I would like to see Apple implement client-side speech recognition. After all they are a client-side focussed company and claim to use "on device processing wherever possible" in their privacy literature.
Then they could make ads claiming that with HomePod, "No recordings are *ever* sent," which would be a clear differentiator from other products.
I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.
The article doesn't say that every HomePod limitation is an intentional privacy-based decision.
However, Apple is also not racing to rapidly throw out ideas in the voice category because:
d) from your point of view but I've not seen anything to validate it
Are you completely unaware of “antenna-gate” and signal attenuation on iPhone 4? Signal attenuation was nothing new at the time but it exploded when exhibited on the iPhone 4. Heck, I even had a manual to a previous phone that had a drawing of a hand holding that model of phone and basically saying if held in that way the signal may be affected. Nobody cared. But when Apple released a phone that exhibited the same behavior as other cell phones it was suddenly front page, screaming headlines news.
That’s just one example.
Apple has around 30-40% market share in the US. I'd be surprised if it wasn't headline news. We have an inbuilt negative bias that the media exploits. Every big company makes headlines when something happens - Samsung's exploding batteries, Facebook's CA problems, Google's issues around diversity, tax avoidance, censorship, car crashes, demonitising some youtube channels, screw ups on messaging, email scanning, book scanning. And we are currently commenting on one of many articles about Amazon's Echo spying.
Agreed, it's Apple loons who think that there actually are people who seriously dedicte their time and energy to hating and conspiring against a near trillion $ company. It seems DED can no longer write an Apple article without bringing up the same companies that aren't really even in any significant way directly competing with Apple. Google is a search engine ad company, Amazon is an everything online store, Samsung is the everything electronics and appliances store, Apple is the iPhone/computer company, in what universe can you reasonably equate any of these business models ? constantly implying that since Apple is the only one succeeding at the computer business (which is their model) means the rest are implicitly evil and out to exploit and harm people is ridiculous. Apple's moral stance isn't a virtue of bieng inherently "good" but a feature of corporate branding, if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy they wouldn't advertise to us so much about their efforts, but they do because as you can see by this thread it sell more iPhones, if it didn't it be out the window i.e China.
Says what authority? If you think the level of effort apple has put into environment or privacy values is equal to other corps you’re delusional.
I didn't say it was equal, just that it's not pure nobility it's marketing intended to generate sales like all marketing. Apple isn't good or evil, there are no good or evil companies, they are all out to make money, Apple like all other brand companies is selling a brand, like Chanel or BMW, the brand transmits a massage about the company that the company hopes will resonate with their targeted customers to the point of generating a sale, the company associates the brand with social causes and ideas that will best achieve this, Biz school 101 really. Strange can you honestly say that Apple's environmental and privacy efforts aren't one of the reasons we are so loyal and infatuated with Apple and why its brand holds such esteem and people are proud to own Apple products to the irrational point that we absolutely loathe Google or Samsung ? does Apple not do these things in part to paint it self in a light that it knows will romance the pants/cash off it's customers ? BTW I don't see this as bad, evil or deceitful, its great, after all it's just business
You said "if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy..." which clearly implies your claim that they don't really care. But you're reasoning is poor -- your claim is because it's good for their business and brand, therefore they don't really care. Sorry, but that's just dumb. Two two ideas are not self-exclusionary -- you can really care about a thing and promote it as part of your brand. Companies do this all over the world. As consumers, part of our decision making on who to align our spending with is ranking what the brand values.
Apple values privacy and the environment. And they promote it.
Aaa I do love reductio ad absurdum, you're cherry picking sentences in my post to quote me out of context to present an agument I never made. I said "if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy" implying that if those two things were the primary motivation for them as a business they'd supperceed profits, Apple cares about the venvironment and privacy to the extent that it facilitates more profits such that should either privacy or the environment threaten profits they would be swiftly dropped as they were in China. It serves Apple's bottom line, as it does any of the company you are talking about, the moment they stop doing so they'd be abandoned, so how can a company or any one claim to truly care a bout any principles when those principles are subject to a higher force.
Mind you I am not at all claiming Apple gives zero shit about the environment or privacy they do, very much so, but not more than they do the numbers.
"As consumers, part of our decision making on who to align our spending with is ranking what the brand values" but what the brand values isn't determined in a vacuume, brands value what their intended customers value when that shifts so does the brand, we live in a time where the environment and privacy are things that people whom Apple wants to sell their products to care about, so Apple cares about those things to, not the other way round, these aren't bad things for a company like Apple to care about but it aligns with the business not the reverse.
