the wrong thing to do- then commit to it and keep it in your devices. Don't use it as a cheap way to bash Apple then go ahead and drop it the first chance you get like the hypocritical cowards that you are.
"Free" photo storage comes with a perpetual, world-wide, royalty-free license for Goople to store and use your data for any purpose, even after you've deleted it and cancelled your account.
*cough* FUD-worthy *cough*
What's yours remains yours....
It remains yours in the sense that Google can't openly distribute it. But how long that account and all its contents live in Google infrastructure is another matter. You can't force Google to remove your data, not can you check if they actually removed all of your data
Why can't you do so the same way you remove your data from Apple and confirm they did so?
Apple does not have ad generated revenue, since they do not sell their customers to advertisers. In other words, Apple have no business model that would require that. Also, as you might remember, Google did not raised problems with FBI sending them request to hand out customer data. Apple did.
Google was just recently threatened with criminal charges (yeah not the typical civil ones) by government agencies for continuing not to cooperate with FBI and other investigative/law enforcement demands for user data, so that part of your post is bunk.
Second part is bunk too as Apple does use "your" data for ad purposes, minimally within the App Store. So while not up to Google levels they do collect user data and monetize it in some limited ways. Anyway, not pertinent to this article to begin with so discussion of this belongs in a different thread if you'd like to pursue it further.
"while not up to Google levels". EXACTLY. So it is not bunk, then?
"not up to Google levels" This should be put in bold text. You deliberately downplayed that important difference and concentrated on "Apple collecting something, and Google collecting too, therefore they are equally bad" type of logical fallacy. Otherwise, if it was not your intent, then why even bother to mention that?
No, Apple does not collect like Google. We touched on that before, and AGAIN you provided the same old and tired fallacy you did several times here. No, Apple does not collect data to the extent Google does. Period! There is no BUT after that. And please stop using WEASEL WORDS in order to make those two cases seemingly closer to each other, than they otherwise are.
It ls also nice that you equated Apple Store targeting (in providing apps which is part of the Apple infrastructure) with Google targeting that helps Google to show you crappy banners of some crappy advertisers with some BS that you had no intention of looking at. Kind of intellectually dishonest, if you ask me, but I guess is was find by you....
Could you provide that link about Google being threatened with criminal charges, btw?
Besides being far from the ONLY reason a person might want to know "who" Apple believes they are and what information they've connected to them it's also not true that Apple has no involvement at all in monetizing user data.
“You are not our product,” Tim Cook during PBS interview, explaining that Apple’s stance on user privacy and company transparency is basically to never become like Google.
That was verbatim, words by words by Tim Cook, a CEO of the biggest tech company in the world, in front of millions of people who was watching it on TV.
That's a good thing and a bad thing. Privacy is good. But Privacy at the expense of useful features due to not being able to harvest needed to improve your cloud services is not good. Users need Privacy AND features. I hope I'm wrong but I actually think Apple's overly stringent stance on privacy may hinder their cloud / AI efforts in the long-term. They're already having a hard time attracting top-tier AI / ML talent because of it.
So what do you plan to do when all smartphones have no headphone jacks anymore?
I'm planning on getting the FIIO X5 3rd Generation!!
Seriously though, I think every set of earphones since my iPhone 3G have just been sitting in the box, without even a single use. I used to use Shure earphones and then moved to Beats and now AirPods. It's been ages since I needed a headphone jack on the iPhone.
"We don't set aside better features for the larger device," said Google VP Mario Queiroz in a clear dig at Apple, earning laughter and applause from the audience at Wednesday's keynote.
So you have a mediocre phone in a small case and a lot of wasted potential in the larger case?
The people were right to laugh... At how deluded Google really is.
Doesn’t the non-Plus model of iPhone have OIS now? As far as I can tell there wasn’t some major design change to accommodate it. Seems more likely than not that it was exclusive to the Plus model as an upsell.
What nonsense. The chief of Apple engineering said in an interview they used the space saved from the headphone jack to include better camera components, battery and water seals. Additionally, these things get smaller and better every year. It’s natural to start bigger where you have room and optimize.
But I know, you think it’s all magic and a mustache-twirling Schiller trying to rip you off.
I’m not talking about the headphone jack. I’m talking about why for one year the Plus model had OIS while the non-Plus model didn’t. Saying it was a space/engineering issue is just spin. Apple wants people buying more expensive models. It’s why they never offer the ‘sweet spot’ in terms of storage right away. Apple didn’t invent the upsell but they sure love it.
Doesn’t the non-Plus model of iPhone have OIS now? As far as I can tell there wasn’t some major design change to accommodate it. Seems more likely than not that it was exclusive to the Plus model as an upsell.
Last year’s iPhone 7 gained OIS in the smaller phone. Along with water resistance.
Right. As far as we know though there was no major design change to accomodate it,
Christ. How many times must I link to this....Yes, there was. The removal of legacy headphone jack. He attributed this to it directly.
But he’s far more interested in the ripple effect of advancements the removal of the audio jack set off in the iPhone.
“It was holding us back from a number of things we wanted to put into the iPhone,” Riccio says. “It was fighting for space with camera technologies and processors and battery life. And frankly, when there’s a better, modern solution available, it’s crazy to keep it around.”
