Apple Can Go **** Itself

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 63
    I think the idea of Apple knowing what your music tastes are, even your full collection of music is okay if they can offer you proper recommendations. This would be a useful feature and if the program could smartly build up a picture of what your tastes are and notify you of new releases, all the better. ONLY WHEN I CHOOSE TO VISIT THE MUSIC STORE THOUGH!!!



    The Mini Store is, again, an abomination and an insult to Mac users especially. It just doesn't allow for enough information to make it useful and would be better served as a Widget and should never interfere or be given the chance to interfere with MY / OUR music collection.



    While writing, I would like to suggest Apple improves the listing layout of the Library with more options, perhaps small cover graphics, album / genre separation listings, or a flip style album picker would be cool (do miss browsing through my real CD collection believe it or not).



    Automatic cover downloading for your own CD's would also be great and shouldn't be too much of a technical challenge.
  • Reply 42 of 63
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by awarenessengine

    While writing, I would like to suggest...



    Suggesting here won't do anything, suggest to Apple's feedback pages directly.
  • Reply 43 of 63
    No, the coding on iTunes has changed, if I understand what's happened. I have never used the music store. Therefore, nothing had been sent to Apple. Apple claims that when the ministore is off, no info is sent to them, but I believe that they still have the ability to spy on my music listening regardless.



    It's right for people to question Apple as it further encroaches on our privacy. At the very least, Apple should have made it very clear why data is being sent to Apple and how to prevent this if the user so chooses.



    And yes I know I can turn it off: I have already. Apple did not make it clear, though, that turning off the ministore prevents the transfer of info, or even, in fact, that data would be sent to Apple if it were not turned off. The interests of those who find it useful must be balanced with the interests of those not wanting to have personal information collected without notice.
  • Reply 44 of 63
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Danosaur

    No, the coding on iTunes has changed, if I understand what's happened. I have never used the music store. Therefore, nothing had been sent to Apple. Apple claims that when the ministore is off, no info is sent to them, but I believe that they still have the ability to spy on my music listening regardless.



    Actually, turning it off visually turns off the data transfer. This has already been proven, and you can see it for yourself by using a tool such as tcpdump.



    As for whether Apple has the *ability* to spy... well, yes. They have the *ability* to spy on every keystroke you type, every file you access, and everything you do on your computer. They wrote the OS, after all.



    There isn't any evidence that they *do* however, and given the above definitive "No MiniStore == no data transfer", well, it's up to you whether or not you still want to believe they have some sooper seekrit way of spying even when the network flow has stopped. *shrug*



    Quote:

    It's right for people to question Apple as it further encroaches on our privacy. At the very least, Apple should have made it very clear why data is being sent to Apple and how to prevent this if the user so chooses.



    Yes, on that we agree.



    Quote:

    And yes I know I can turn it off: I have already. Apple did not make it clear, though, that turning off the ministore prevents the transfer of info, or even, in fact, that data would be sent to Apple if it were not turned off. The interests of those who find it useful must be balanced with the interests of those not wanting to have personal information collected without notice.



    Full *up front* disclosure in this case would have prevented this little PR fiasco, but it seems that the MiniStore does exactly what they claim, and nothing more.
  • Reply 45 of 63
    The worst thing is, nowehere on the agreement between the user and Apple does it say that they will do this. Nowehere. It's not even mentioned. They mention "enabling acess to the Music Store", but that doesn't include this, as in theory, this is a MiniStore, one that represents the store, not the store itself.



    Not as bad as Microsoft shoving updates without even asking people and then rebooting their computers without their consent or knowledge, but it ain't pretty either.
  • Reply 46 of 63
    Quote:

    Originally posted by awarenessengine

    The Mini Store is, again, an abomination and an insult to Mac users especially. It just doesn't allow for enough information to make it useful and would be better served as a Widget and should never interfere or be given the chance to interfere with MY / OUR music collection.