I would like to see Apple implement client-side speech recognition. After all they are a client-side focussed company and claim to use "on device processing wherever possible" in their privacy literature.
Then they could make ads claiming that with HomePod, "No recordings are *ever* sent," which would be a clear differentiator from other products.
YES, yes, yes. I've been saying something similar for a long time. People in general are mistaking a device that listens and presses everything you do, and then tosses back tidbits as a 'breakthrough'. Google and Amazons' 'AI lead' is basically really good surveillance. If you are OK with that, fine. But don't mistake it for smarts. It is an ethically bankrupt model.
Bringing ethics into HomePod discussions is vastly overthinking the whole thing. The current level of Siri support in HomePod is "just enough" to fit the primary use cases for a smart speaker with rudimentary support for HomeKit. It's a new product and they are still finding their way and fleshing out the details. I like the HomePod, I like how it leverages my Apple Music and iTunes investments, and I will continue to like it whether or not it ever reaches functional equivalence with Google's or Amazon's offerings, both of which are trying to fill a much broader range of use cases. Amazon's products are so cheap that purchasing them in no way impacts my decision to buy a HomePod. I bought the HomePod because it binds seamlessly with Apple Music and it sounds fantastic. I also have an Echo, but because it knows nothing about my Apple Music or iTunes content it sits silently waiting for me to ask it something - anything in fact to justify its existence. Meanwhile my HomePod gets used daily to blast my music or podcasts when I'm in range of it. I'll ask my HomePod about the weather forecast or for news updates, but if it didn't do those things at all I wouldn't miss them or diminish the HomePod's value at all.
The HomePod is not a disruptive product, it's a niche product for Apple Music subscribers who want a versatile and great sounding speaker with hands-free control. If that's not enough for you - buy a different product.
I would like to see Apple implement client-side speech recognition. After all they are a client-side focussed company and claim to use "on device processing wherever possible" in their privacy literature.
Then they could make ads claiming that with HomePod, "No recordings are *ever* sent," which would be a clear differentiator from other products.
Of perhaps some interest to you there are services from "others" now that can use local voice recognition with no cloud processing needed, even translator apps. I assume that's the "client-side speech recognition" you're referring to.
I would like to see Apple implement client-side speech recognition. After all they are a client-side focussed company and claim to use "on device processing wherever possible" in their privacy literature.
Then they could make ads claiming that with HomePod, "No recordings are *ever* sent," which would be a clear differentiator from other products.
I believe that Apple has the tech to do that! After all, they currently do client-side facial-recognition (point-cloud processing).
After playing around a bit with Apple's FoundationDB, I think that it can be a very fast and efficient embedded system on ARM -- and this could solve the local speech db needs.
Also, some of the algorithms used by Apple's Shazam could be used.
Finally, this client-side speech recognition could be implemented in stages:
first, start with a local WiFi network to shared Macs or ARM devices
I doubt more than 5% of consumers on the entire planet care about personal privacy. Most people have nothing worthwhile to hide from anyone except some little white lies. If Apple wants to go about advocating privacy, that's fine, but Apple is going to end up dead last when it comes to intelligent assistants. The best assistants know everything about the person they're working for. It would be stupid to hide things from your own assistant because you'd be hurting their efficiency. Siri is considered the most stupid assistant because Apple is handicapping Siri in so many ways.
... If consumers don't care what happens to their personal data, why should anyone else care for them? Tim Cook going around telling people that privacy is a right is simply wasting his breath. If anything, the Feds are going to keep going after Apple because they hate the idea of iPhone encryption. The Feds believe everyone should be snooped upon and that nothing remains a secret. Apple is now the criminal for not letting the intelligence agencies have a back-door to iPhones. Apple is said to be protecting criminals and terrorists, so screw consumer privacy.
The companies that data-harvest 24/7 are the ones that will always have the most value because they're turning high profits using endless amounts of free information. Almost no one cares about personal privacy, so it seems to me companies might as well use it to their heart's content. The way I see it, Apple is going to be the biggest loser for taking an ethical stance over privacy. Tim Cook obviously doesn't understand how much consumers love "free" services and they're willing to hand over their souls to keep those "free" services. To most consumers personal privacy isn't worth anything, so giving it up is not such a big deal.
When it comes to big business, having ethics is like trying to swim with an anchor tied around your neck. Only profits matter to investors and they don't care how profits are obtained. That's why the big hedge funds started loading up on Facebook stock despite the data-leak scandal. They surely didn't say, "Facebook is unethical, let's buy Apple instead."