No where in that quote did Riccio specifically mention the non-Plus phone or OIS. He was so non-specific, for all we know he could’ve been talking about the camera tech in the X.
"Free" photo storage comes with a perpetual, world-wide, royalty-free license for Goople to store and use your data for any purpose, even after you've deleted it and cancelled your account.
*cough* FUD-worthy *cough*
What's yours remains yours....
It remains yours in the sense that Google can't openly distribute it. But how long that account and all its contents live in Google infrastructure is another matter. You can't force Google to remove your data, not can you check if they actually removed all of your data
Why can't you do so the same way you remove your data from Apple and confirm they did so?
Apple does not have ad generated revenue, since they do not sell their customers to advertisers. In other words, Apple have no business model that would require that. Also, as you might remember, Google did not raised problems with FBI sending them request to hand out customer data. Apple did.
Google was just recently threatened with criminal charges (yeah not the typical civil ones) by government agencies for continuing not to cooperate with FBI and other investigative/law enforcement demands for user data, so that part of your post is bunk.
Second part is bunk too as Apple does use "your" data for ad purposes, minimally within the App Store. So while not up to Google levels they do collect user data and monetize it in some limited ways. Anyway, not pertinent to this article to begin with so discussion of this belongs in a different thread if you'd like to pursue it further.
"while not up to Google levels". EXACTLY. So it is not bunk, then?
"not up to Google levels" This should be put in bold text. You deliberately downplayed that important difference and concentrated on "Apple collecting something, and Google collecting too, therefore they are equally bad" type of logical fallacy. Otherwise, if it was not your intent, then why even bother to mention that?
No, Apple does not collect like Google. We touched on that before, and AGAIN you provided the same old and tired fallacy you did several times here. No, Apple does not collect data to the extent Google does. Period! There is no BUT after that. And please stop using WEASEL WORDS in order to make those two cases seemingly closer to each other, than they otherwise are.
It ls also nice that you equated Apple Store targeting (in providing apps which is part of the Apple infrastructure) with Google targeting that helps Google to show you crappy banners of some crappy advertisers with some BS that you had no intention of looking at. Kind of intellectually dishonest, if you ask me, but I guess is was find by you....
Could you provide that link about Google being threatened with criminal charges, btw?
Besides being far from the ONLY reason a person might want to know "who" Apple believes they are and what information they've connected to them it's also not true that Apple has no involvement at all in monetizing user data.
“You are not our product,” Tim Cook during PBS interview, explaining that Apple’s stance on user privacy and company transparency is basically to never become like Google.
That was verbatim, words by words by Tim Cook, a CEO of the biggest tech company in the world, in front of millions of people who was watching it on TV.
Read this first and then try repeating Apple does not use any of "your" personal information or data for monetizing you as an Apple customer. I believe you would typically phrase it as selling you, or "you are the product" https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT205223 and revised less than a month ago for detailed legal disclosure expanding on points made in the new reader-friendly, Apple-promoted and blog-reported "Privacy Page".
Apple’s advertising platform creates groups of people, called segments, who share similar characteristics and uses these groups for delivering targeted ads. Information about you is used to determine which segments you are assigned to, and thus, which ads you receive. To protect your privacy, your information is used to place you into segments of at least 5,000 people.
In Apple News, the topics and publications you follow, and the publications you enable to send you notifications, are used to assign you to segments. No segments are created from search terms in the App Store.
In both Apple News and the App Store, the following information may also be used to assign you to segments.
Account Information: Your name, address, age, and devices registered to your account. Information such as your first name in your Apple ID registration page, or salutation in your iTunes Account may be used to derive your gender.
Downloads: The music, movies, books, TV shows, and apps you download.
Activities in Other Apps: App developers, subject to their own privacy policies and applicable laws, may provide information regarding your in-app purchases and activities such as game level completion.
Advertising: Your interaction with advertising delivered by Apple’s advertising platform.
Other Segments: For specific advertising campaigns, advertisers may match information they have about users with Apple’s information to create segments, which must contain at least 5,000 people. Advertisers can use an Advertising Identifier, or other information they have about users, such as a phone number or email to match users to segments on Apple's advertising platform. During the match process, these identifiers are obscured to limit personally identifiable information being disclosed. To choose which segments they match users to, Advertisers may use information they have from interactions with users. This information is acquired and used subject to the Advertisers’ own privacy policies.
The OP claimed they did not do this, period, and therefor was reason that no one needs to know what Apple has for user data (ignoring that there are other reasons for transparency), and then you try to repeat the same falsehood that they don't do what they clearly admit they do. I can almost guarantee that not one single Apple user commenting here even bothered to look into it, you almost certainly, before diving into a diatribe over it.
So to repeat for the third time, No Apple is not nearly as interested or invested as Google in targeted ad revenue. not even close, but to say they have NO interest is bunk plain and simple. (They even do so in much the same way and with many of the same use restrictions on user data as Google does with their ad platform).
So it is exactly as I originally framed it and have continued to do so if you go back and look, not that I would expect you to since then you wouldn't have anything to argue with. It doesn't make Apple bad or evil. But don't ascribe meaning to a phrase used in marketing efforts to then make assumptions of fact without doing a bit of background. It really is OK to peek behind the curtain once in awhile.