    Call me a "silly, naive girl," but why raise cain over this? I personally don't care if they do this; I turned the mini-store off. And the info gathering? I know I have nothing to hide. And, it's not like they'll use the collected info in any bad way, like send it to other parties.





    Quote:

    Automatic cover downloading for your own CD's would also be great and shouldn't be too much of a technical challenge.



    Now this, I can agree with. That would be sweet.
  • Reply 47 of 63
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    there's one point that bears mentioning: the itunes upgrade has it kicked on by default. which means that some information gets transferred before you get a chance to kick it off. so for a few seconds, you have no choice in the matter. that's not good. certainly not terrible. but certainly not good.
  • Reply 48 of 63
    Quote:

    Originally posted by awarenessengine

    I've just upgraded to 6.0.2. of iTunes, and please remember that I've been a Mac user since 1986, so don't shoot me down just yet...







    But you have only been an AI member for less than a month.
  • Reply 49 of 63
    proxyproxy Posts: 232member
    This isn't about whether Apple collects the data or not. It's the fact that they have put such a system into place without the permission of the user. That makes me really annoyed. Music is a very personal thing and to find out that this info is leaving your computer without your express permission is deeply disturbing. Apple should have made the user read a simple explanation of what the feature did and allow them to decide whether or not they felt it was harmless and thus whether to allow it's use.

    Apple's seriously got this wrong. It's going to create a huge amount of negative publicity for Apple, for iTunes, and for the whole digital download industry.

    I'll be downloading iTunes 6.0.2 and turning off the mini store, but I hope Apple will seriously rethink this one.
  • Reply 50 of 63
    I know it's in Apple's best intentions. They're not doing it with malicious intent, and they are simply making efforts to help serve us better. Really, boys, you're all overreacting about this. They're not trying to screw you over. And music? I feel it's personal, true, but if Apple's looking in my library in hopes to give me better service, then I'm all for it.
  • Reply 51 of 63
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Yeeeeeeah, that's not exactly kosher in my book.



    *grumble* Not good at all.



    That the info isn't stored is good.



    That the user isn't told that the feature sends info to Apple is bad.



    That the feature is on by default, with no dialog on what it does or how to turn it off, *and* it sends info to Apple... grr.




    When I click on any book on Amazon.com they show me a list of recommendations for related books. Oh no! They see what I am looking at! Every book!



    Hell, if Apple stored the info anonymously (dumped all IP stuff, etc) and combined that with a "users who listen to X bought Y and Z" it does nothing but improve the iTunes store and provide a better user experience.



    God people need to take off their tinfoil hats sometimes.
  • Reply 52 of 63
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Proxy

    This isn't about whether Apple collects the data or not. It's the fact that they have put such a system into place without the permission of the user. That makes me really annoyed. Music is a very personal thing and to find out that this info is leaving your computer without your express permission is deeply disturbing. Apple should have made the user read a simple explanation of what the feature did and allow them to decide whether or not they felt it was harmless and thus whether to allow it's use.

    Apple's seriously got this wrong. It's going to create a huge amount of negative publicity for Apple, for iTunes, and for the whole digital download industry.

    I'll be downloading iTunes 6.0.2 and turning off the mini store, but I hope Apple will seriously rethink this one.




    It's not like they are collecting naked pictures of your girlfriend from iPhoto. It's just music. Relax.
  • Reply 53 of 63
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    When I click on any book on Amazon.com they show me a list of recommendations for related books. Oh no! They see what I am looking at! Every book!



    Hell, if Apple stored the info anonymously (dumped all IP stuff, etc) and combined that with a "users who listen to X bought Y and Z" it does nothing but improve the iTunes store and provide a better user experience.



    God people need to take off their tinfoil hats sometimes.




    No, you're missing the distinction. Going to the iTMS or to Amazon is an act that is initiated by the user. They know what they're getting into, and that's fine.



    I don't have a problem with the Mini-Store at all, I think it's a slick little tool.