1. People don't know what they want until they lose it. Just because many people don't care doesn't mean everyone doesn't care. 2. What laws did Apple break in encrypting iPhones? None. Of people didn't care about privacy, why do they use pass codes? Why enable touch ID? Why lock their doors?
3. Apple doesn't make money off Siri, do who cares if it's dead last? Siri does what I need it to do. 4. Apple is the most profitable company in the world. They do this with privacy in mind. They ain't hurting due to Siri's limitations.
3. Many Apple customers, including me, would love to see Siri be a better assistant, specially when you consider that Apple won't allow to change to default assistant Alexa, Google Assistant or Cortana. So you are stuck with the worst of the group.
4. Based in what I have read in the forums, Google and Facebook are one of the worst offenders on privacy. So why Apple agree to make Google Search the default engine for $3B? Same can be said of the Apple Store. Why allow apps from Facebook and Google in their App Store considering the issues these two companies have with privacy? A company with "privacy in mind" won't allow their users to access to kind of apps or services, don't you think?
I would like to see Apple implement client-side speech recognition. After all they are a client-side focussed company and claim to use "on device processing wherever possible" in their privacy literature.
Then they could make ads claiming that with HomePod, "No recordings are *ever* sent," which would be a clear differentiator from other products.
I believe that Apple has the tech to do that! After all, they currently do client-side facial-recognition (point-cloud processing).
After playing around a bit with Apple's FoundationDB, I think that it can be a very fast and efficient embedded system on ARM -- and this could solve the local speech db needs.
Also, some of the algorithms used by Apple's Shazam could be used.
Finally, this client-side speech recognition could be implemented in stages:
first, start with a local WiFi network to shared Macs or ARM devices
ultimately, imbedded on the target device
off topic, but I just had a notification of this story:
I would like to see Apple implement client-side speech recognition. After all they are a client-side focussed company and claim to use "on device processing wherever possible" in their privacy literature.
Then they could make ads claiming that with HomePod, "No recordings are *ever* sent," which would be a clear differentiator from other products.
I believe that Apple has the tech to do that! After all, they currently do client-side facial-recognition (point-cloud processing).
After playing around a bit with Apple's FoundationDB, I think that it can be a very fast and efficient embedded system on ARM -- and this could solve the local speech db needs.
Also, some of the algorithms used by Apple's Shazam could be used.
Finally, this client-side speech recognition could be implemented in stages:
first, start with a local WiFi network to shared Macs or ARM devices
ultimately, imbedded on the target device
off topic, but I just had a notification of this story:
I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.
The article doesn't say that every HomePod limitation is an intentional privacy-based decision.
However, Apple is also not racing to rapidly throw out ideas in the voice category because:
d) from your point of view but I've not seen anything to validate it
Are you completely unaware of “antenna-gate” and signal attenuation on iPhone 4? Signal attenuation was nothing new at the time but it exploded when exhibited on the iPhone 4. Heck, I even had a manual to a previous phone that had a drawing of a hand holding that model of phone and basically saying if held in that way the signal may be affected. Nobody cared. But when Apple released a phone that exhibited the same behavior as other cell phones it was suddenly front page, screaming headlines news.
That’s just one example.
Apple has around 30-40% market share in the US. I'd be surprised if it wasn't headline news. We have an inbuilt negative bias that the media exploits. Every big company makes headlines when something happens - Samsung's exploding batteries, Facebook's CA problems, Google's issues around diversity, tax avoidance, censorship, car crashes, demonitising some youtube channels, screw ups on messaging, email scanning, book scanning. And we are currently commenting on one of many articles about Amazon's Echo spying.
Agreed, it's Apple loons who think that there actually are people who seriously dedicte their time and energy to hating and conspiring against a near trillion $ company. It seems DED can no longer write an Apple article without bringing up the same companies that aren't really even in any significant way directly competing with Apple. Google is a search engine ad company, Amazon is an everything online store, Samsung is the everything electronics and appliances store, Apple is the iPhone/computer company, in what universe can you reasonably equate any of these business models ? constantly implying that since Apple is the only one succeeding at the computer business (which is their model) means the rest are implicitly evil and out to exploit and harm people is ridiculous. Apple's moral stance isn't a virtue of bieng inherently "good" but a feature of corporate branding, if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy they wouldn't advertise to us so much about their efforts, but they do because as you can see by this thread it sell more iPhones, if it didn't it be out the window i.e China.