Several posts back I suggested this is creating a distraction from the topic and if you and others wish to continue the discussion of Apple and ads and Google and whatever then start a new thread and I'll join in if I have anything further to add. Heck for simplicity just take it to the very recent AI article discussion about Google DoubleClick and Apple news. At least that one is related and won't require any more time or effort than commenting in this one. http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/10/03/apple-testing-google-doubleclick-ad-serving-in-news-app-report-says
I've given you enough information to make your own judgement and continuing, especially if the current small group of members commenting really have no interest in knowing facts in the first place, serves no further purpose.
"Free" photo storage comes with a perpetual, world-wide, royalty-free license for Goople to store and use your data for any purpose, even after you've deleted it and cancelled your account.
*cough* FUD-worthy *cough*
What's yours remains yours....
It remains yours in the sense that Google can't openly distribute it. But how long that account and all its contents live in Google infrastructure is another matter. You can't force Google to remove your data, not can you check if they actually removed all of your data
Why can't you do so the same way you remove your data from Apple and confirm they did so?
Apple does not have ad generated revenue, since they do not sell their customers to advertisers. In other words, Apple have no business model that would require that. Also, as you might remember, Google did not raised problems with FBI sending them request to hand out customer data. Apple did.
Google was just recently threatened with criminal charges (yeah not the typical civil ones) by government agencies for continuing not to cooperate with FBI and other investigative/law enforcement demands for user data, so that part of your post is bunk.
Second part is bunk too as Apple does use "your" data for ad purposes, minimally within the App Store. So while not up to Google levels they do collect user data and monetize it in some limited ways. Anyway, not pertinent to this article to begin with so discussion of this belongs in a different thread if you'd like to pursue it further.
"while not up to Google levels". EXACTLY. So it is not bunk, then?
"not up to Google levels" This should be put in bold text. You deliberately downplayed that important difference and concentrated on "Apple collecting something, and Google collecting too, therefore they are equally bad" type of logical fallacy. Otherwise, if it was not your intent, then why even bother to mention that?
No, Apple does not collect like Google. We touched on that before, and AGAIN you provided the same old and tired fallacy you did several times here. No, Apple does not collect data to the extent Google does. Period! There is no BUT after that. And please stop using WEASEL WORDS in order to make those two cases seemingly closer to each other, than they otherwise are.
It ls also nice that you equated Apple Store targeting (in providing apps which is part of the Apple infrastructure) with Google targeting that helps Google to show you crappy banners of some crappy advertisers with some BS that you had no intention of looking at. Kind of intellectually dishonest, if you ask me, but I guess is was find by you....
Could you provide that link about Google being threatened with criminal charges, btw?
Besides being far from the ONLY reason a person might want to know "who" Apple believes they are and what information they've connected to them it's also not true that Apple has no involvement at all in monetizing user data.
“You are not our product,” Tim Cook during PBS interview, explaining that Apple’s stance on user privacy and company transparency is basically to never become like Google.
That was verbatim, words by words by Tim Cook, a CEO of the biggest tech company in the world, in front of millions of people who was watching it on TV.
That's a good thing and a bad thing. Privacy is good. But Privacy at the expense of useful features due to not being able to harvest needed to improve your cloud services is not good. Users need Privacy AND features. I hope I'm wrong but I actually think Apple's overly stringent stance on privacy may hinder their cloud / AI efforts in the long-term. They're already having a hard time attracting top-tier AI / ML talent because of it.
Unless you work in Apple’s personnel office, that is an unsupportable assertion.
"Free" photo storage comes with a perpetual, world-wide, royalty-free license for Goople to store and use your data for any purpose, even after you've deleted it and cancelled your account.
*cough* FUD-worthy *cough*
What's yours remains yours....
It remains yours in the sense that Google can't openly distribute it. But how long that account and all its contents live in Google infrastructure is another matter. You can't force Google to remove your data, not can you check if they actually removed all of your data
Why can't you do so the same way you remove your data from Apple and confirm they did so?
Apple does not have ad generated revenue, since they do not sell their customers to advertisers. In other words, Apple have no business model that would require that. Also, as you might remember, Google did not raised problems with FBI sending them request to hand out customer data. Apple did.
Google was just recently threatened with criminal charges (yeah not the typical civil ones) by government agencies for continuing not to cooperate with FBI and other investigative/law enforcement demands for user data, so that part of your post is bunk.
Second part is bunk too as Apple does use "your" data for ad purposes, minimally within the App Store. So while not up to Google levels they do collect user data and monetize it in some limited ways. Anyway, not pertinent to this article to begin with so discussion of this belongs in a different thread if you'd like to pursue it further.
"while not up to Google levels". EXACTLY. So it is not bunk, then?
"not up to Google levels" This should be put in bold text. You deliberately downplayed that important difference and concentrated on "Apple collecting something, and Google collecting too, therefore they are equally bad" type of logical fallacy. Otherwise, if it was not your intent, then why even bother to mention that?
No, Apple does not collect like Google. We touched on that before, and AGAIN you provided the same old and tired fallacy you did several times here. No, Apple does not collect data to the extent Google does. Period! There is no BUT after that. And please stop using WEASEL WORDS in order to make those two cases seemingly closer to each other, than they otherwise are.