    The *only* thing that I'm not happy about is a combo of a) having it on by default after the upgrade, b) not telling the user explicitly what it did, or how to turn it off. That's it. The upgrading user isn't *informed* what's going on. Once that disclosure is completed, I have zero problem with it. People will do what is best for them, and make their own privacy decisions. Apple made it able to be turned off easily, so control is in the hands of the user.



    Like I said, a simple dialog box would have solved all of this brouhaha, IMO.



    It's all about transparency of intent, and disclosure of functionality. This wasn't a major deal, but it is mildly annoying *because* the paranoiacs are latching onto it as proof positive that Apple Is Evil(tm).
  • Reply 54 of 63
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Right, but I don't see anything inherently evil about seeing what someone is listening to and offering recommendations based on that. They aren't keeping the info. They aren't doing anything malicious. I don't see this as anything warranting the asking of endusers. I see it as Apple being helpful. That's where we differ.



    Remember the target audience. You start throwing dialog boxes up there talking about collecting of information and privacy policies and anonymous this and that and Joe Dumbass REALLY is going to become paranoid that Apple is doing something wrong.
  • Reply 55 of 63
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    [B]Right, but I don't see anything inherently evil about seeing what someone is listening to and offering recommendations based on that. They aren't keeping the info. They aren't doing anything malicious.



    How do you know? You haven't seen any agreement. You haven't accepted any agreement. How do you know?



    And most importantly, where is the agreement?



    Quote:

    Remember the target audience. You start throwing dialog boxes up there talking about collecting of information and privacy policies and anonymous this and that and Joe Dumbass REALLY is going to become paranoid that Apple is doing something wrong.



    One acronym: EULA.
  • Reply 56 of 63
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    sigh... look, it's this same old surveillance "as long as it's harmless" or "as long as you're not doing anything bad" crap that gets us started with bad precedent that gets super-difficult to reverse down the road. and working as a cog in a company that specializes in using all this information that is collected from consumers, i have seen the creepy underbelly of info-harvesting. is any of it illegal? not the stuff we do. but i still find it disturbing that we can cross-reference every household in a given state based off purchasing choices, downloads, viewing habits, etc., because all of that information is eventually available for a price. all of it. guaranteed. i love apple more than most, but they're a business, and i know when to take off the rose-colored glasses, too.



    apple incorporating the mini-store is not that bad. doing it by default, so something gets transmitted before the user has a chance to choose whether to accept it or not, is not cool. it's probably buried in the EULA< though, so i guess apple's covered, but hell, itunes pulls up annoying "there's another update for itunes availble" dialogs all the time, and mail's "would you like to see mail's new features" dialog when you first upgrade it. so tell me why apple couldn't have done the same thing here?
  • Reply 57 of 63
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    How do you know? You haven't seen any agreement. You haven't accepted any agreement. How do you know?



    And most importantly, where is the agreement?




    The absence of an agreement is exactly what gives me the assurance that there is nothing malicious going on. Until Apple has done something to make me not trust them anymore, I'm not going to raise a fit when they produce a new, helpful feature.



    With Apple, I am comfortable in assuming that no agreement = nothing fishy going on. Certainly not with the US gov't or Microsoft or Comcast, but with Apple, I'm fine with it.
  • Reply 58 of 63
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    The absence of an agreement is exactly what gives me the assurance that there is nothing malicious going on.



    That's a great argument. Could win many a case with this one. Yessiree.
  • Reply 59 of 63
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    That's a great argument. Could win many a case with this one. Yessiree.



    There's a little thing called trust. Trust is something that is earned and not given lightly. Apple has earned my trust and as such this particular argument fits this particular case.



    I DO NOT CONTEND THAT THIS IS AN ARGUMENT TO BE USED IN EVERY SITUATION.



    I could have sworn that anyone of average intelligence would understand that based on my previous post. Apparently not.
  • Reply 60 of 63
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    I could have sworn that anyone of average intelligence would understand that based on my previous post. Apparently not.



    No public company, legally responsible to its shareholders to make money should ever have your absolute trust.



    Anyone of average intelligence should already know that.
Sign In or Register to comment.