Says what authority? If you think the level of effort apple has put into environment or privacy values is equal to other corps you’re delusional.
I didn't say it was equal, just that it's not pure nobility it's marketing intended to generate sales like all marketing. Apple isn't good or evil, there are no good or evil companies, they are all out to make money, Apple like all other brand companies is selling a brand, like Chanel or BMW, the brand transmits a massage about the company that the company hopes will resonate with their targeted customers to the point of generating a sale, the company associates the brand with social causes and ideas that will best achieve this, Biz school 101 really. Strange can you honestly say that Apple's environmental and privacy efforts aren't one of the reasons we are so loyal and infatuated with Apple and why its brand holds such esteem and people are proud to own Apple products to the irrational point that we absolutely loathe Google or Samsung ? does Apple not do these things in part to paint it self in a light that it knows will romance the pants/cash off it's customers ? BTW I don't see this as bad, evil or deceitful, its great, after all it's just business
You said "if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy..." which clearly implies your claim that they don't really care. But you're reasoning is poor -- your claim is because it's good for their business and brand, therefore they don't really care. Sorry, but that's just dumb. Two two ideas are not self-exclusionary -- you can really care about a thing and promote it as part of your brand. Companies do this all over the world. As consumers, part of our decision making on who to align our spending with is ranking what the brand values.
Apple values privacy and the environment. And they promote it.
Aaa I do love reductio ad absurdum, you're cherry picking sentences in my post to quote me out of context to present an agument I never made. I said "if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy" implying that if those two things were the primary motivation for them as a business they'd supperceed profits, Apple cares about the venvironment and privacy to the extent that it facilitates more profits such that should either privacy or the environment threaten profits they would be swiftly dropped as they were in China. It serves Apple's bottom line, as it does any of the company you are talking about, the moment they stop doing so they'd be abandoned, so how can a company or any one claim to truly care a bout any principles when those principles are subject to a higher force.
Mind you I am not at all claiming Apple gives zero shit about the environment or privacy they do, very much so, but not more than they do the numbers.
"As consumers, part of our decision making on who to align our spending with is ranking what the brand values" but what the brand values isn't determined in a vacuume, brands value what their intended customers value when that shifts so does the brand, we live in a time where the environment and privacy are things that people whom Apple wants to sell their products to care about, so Apple cares about those things to, not the other way round, these aren't bad things for a company like Apple to care about but it aligns with the business not the reverse.
You seem to think Apple gave up on privacy in China because they continue to sell their products there after being forced to host iCloud on Chinese servers. I’ll say two things about that, which maybe will alter your perception. First, Apple has a stated policy of engaging when it disagrees rather than boycotting. Tim Cook has stated this and defends it by pointing out that more can often be accomplished by engaging in dialog than in disengaging. And second, it’s only a potential issue that China may use that iCloud data in some manner against its citizens. The rules in place there are similar to the United States; a warrant is needed to search. But I suppose some would advocate companies that produce rope should not sell to China due to potential of their product being used to hang dissonants.
“In developing HomePod, Apple wasn't just racing out a feature set that could be compared againstAmazon and Google. Instead, it was developing HomePod's advanced speaker technology at its own pace, throttled by authentic ethical contemplation--a regulator that Appel's rivals rarely seem to consult”
What is the source for this explanation? You can’t just make stuff up, even in an editorial.
“In developing HomePod, Apple wasn't just racing out a feature set that could be compared againstAmazon and Google. Instead, it was developing HomePod's advanced speaker technology at its own pace, throttled by authentic ethical contemplation--a regulator that Appel's rivals rarely seem to consult”
What is the source for this explanation? You can’t just make stuff up, even in an editorial.
Yes there are several unattributed quotes it the editorial. One is used twice but the second time not in quotes and still not attributed to an author.
it knocks down the argument to leave them hanging out there.
I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.
The article doesn't say that every HomePod limitation is an intentional privacy-based decision.
However, Apple is also not racing to rapidly throw out ideas in the voice category because:
d) from your point of view but I've not seen anything to validate it
Are you completely unaware of “antenna-gate” and signal attenuation on iPhone 4? Signal attenuation was nothing new at the time but it exploded when exhibited on the iPhone 4. Heck, I even had a manual to a previous phone that had a drawing of a hand holding that model of phone and basically saying if held in that way the signal may be affected. Nobody cared. But when Apple released a phone that exhibited the same behavior as other cell phones it was suddenly front page, screaming headlines news.