It ls also nice that you equated Apple Store targeting (in providing apps which is part of the Apple infrastructure) with Google targeting that helps Google to show you crappy banners of some crappy advertisers with some BS that you had no intention of looking at. Kind of intellectually dishonest, if you ask me, but I guess is was find by you....
Could you provide that link about Google being threatened with criminal charges, btw?
Besides being far from the ONLY reason a person might want to know "who" Apple believes they are and what information they've connected to them it's also not true that Apple has no involvement at all in monetizing user data.
“You are not our product,” Tim Cook during PBS interview, explaining that Apple’s stance on user privacy and company transparency is basically to never become like Google.
That was verbatim, words by words by Tim Cook, a CEO of the biggest tech company in the world, in front of millions of people who was watching it on TV.
That's a good thing and a bad thing. Privacy is good. But Privacy at the expense of useful features due to not being able to harvest needed to improve your cloud services is not good. Users need Privacy AND features. I hope I'm wrong but I actually think Apple's overly stringent stance on privacy may hinder their cloud / AI efforts in the long-term. They're already having a hard time attracting top-tier AI / ML talent because of it.
Unless you work in Apple’s personnel office, that is an unsupportable assertion.
Proof is in the pudding. Apple bought Siri well before its competitors introduced their own AI assistants and yet they have surpassed Siri in terms of capability / accuracy. It should be the other way. Just to give you anther idea, here's an example of what Google is capable of with some of their AI efforts
A lot of this has to do with Tim Cook's policy of applying overly stringent privacy policies that's hindering Apple abilities to harvest data needed to advance their AI efforts. At least, that has been the case up to this year.
"Free" photo storage comes with a perpetual, world-wide, royalty-free license for Goople to store and use your data for any purpose, even after you've deleted it and cancelled your account.
*cough* FUD-worthy *cough*
What's yours remains yours....
It remains yours in the sense that Google can't openly distribute it. But how long that account and all its contents live in Google infrastructure is another matter. You can't force Google to remove your data, not can you check if they actually removed all of your data
Why can't you do so the same way you remove your data from Apple and confirm they did so?
Apple does not have ad generated revenue, since they do not sell their customers to advertisers. In other words, Apple have no business model that would require that. Also, as you might remember, Google did not raised problems with FBI sending them request to hand out customer data. Apple did.
Google was just recently threatened with criminal charges (yeah not the typical civil ones) by government agencies for continuing not to cooperate with FBI and other investigative/law enforcement demands for user data, so that part of your post is bunk.
Second part is bunk too as Apple does use "your" data for ad purposes, minimally within the App Store. So while not up to Google levels they do collect user data and monetize it in some limited ways. Anyway, not pertinent to this article to begin with so discussion of this belongs in a different thread if you'd like to pursue it further.
"while not up to Google levels". EXACTLY. So it is not bunk, then?
"not up to Google levels" This should be put in bold text. You deliberately downplayed that important difference and concentrated on "Apple collecting something, and Google collecting too, therefore they are equally bad" type of logical fallacy. Otherwise, if it was not your intent, then why even bother to mention that?
No, Apple does not collect like Google. We touched on that before, and AGAIN you provided the same old and tired fallacy you did several times here. No, Apple does not collect data to the extent Google does. Period! There is no BUT after that. And please stop using WEASEL WORDS in order to make those two cases seemingly closer to each other, than they otherwise are.
It ls also nice that you equated Apple Store targeting (in providing apps which is part of the Apple infrastructure) with Google targeting that helps Google to show you crappy banners of some crappy advertisers with some BS that you had no intention of looking at. Kind of intellectually dishonest, if you ask me, but I guess is was find by you....
Could you provide that link about Google being threatened with criminal charges, btw?
Besides being far from the ONLY reason a person might want to know "who" Apple believes they are and what information they've connected to them it's also not true that Apple has no involvement at all in monetizing user data.
“You are not our product,” Tim Cook during PBS interview, explaining that Apple’s stance on user privacy and company transparency is basically to never become like Google.
That was verbatim, words by words by Tim Cook, a CEO of the biggest tech company in the world, in front of millions of people who was watching it on TV.
That's a good thing and a bad thing. Privacy is good. But Privacy at the expense of useful features due to not being able to harvest needed to improve your cloud services is not good. Users need Privacy AND features. I hope I'm wrong but I actually think Apple's overly stringent stance on privacy may hinder their cloud / AI efforts in the long-term. They're already having a hard time attracting top-tier AI / ML talent because of it.
Unless you work in Apple’s personnel office, that is an unsupportable assertion.
Proof is in the pudding. Apple bought Siri well before its competitors introduced their own AI assistants and yet they have surpassed Siri in terms of capability / accuracy. It should be the other way. Just to give you anther idea, here's an example of what Google is capable of with some of their AI efforts
A lot of this has to do with Tim Cook's policy of applying overly stringent privacy policies that's hindering Apple abilities to harvest data needed to advance their AI efforts. At least, that has been the case up to this year.
Is it because of stringent privacy policies or is Apple just behind and privacy is used as an excuse. Like when Tim Cook received that privacy award and made a comment about other companies doing “god knows what” with your photos.
People will use whatever they think provides them the best information/experience. I’ll bet a large chunk of iOS users use Google services on their devices. Shouldn’t Apple’s goal be to make it so Apple’s offerings are superior and therefore people don’t need/want to use Google’s offerings?
"Free" photo storage comes with a perpetual, world-wide, royalty-free license for Goople to store and use your data for any purpose, even after you've deleted it and cancelled your account.
*cough* FUD-worthy *cough*
What's yours remains yours....
It remains yours in the sense that Google can't openly distribute it. But how long that account and all its contents live in Google infrastructure is another matter. You can't force Google to remove your data, not can you check if they actually removed all of your data
Why can't you do so the same way you remove your data from Apple and confirm they did so?
Apple does not have ad generated revenue, since they do not sell their customers to advertisers. In other words, Apple have no business model that would require that. Also, as you might remember, Google did not raised problems with FBI sending them request to hand out customer data. Apple did.
Google was just recently threatened with criminal charges (yeah not the typical civil ones) by government agencies for continuing not to cooperate with FBI and other investigative/law enforcement demands for user data, so that part of your post is bunk.
Second part is bunk too as Apple does use "your" data for ad purposes, minimally within the App Store. So while not up to Google levels they do collect user data and monetize it in some limited ways. Anyway, not pertinent to this article to begin with so discussion of this belongs in a different thread if you'd like to pursue it further.
"while not up to Google levels". EXACTLY. So it is not bunk, then?
"not up to Google levels" This should be put in bold text. You deliberately downplayed that important difference and concentrated on "Apple collecting something, and Google collecting too, therefore they are equally bad" type of logical fallacy. Otherwise, if it was not your intent, then why even bother to mention that?
No, Apple does not collect like Google. We touched on that before, and AGAIN you provided the same old and tired fallacy you did several times here. No, Apple does not collect data to the extent Google does. Period! There is no BUT after that. And please stop using WEASEL WORDS in order to make those two cases seemingly closer to each other, than they otherwise are.
It ls also nice that you equated Apple Store targeting (in providing apps which is part of the Apple infrastructure) with Google targeting that helps Google to show you crappy banners of some crappy advertisers with some BS that you had no intention of looking at. Kind of intellectually dishonest, if you ask me, but I guess is was find by you....
Could you provide that link about Google being threatened with criminal charges, btw?
Besides being far from the ONLY reason a person might want to know "who" Apple believes they are and what information they've connected to them it's also not true that Apple has no involvement at all in monetizing user data.
“You are not our product,” Tim Cook during PBS interview, explaining that Apple’s stance on user privacy and company transparency is basically to never become like Google.
That was verbatim, words by words by Tim Cook, a CEO of the biggest tech company in the world, in front of millions of people who was watching it on TV.
That's a good thing and a bad thing. Privacy is good. But Privacy at the expense of useful features due to not being able to harvest needed to improve your cloud services is not good. Users need Privacy AND features. I hope I'm wrong but I actually think Apple's overly stringent stance on privacy may hinder their cloud / AI efforts in the long-term. They're already having a hard time attracting top-tier AI / ML talent because of it.
Unless you work in Apple’s personnel office, that is an unsupportable assertion.
Proof is in the pudding. Apple bought Siri well before its competitors introduced their own AI assistants and yet they have surpassed Siri in terms of capability / accuracy. It should be the other way. Just to give you anther idea, here's an example of what Google is capable of with some of their AI efforts
A lot of this has to do with Tim Cook's policy of applying overly stringent privacy policies that's hindering Apple abilities to harvest data needed to advance their AI efforts. At least, that has been the case up to this year.
Is it because of stringent privacy policies or is Apple just behind and privacy is used as an excuse. Like when Tim Cook received that privacy award and made a comment about other companies doing “god knows what” with your photos.
People will use whatever they think provides them the best information/experience. I’ll bet a large chunk of iOS users use Google services on their devices. Shouldn’t Apple’s goal be to make it so Apple’s offerings are superior and therefore people don’t need/want to use Google’s offerings?
"Is it because of stringent privacy policies or is Apple just behind and privacy is used as an excuse"
Good question. It may be a combination of both, like a self-fulfilling cycle.
"Shouldn’t Apple’s goal be to make it so Apple’s offerings are superior and therefore people don’t need/want to use Google’s offerings?"
"Free" photo storage comes with a perpetual, world-wide, royalty-free license for Goople to store and use your data for any purpose, even after you've deleted it and cancelled your account.
*cough* FUD-worthy *cough*
What's yours remains yours....
It remains yours in the sense that Google can't openly distribute it. But how long that account and all its contents live in Google infrastructure is another matter. You can't force Google to remove your data, not can you check if they actually removed all of your data
Why can't you do so the same way you remove your data from Apple and confirm they did so?
Apple does not have ad generated revenue, since they do not sell their customers to advertisers. In other words, Apple have no business model that would require that. Also, as you might remember, Google did not raised problems with FBI sending them request to hand out customer data. Apple did.
Google was just recently threatened with criminal charges (yeah not the typical civil ones) by government agencies for continuing not to cooperate with FBI and other investigative/law enforcement demands for user data, so that part of your post is bunk.
Second part is bunk too as Apple does use "your" data for ad purposes, minimally within the App Store. So while not up to Google levels they do collect user data and monetize it in some limited ways. Anyway, not pertinent to this article to begin with so discussion of this belongs in a different thread if you'd like to pursue it further.