That’s just one example.
Apple has around 30-40% market share in the US. I'd be surprised if it wasn't headline news. We have an inbuilt negative bias that the media exploits. Every big company makes headlines when something happens - Samsung's exploding batteries, Facebook's CA problems, Google's issues around diversity, tax avoidance, censorship, car crashes, demonitising some youtube channels, screw ups on messaging, email scanning, book scanning. And we are currently commenting on one of many articles about Amazon's Echo spying.
Agreed, it's Apple loons who think that there actually are people who seriously dedicte their time and energy to hating and conspiring against a near trillion $ company. It seems DED can no longer write an Apple article without bringing up the same companies that aren't really even in any significant way directly competing with Apple. Google is a search engine ad company, Amazon is an everything online store, Samsung is the everything electronics and appliances store, Apple is the iPhone/computer company, in what universe can you reasonably equate any of these business models ? constantly implying that since Apple is the only one succeeding at the computer business (which is their model) means the rest are implicitly evil and out to exploit and harm people is ridiculous. Apple's moral stance isn't a virtue of bieng inherently "good" but a feature of corporate branding, if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy they wouldn't advertise to us so much about their efforts, but they do because as you can see by this thread it sell more iPhones, if it didn't it be out the window i.e China.
Says what authority? If you think the level of effort apple has put into environment or privacy values is equal to other corps you’re delusional.
I didn't say it was equal, just that it's not pure nobility it's marketing intended to generate sales like all marketing. Apple isn't good or evil, there are no good or evil companies, they are all out to make money, Apple like all other brand companies is selling a brand, like Chanel or BMW, the brand transmits a massage about the company that the company hopes will resonate with their targeted customers to the point of generating a sale, the company associates the brand with social causes and ideas that will best achieve this, Biz school 101 really. Strange can you honestly say that Apple's environmental and privacy efforts aren't one of the reasons we are so loyal and infatuated with Apple and why its brand holds such esteem and people are proud to own Apple products to the irrational point that we absolutely loathe Google or Samsung ? does Apple not do these things in part to paint it self in a light that it knows will romance the pants/cash off it's customers ? BTW I don't see this as bad, evil or deceitful, its great, after all it's just business
You said "if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy..." which clearly implies your claim that they don't really care. But you're reasoning is poor -- your claim is because it's good for their business and brand, therefore they don't really care. Sorry, but that's just dumb. Two two ideas are not self-exclusionary -- you can really care about a thing and promote it as part of your brand. Companies do this all over the world. As consumers, part of our decision making on who to align our spending with is ranking what the brand values.
Apple values privacy and the environment. And they promote it.
Aaa I do love reductio ad absurdum, you're cherry picking sentences in my post to quote me out of context to present an agument I never made. I said "if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy" implying that if those two things were the primary motivation for them as a business they'd supperceed profits, Apple cares about the venvironment and privacy to the extent that it facilitates more profits such that should either privacy or the environment threaten profits they would be swiftly dropped as they were in China. It serves Apple's bottom line, as it does any of the company you are talking about, the moment they stop doing so they'd be abandoned, so how can a company or any one claim to truly care a bout any principles when those principles are subject to a higher force.
Mind you I am not at all claiming Apple gives zero shit about the environment or privacy they do, very much so, but not more than they do the numbers.
"As consumers, part of our decision making on who to align our spending with is ranking what the brand values" but what the brand values isn't determined in a vacuume, brands value what their intended customers value when that shifts so does the brand, we live in a time where the environment and privacy are things that people whom Apple wants to sell their products to care about, so Apple cares about those things to, not the other way round, these aren't bad things for a company like Apple to care about but it aligns with the business not the reverse.
You seem to think Apple gave up on privacy in China because they continue to sell their products there after being forced to host iCloud on Chinese servers. I’ll say two things about that, which maybe will alter your perception. First, Apple has a stated policy of engaging when it disagrees rather than boycotting. Tim Cook has stated this and defends it by pointing out that more can often be accomplished by engaging in dialog than in disengaging. And second, it’s only a potential issue that China may use that iCloud data in some manner against its citizens. The rules in place there are similar to the United States; a warrant is needed to search. But I suppose some would advocate companies that produce rope should not sell to China due to potential of their product being used to hang dissonants.