"while not up to Google levels". EXACTLY. So it is not bunk, then?
"not up to Google levels" This should be put in bold text. You deliberately downplayed that important difference and concentrated on "Apple collecting something, and Google collecting too, therefore they are equally bad" type of logical fallacy. Otherwise, if it was not your intent, then why even bother to mention that?
No, Apple does not collect like Google. We touched on that before, and AGAIN you provided the same old and tired fallacy you did several times here. No, Apple does not collect data to the extent Google does. Period! There is no BUT after that. And please stop using WEASEL WORDS in order to make those two cases seemingly closer to each other, than they otherwise are.
It ls also nice that you equated Apple Store targeting (in providing apps which is part of the Apple infrastructure) with Google targeting that helps Google to show you crappy banners of some crappy advertisers with some BS that you had no intention of looking at. Kind of intellectually dishonest, if you ask me, but I guess is was find by you....
Could you provide that link about Google being threatened with criminal charges, btw?
Your rationale for Apple not having an easy way to review or delete user data was "Apple does not derive any ad-generated revenue" as tho that's the only reason not to know what data Apple has connected to you. Besides being far from the ONLY reason a person might want to know "who" Apple believes they are and what information they've connected to them it's also not true that Apple has no involvement at all in monetizing user data. You were wrong no matter how much you would like to protest and modify the argument after the fact. FWIW I actually agree that there's a huge difference between Apple and Google's interest in user data. We have no disagreement on that point.
I think you could actually have discovered this for yourself, but even if not why would you claim Google wasn't challenging governments demands for user data without actually looking to find out whether that was true? It leaves me with the impression you weren't interested in truth in the first place but had other motivations for writing what you did. Having an opinion without backup of fact is one thing. Making a claim of fact as you did without actually knowing it to be so in the first place is just making stuff up and hoping no one notices which doesn't benefit any reader. That's how FUD gets spun around and around and around...
For whatever it's worth, I was under the same impression as Anton. For some reason I came away from the lengthy San Bernardino iPhone 5 discussions with the impression that Apple was the one and only corporate entity not knuckling under to pressure from the feds. I was so sure of that I would have bet money on it. Perhaps at that time it was? I haven't read the article you linked yet, but I see it's dated September of this year.
Also for what it's worth, I too thought your comparison of Apple's data gathering for profit to Google's was disingenuous. Technically similar but only to the extent that chimpanzees are like humans. You're not wrong per se, but I don't think they're worth discussing in the same breath.
"Free" photo storage comes with a perpetual, world-wide, royalty-free license for Goople to store and use your data for any purpose, even after you've deleted it and cancelled your account.
*cough* FUD-worthy *cough*
What's yours remains yours....
It remains yours in the sense that Google can't openly distribute it. But how long that account and all its contents live in Google infrastructure is another matter. You can't force Google to remove your data, not can you check if they actually removed all of your data
Why can't you do so the same way you remove your data from Apple and confirm they did so?
Apple does not have ad generated revenue, since they do not sell their customers to advertisers. In other words, Apple have no business model that would require that. Also, as you might remember, Google did not raised problems with FBI sending them request to hand out customer data. Apple did.
Google was just recently threatened with criminal charges (yeah not the typical civil ones) by government agencies for continuing not to cooperate with FBI and other investigative/law enforcement demands for user data, so that part of your post is bunk.
Second part is bunk too as Apple does use "your" data for ad purposes, minimally within the App Store. So while not up to Google levels they do collect user data and monetize it in some limited ways. Anyway, not pertinent to this article to begin with so discussion of this belongs in a different thread if you'd like to pursue it further.
"while not up to Google levels". EXACTLY. So it is not bunk, then?
"not up to Google levels" This should be put in bold text. You deliberately downplayed that important difference and concentrated on "Apple collecting something, and Google collecting too, therefore they are equally bad" type of logical fallacy. Otherwise, if it was not your intent, then why even bother to mention that?
No, Apple does not collect like Google. We touched on that before, and AGAIN you provided the same old and tired fallacy you did several times here. No, Apple does not collect data to the extent Google does. Period! There is no BUT after that. And please stop using WEASEL WORDS in order to make those two cases seemingly closer to each other, than they otherwise are.
It ls also nice that you equated Apple Store targeting (in providing apps which is part of the Apple infrastructure) with Google targeting that helps Google to show you crappy banners of some crappy advertisers with some BS that you had no intention of looking at. Kind of intellectually dishonest, if you ask me, but I guess is was find by you....
Could you provide that link about Google being threatened with criminal charges, btw?
Your rationale for Apple not having an easy way to review or delete user data was "Apple does not derive any ad-generated revenue" as tho that's the only reason not to know what data Apple has connected to you. Besides being far from the ONLY reason a person might want to know "who" Apple believes they are and what information they've connected to them it's also not true that Apple has no involvement at all in monetizing user data. You were wrong no matter how much you would like to protest and modify the argument after the fact. FWIW I actually agree that there's a huge difference between Apple and Google's interest in user data. We have no disagreement on that point.