fair enough @radarthekat but you do have to find it a little ironic that the same CEO who made such a grand and dramatic stance against the Feds now seems to have bend to the Chines will with out even the slightest protest, where was Tim's Nobel worthy bleeding heart letter to Chinese customers lambasting their Government actions. I'm not asking for the same resistance as Apple isn't really a Chinese company but at the very least an official statement made by Cook stating something to the effect of
" yes iCloud in China will no longer be in our complete control as we would wish as new laws there have forced us, but let me be clear we as a company strongly believe in encryption and protection of customer's personal data, we are fully against any efforts that compromises that"
I think this would have been a show of strong leadership by Cook, but instead we have both Apple and it's evangelists trying to make it seem as though this is no big deal, after all Apple can't control what happens in other countries, they just run a business, and are bound by laws, but this is the risk you run when you tie a brand to social and political hot buttons like same sex marriage and privacy, there's a reason other silicon valley companies are less vocal about some of these things, they can conflicts with business. Unless you run a company you founded and own you're mouth shouldn't be writing cheques your balls can't cash, if Cook owned Apple he could just balls up and say fuck it and pull Apple out of China, principles matter more than money after all.
I think this would have been a show of strong leadership by Cook, but instead we have both Apple and it's evangelists trying to make it seem as though this is no big deal, after all Apple can't control what happens in other countries, they just run a business, and are bound by laws, but this is the risk you run when you tie a brand to social and political hot buttons like same sex marriage and privacy, there's a reason other silicon valley companies are less vocal about some of these things, they can conflicts with business. Unless you run a company you founded and own you're mouth shouldn't be writing cheques your balls can't cash, if Cook owned Apple he could just balls up and say fuck it and pull Apple out of China, principles matter more than money after all.
There is another element here though, in that China is not just another country but another culture. Do they even value individual privacy over there?
The western countries (meaning ones intellectually descended from ancient Greece) definitely do, and I think if France or England started being repressive then Apple would give them an earful! But with China you have to respect that they have an independent cultural timeline.
So far, Apple is deeply invested in pursuing such thoughtful contemplative efforts, while its rivals do not even seem to recognize this as an issue. That's not going to work out well for them.
That seems like a logical conclusion but based on the minimal fallout that Facebook has had since the whole CA thing, I’m not sure how accurate it is.
It’s interesting that CA had to close down because their business tanked, but Facebook, the originator of the data collection that CA used, seems to have only been slightly bruised.
Considering that, I’m not sure many people care about ethics or privacy.
You are mostly correct, but for many, it is a matter of them not understanding why they should care. They don’t understand the risks with sharing this data. They don’t understand how all the data can be linked back to them personally. If you tell them that Compoany A or Government B is reading through all their email, they say I have nothing to hide, but yet they wouldn’t want someone they know reading the same emails. Somehow they depersonalize it and it seems justified to them.
I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.
The article doesn't say that every HomePod limitation is an intentional privacy-based decision.
However, Apple is also not racing to rapidly throw out ideas in the voice category because:
d) from your point of view but I've not seen anything to validate it
Are you completely unaware of “antenna-gate” and signal attenuation on iPhone 4? Signal attenuation was nothing new at the time but it exploded when exhibited on the iPhone 4. Heck, I even had a manual to a previous phone that had a drawing of a hand holding that model of phone and basically saying if held in that way the signal may be affected. Nobody cared. But when Apple released a phone that exhibited the same behavior as other cell phones it was suddenly front page, screaming headlines news.
That’s just one example.
Apple has around 30-40% market share in the US. I'd be surprised if it wasn't headline news. We have an inbuilt negative bias that the media exploits. Every big company makes headlines when something happens - Samsung's exploding batteries, Facebook's CA problems, Google's issues around diversity, tax avoidance, censorship, car crashes, demonitising some youtube channels, screw ups on messaging, email scanning, book scanning. And we are currently commenting on one of many articles about Amazon's Echo spying.
Agreed, it's Apple loons who think that there actually are people who seriously dedicte their time and energy to hating and conspiring against a near trillion $ company. It seems DED can no longer write an Apple article without bringing up the same companies that aren't really even in any significant way directly competing with Apple. Google is a search engine ad company, Amazon is an everything online store, Samsung is the everything electronics and appliances store, Apple is the iPhone/computer company, in what universe can you reasonably equate any of these business models ? constantly implying that since Apple is the only one succeeding at the computer business (which is their model) means the rest are implicitly evil and out to exploit and harm people is ridiculous. Apple's moral stance isn't a virtue of bieng inherently "good" but a feature of corporate branding, if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy they wouldn't advertise to us so much about their efforts, but they do because as you can see by this thread it sell more iPhones, if it didn't it be out the window i.e China.