I think you could actually have discovered this for yourself, but even if not why would you claim Google wasn't challenging governments demands for user data without actually looking to find out whether that was true? It leaves me with the impression you weren't interested in truth in the first place but had other motivations for writing what you did. Having an opinion without backup of fact is one thing. Making a claim of fact as you did without actually knowing it to be so in the first place is just making stuff up and hoping no one notices which doesn't benefit any reader. That's how FUD gets spun around and around and around...
For whatever it's worth, I was under the same impression as Anton. For some reason I came away from the lengthy San Bernardino iPhone 5 discussions with the impression that Apple was the one and only corporate entity not knuckling under to pressure from the feds. I was so sure of that I would have bet money on it. Perhaps at that time it was? I haven't read the article you linked yet, but I see it's dated September of this year.
Also for what it's worth, I too thought your comparison of Apple's data gathering for profit to Google's was disingenuous. Technically similar but only to the extent that chimpanzees are like humans. You're not wrong per se, but I don't think they're worth discussing in the same breath.
The intent was not to compare them to Google. You need to read the OP's original statement to understand the context, but in a nutshell he was arguing that there was no reason for anyone to know what data Apple might have gathered about them since Apple didn't do ads, which was his reaction to discovering that you could do just that when it comes to Google, and then felt he needed to create a reason that Apple should not do the same. The fan instinct had kicked in. I'm guessing that he erroneously thought you could not modify, review or delete data connected to your Google profile, nor how transparent the process could be once pointed in the right direction.
Ignoring for a moment that there's numerous reasons someone might want to know, Apple does in fact do targeted ads based on user data in a very limited fashion counter to what he had thought, which is exactly what I said. it was not a comparison to Google in any way.
Regarding Google and user data requests from Government policing agencies there has been numerous instances of Google going to court to contest demands for access to it when google believes their is not a legally supportable argument for complying. There's yet another court fight in progress today prompted by Google's continuing refusal to willingly hand over user data, and it's probably going to cost them. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/justice-department-accuses-google-of-43109/
Google was just recently threatened with criminal charges (yeah not the typical civil ones) by government agencies for continuing not to cooperate with FBI and other investigative/law enforcement demands for user data, so that part of your post is bunk.
Second part is bunk too as Apple does use "your" data for ad purposes, minimally within the App Store. So while not up to Google levels they do collect user data and monetize it in some limited ways. Anyway, not pertinent to this article to begin with so discussion of this belongs in a different thread if you'd like to pursue it further.
You have often taken an opposing argument toward Apple fans and have tried to remain reasonable so your posts are usually fine despite the obvious delight you get in trying to correct others. However, you’ve really gone overboard trying to argue that Apple’s interest in user data is in any way remotely similar or comparable to Google’s. It is laughable to argue, and you know it. So it sounds like you’re contradicting just for the sake of contradicting.
Yes if only we had a word for such contrarian behavior on a site dedicated to one topic...hmm, what would we call such a person...
And there is a word for the opposite of what you are implying but you don't see people throwing it around half as much as the one you are referring to. In fact, it's basically only used by those people who are somewhat touchy and sensitive to anyone not only criticising Apple but going even further and saying that someone else's products could even be better.
What you refer to as an Apple dedicated site is more of an Apple centric site IMO and, as Apple doesn't live in a bubble separated from the outside world, AI quite rightly covers subjects that are, for example, Google or Samsung centric. Hence the string of articles on a competitor and its new products and commenters mentioning those same competitors.
Someone mentioned the Image recognition numbers on the Kirin 970 and the ARM cores used.
I have already seen the results of the Huawei image recognition test on the iPhone 8 Plus (889) but agree that benchmarks don't count for much when it comes to the NPU. Huawei marketing is also doing a great a job of drawing attention to the Mate 10:
But the only real 'result' that counts is with the phone in the user's hand (from a user perspective) and final sales (from a company perspective).
From an industry and consumer perspective, the fact that so many companies are putting so much great technology on the market can only be good.
For those who questioned the choice of cores on the Kirin 970, I think it is short sighted. We are taking the first steps with AI and the NPU needed a stable environment. They have changed the GPU and added better ISPs and co-processor but the ARM cores are now mature. Going with the latest cores wouldn't have provided the same level of maturity and would have pushed back the release date. Those are not my words but those of the head of HiSilicon. Huawei has provided its own AI API and opened it up to developers. Developers can use the Android API if they prefer. Huawei reportedly has thousands of its own developers writing for the NPU and it isn't so much what the Mate 10 will do but what next year's phones will be able to. This time around the focus has been put on the camera. The motion blur results (if true) are dramatic, to say the least.
Comments
Hopefully the iPhone 9 and XI will have bigger sensors.
“You are not our product,” Tim Cook during PBS interview, explaining that Apple’s stance on user privacy and company transparency is basically to never become like Google.
That was verbatim, words by words by Tim Cook, a CEO of the biggest tech company in the world, in front of millions of people who was watching it on TV.
I'm planning on getting the FIIO X5 3rd Generation!!
Seriously though, I think every set of earphones since my iPhone 3G have just been sitting in the box, without even a single use. I used to use Shure earphones and then moved to Beats and now AirPods. It's been ages since I needed a headphone jack on the iPhone.