Says what authority? If you think the level of effort apple has put into environment or privacy values is equal to other corps you’re delusional.
I didn't say it was equal, just that it's not pure nobility it's marketing intended to generate sales like all marketing. Apple isn't good or evil, there are no good or evil companies, they are all out to make money, Apple like all other brand companies is selling a brand, like Chanel or BMW, the brand transmits a massage about the company that the company hopes will resonate with their targeted customers to the point of generating a sale, the company associates the brand with social causes and ideas that will best achieve this, Biz school 101 really. Strange can you honestly say that Apple's environmental and privacy efforts aren't one of the reasons we are so loyal and infatuated with Apple and why its brand holds such esteem and people are proud to own Apple products to the irrational point that we absolutely loathe Google or Samsung ? does Apple not do these things in part to paint it self in a light that it knows will romance the pants/cash off it's customers ? BTW I don't see this as bad, evil or deceitful, its great, after all it's just business
You said "if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy..." which clearly implies your claim that they don't really care. But you're reasoning is poor -- your claim is because it's good for their business and brand, therefore they don't really care. Sorry, but that's just dumb. Two two ideas are not self-exclusionary -- you can really care about a thing and promote it as part of your brand. Companies do this all over the world. As consumers, part of our decision making on who to align our spending with is ranking what the brand values.
Apple values privacy and the environment. And they promote it.
Aaa I do love reductio ad absurdum, you're cherry picking sentences in my post to quote me out of context to present an agument I never made. I said "if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy" implying that if those two things were the primary motivation for them as a business they'd supperceed profits, Apple cares about the venvironment and privacy to the extent that it facilitates more profits such that should either privacy or the environment threaten profits they would be swiftly dropped as they were in China. It serves Apple's bottom line, as it does any of the company you are talking about, the moment they stop doing so they'd be abandoned, so how can a company or any one claim to truly care a bout any principles when those principles are subject to a higher force.
Mind you I am not at all claiming Apple gives zero shit about the environment or privacy they do, very much so, but not more than they do the numbers.
"As consumers, part of our decision making on who to align our spending with is ranking what the brand values" but what the brand values isn't determined in a vacuume, brands value what their intended customers value when that shifts so does the brand, we live in a time where the environment and privacy are things that people whom Apple wants to sell their products to care about, so Apple cares about those things to, not the other way round, these aren't bad things for a company like Apple to care about but it aligns with the business not the reverse.
You seem to think Apple gave up on privacy in China because they continue to sell their products there after being forced to host iCloud on Chinese servers... it’s only a potential issue that China may use that iCloud data in some manner against its citizens. The rules in place there are similar to the United States; a warrant is needed to search.
Don't understate the change in Apple policies regarding customer privacy. While a Chinese warrant to access an Apple customers iCloud data may be technically required (or not) it no longer needs to be served on Apple, nor does Apple have any say in whether it's complied with or not. GCBD, a state-run server company, has the same access to the encrypted user data it holds as Apple does. That's according to Apple themselves, and that IMHO is a relative sea-change.
Imagine the uproar if Apple were to make the same announcement in the West substituting GCBD with Google or Amazon or Microsoft who also house Apple user data. But you'd be OK with it? Love to hear your answer to that.
BTW, about those search warrants: In China they can be issued by the police to the police following internal hearings, not requiring a judge in an independent court. Since police are expected to keep anything they know about an investigation confidential to begin with there are not the Western concerns and restrictions about them accessing and reviewing any available personal information they think might be pertinent, or if need be gathering confidential documents belonging to private companies that could even involve trade secrets as I understand it.
I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.
The article doesn't say that every HomePod limitation is an intentional privacy-based decision.
However, Apple is also not racing to rapidly throw out ideas in the voice category because:
d) from your point of view but I've not seen anything to validate it
Are you completely unaware of “antenna-gate” and signal attenuation on iPhone 4? Signal attenuation was nothing new at the time but it exploded when exhibited on the iPhone 4. Heck, I even had a manual to a previous phone that had a drawing of a hand holding that model of phone and basically saying if held in that way the signal may be affected. Nobody cared. But when Apple released a phone that exhibited the same behavior as other cell phones it was suddenly front page, screaming headlines news.
That’s just one example.
Apple has around 30-40% market share in the US. I'd be surprised if it wasn't headline news. We have an inbuilt negative bias that the media exploits. Every big company makes headlines when something happens - Samsung's exploding batteries, Facebook's CA problems, Google's issues around diversity, tax avoidance, censorship, car crashes, demonitising some youtube channels, screw ups on messaging, email scanning, book scanning. And we are currently commenting on one of many articles about Amazon's Echo spying.
Apple's moral stance isn't a virtue of bieng inherently "good" but a feature of corporate branding, if Apple really cared about the environment or privacy they wouldn't advertise to us so much about their efforts, but they do because as you can see by this thread it sell more iPhones,
I’ve always figured the reason they talk about their efforts regarding the environment was to head off being called out by, for example, Greenpeace. And even if that’s not the reason, there’s nothing wrong with eliminating/reducing toxic chemicals or conflict minerals in their devices. If they didn’t mention it from time to time how would anyone know? I doubt there are that many people making their buying decisions based on Apple’s environmental stance. If it helps other companies to do the same then that’s great.
By the way, when does Apple advertise “so much” about their environmental efforts? I’ve seen it mentioned during keynotes and I see things on AI but I have yet to see a print ad or television spot by Apple touting their environmental efforts.
The reason Apple uses its PR department to tout environmental initiatives is because doing so will most likely increase total profits.
Profits is the goal. How to best get there is the question. Apple doesn't waste money. Everything they do is intended to maximise total profits.
Comments
Then they could make ads claiming that with HomePod, "No recordings are *ever* sent," which would be a clear differentiator from other products.
Mind you I am not at all claiming Apple gives zero shit about the environment or privacy they do, very much so, but not more than they do the numbers.
"As consumers, part of our decision making on who to align our spending with is ranking what the brand values" but what the brand values isn't determined in a vacuume, brands value what their intended customers value when that shifts so does the brand, we live in a time where the environment and privacy are things that people whom Apple wants to sell their products to care about, so Apple cares about those things to, not the other way round, these aren't bad things for a company like Apple to care about but it aligns with the business not the reverse.
The HomePod is not a disruptive product, it's a niche product for Apple Music subscribers who want a versatile and great sounding speaker with hands-free control. If that's not enough for you - buy a different product.
After playing around a bit with Apple's FoundationDB, I think that it can be a very fast and efficient embedded system on ARM -- and this could solve the local speech db needs.
Also, some of the algorithms used by Apple's Shazam could be used.
Finally, this client-side speech recognition could be implemented in stages:
4. Based in what I have read in the forums, Google and Facebook are one of the worst offenders on privacy. So why Apple agree to make Google Search the default engine for $3B? Same can be said of the Apple Store. Why allow apps from Facebook and Google in their App Store considering the issues these two companies have with privacy? A company with "privacy in mind" won't allow their users to access to kind of apps or services, don't you think?
https://9to5mac.com/2018/05/25/apple-project-star-arm-details/?pushup=1
I would agree with you that speech recognition would be the kind of edge computing that Apple could do really well at...
What is the source for this explanation? You can’t just make stuff up, even in an editorial.
it knocks down the argument to leave them hanging out there.
" yes iCloud in China will no longer be in our complete control as we would wish as new laws there have forced us, but let me be clear we as a company strongly believe in encryption and protection of customer's personal data, we are fully against any efforts that compromises that"
I think this would have been a show of strong leadership by Cook, but instead we have both Apple and it's evangelists trying to make it seem as though this is no big deal, after all Apple can't control what happens in other countries, they just run a business, and are bound by laws, but this is the risk you run when you tie a brand to social and political hot buttons like same sex marriage and privacy, there's a reason other silicon valley companies are less vocal about some of these things, they can conflicts with business. Unless you run a company you founded and own you're mouth shouldn't be writing cheques your balls can't cash, if Cook owned Apple he could just balls up and say fuck it and pull Apple out of China, principles matter more than money after all.
The western countries (meaning ones intellectually descended from ancient Greece) definitely do, and I think if France or England started being repressive then Apple would give them an earful! But with China you have to respect that they have an independent cultural timeline.
Imagine the uproar if Apple were to make the same announcement in the West substituting GCBD with Google or Amazon or Microsoft who also house Apple user data. But you'd be OK with it? Love to hear your answer to that.
BTW, about those search warrants: In China they can be issued by the police to the police following internal hearings, not requiring a judge in an independent court. Since police are expected to keep anything they know about an investigation confidential to begin with there are not the Western concerns and restrictions about them accessing and reviewing any available personal information they think might be pertinent, or if need be gathering confidential documents belonging to private companies that could even involve trade secrets as I understand it.