Moreover, I think the OP was joking.
https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT205223 and revised less than a month ago for detailed legal disclosure expanding on points made in the new reader-friendly, Apple-promoted and blog-reported "Privacy Page".
Apple’s advertising platform creates groups of people, called segments, who share similar characteristics and uses these groups for delivering targeted ads. Information about you is used to determine which segments you are assigned to, and thus, which ads you receive. To protect your privacy, your information is used to place you into segments of at least 5,000 people.
In Apple News, the topics and publications you follow, and the publications you enable to send you notifications, are used to assign you to segments. No segments are created from search terms in the App Store.
In both Apple News and the App Store, the following information may also be used to assign you to segments.
The OP claimed they did not do this, period, and therefor was reason that no one needs to know what Apple has for user data (ignoring that there are other reasons for transparency), and then you try to repeat the same falsehood that they don't do what they clearly admit they do. I can almost guarantee that not one single Apple user commenting here even bothered to look into it, you almost certainly, before diving into a diatribe over it.
So to repeat for the third time, No Apple is not nearly as interested or invested as Google in targeted ad revenue. not even close, but to say they have NO interest is bunk plain and simple. (They even do so in much the same way and with many of the same use restrictions on user data as Google does with their ad platform).
So it is exactly as I originally framed it and have continued to do so if you go back and look, not that I would expect you to since then you wouldn't have anything to argue with.
It doesn't make Apple bad or evil. But don't ascribe meaning to a phrase used in marketing efforts to then make assumptions of fact without doing a bit of background. It really is OK to peek behind the curtain once in awhile.
Several posts back I suggested this is creating a distraction from the topic and if you and others wish to continue the discussion of Apple and ads and Google and whatever then start a new thread and I'll join in if I have anything further to add. Heck for simplicity just take it to the very recent AI article discussion about Google DoubleClick and Apple news. At least that one is related and won't require any more time or effort than commenting in this one.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/10/03/apple-testing-google-doubleclick-ad-serving-in-news-app-report-says
I've given you enough information to make your own judgement and continuing, especially if the current small group of members commenting really have no interest in knowing facts in the first place, serves no further purpose.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/google-lens-ships-with-pixel-2/
A lot of this has to do with Tim Cook's policy of applying overly stringent privacy policies that's hindering Apple abilities to harvest data needed to advance their AI efforts. At least, that has been the case up to this year.
People will use whatever they think provides them the best information/experience. I’ll bet a large chunk of iOS users use Google services on their devices. Shouldn’t Apple’s goal be to make it so Apple’s offerings are superior and therefore people don’t need/want to use Google’s offerings?
Good question. It may be a combination of both, like a self-fulfilling cycle.
"Shouldn’t Apple’s goal be to make it so Apple’s offerings are superior and therefore people don’t need/want to use Google’s offerings?"
I agree.
Also for what it's worth, I too thought your comparison of Apple's data gathering for profit to Google's was disingenuous. Technically similar but only to the extent that chimpanzees are like humans. You're not wrong per se, but I don't think they're worth discussing in the same breath.
Ignoring for a moment that there's numerous reasons someone might want to know, Apple does in fact do targeted ads based on user data in a very limited fashion counter to what he had thought, which is exactly what I said. it was not a comparison to Google in any way.
Please note that a few posts up I linked a more appropriate discussion to continue this subject in. There's already been too much off-topic conversation in this one and I've no intent of further distraction from the AI article. I hope to see your comments in the more relevant thread if you have more to add.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/10/03/apple-testing-google-doubleclick-ad-serving-in-news-app-report-says
Regarding Google and user data requests from Government policing agencies there has been numerous instances of Google going to court to contest demands for access to it when google believes their is not a legally supportable argument for complying. There's yet another court fight in progress today prompted by Google's continuing refusal to willingly hand over user data, and it's probably going to cost them.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/justice-department-accuses-google-of-43109/
What you refer to as an Apple dedicated site is more of an Apple centric site IMO and, as Apple doesn't live in a bubble separated from the outside world, AI quite rightly covers subjects that are, for example, Google or Samsung centric. Hence the string of articles on a competitor and its new products and commenters mentioning those same competitors.
Someone mentioned the Image recognition numbers on the Kirin 970 and the ARM cores used.
I have already seen the results of the Huawei image recognition test on the iPhone 8 Plus (889) but agree that benchmarks don't count for much when it comes to the NPU. Huawei marketing is also doing a great a job of drawing attention to the Mate 10:
But the only real 'result' that counts is with the phone in the user's hand (from a user perspective) and final sales (from a company perspective).
From an industry and consumer perspective, the fact that so many companies are putting so much great technology on the market can only be good.
For those who questioned the choice of cores on the Kirin 970, I think it is short sighted. We are taking the first steps with AI and the NPU needed a stable environment. They have changed the GPU and added better ISPs and co-processor but the ARM cores are now mature. Going with the latest cores wouldn't have provided the same level of maturity and would have pushed back the release date. Those are not my words but those of the head of HiSilicon. Huawei has provided its own AI API and opened it up to developers. Developers can use the Android API if they prefer. Huawei reportedly has thousands of its own developers writing for the NPU and it isn't so much what the Mate 10 will do but what next year's phones will be able to. This time around the focus has been put on the camera. The motion blur results (if true) are dramatic, to say the least.